PLAT 1.5 has just been released, and with it my critical essay entitled Algorithmic Abuse, which I’m sharing below. It’s a short attempt to raise awareness towards several gaps in computational architecture’s theory as well as practice.

Please support the journal by purchasing a copy!

A recurring concern among the practitioners and promoters of what we shall refer to generally as “computational architecture” is the oft-mentioned (but rarely justified) “crisis of complexity” in which the world and its architects apparently find themselves. This condition manifests itself as an information overload, which is seen as the natural consequence of an ever-larger pool of numbers and decimals vying for our attention.[1] In response to this crisis, computational architecture is in a rush to dictate a paradigm shift by promoting the assimilation and implementation of concepts and theories emerging from science and philosophy – which, in combination, are intended to help us to navigate the confusing world described by chaos theory.

Naturally, given the epistemological and ontological framework in which the architectural discourse defines its crisis, “information” and its attendant verb “compute” become the most critical terms of the design process. Information, rationalized as pure numeric data, becomes the driving morphological force not only for the natural world, but for architecture.

Information is processed through the act of computing. Though it is most often used in the context of digital media, “computation” can denote any kind of process or algorithm. Here we must distinguish between two types of computation: material and digital. Material computation refers to the processes that manifest nature’s way of shaping the world around us. These processes primarily drive toward the structural optimization of matter. For example, we can look at the way a soap bubble negotiates (“computes”) the complex relationship between air pressure, gravity, and surface tension to find a shape of minimal energy which balances these parameters. Digital computation, on the other hand, concerns the comparatively rudimentary simulation of such processes within silicon chips. Despite the relative simplicity of the latter method, recent technological advancements have greatly increased our ability to simulate – and thereby explore – different natural processes. More and more complex behaviors and phenomena can be digitally approximated using new algorithms, allowing science to advance in its quest to discover the rules that make our world tick.

It is this trend, however, which brings into question the relationship between the built environment and science. Architecture’s use of scientific images is not new, but, as Antoine Picon notes, this meeting is productive only when there are similarities between the realities upon which both operate.[2] Contrary to Picon’s conditions for productivity, current relations between science and architecture are often based on superficial similarities or metaphors, necessitating a skeptical review.

As an example, we only have to consider the (in)famous Voronoi algorithm. Though it appears in nature at a variety of scales,[3] it makes few (if any) natural appearances at the architectural scale. Critically, “scale” concerns not only (or even primarily) physical dimensions, but with the forces that define the organization of matter at a given threshold. There is a huge difference between the electrostatic-, pressure-, and tension-based factors that operate at the microscopic scale – where the effects of gravity are almost negligible – and the way these forces operate at the scale of the architectural design process.[4] Yet the Voronoi algorithm is often advertised as a generator of organic, natural, efficient designs, which, needless to say, is not inevitable: a Voronoi-pattern facade is not necessarily more environmentally friendly than one using prefabricated elements.

This analogical relationship to natural phenomena – this mimicry – is also problematic because of its failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of the built environment as an inherent part of nature.[5] Architectural products are already part of the natural world as a manifestation of material computation. This acknowledgement eliminates modernity’s two distinct ontological zones – the human, cultural regime and the non-human, natural regime – and paves the way for an understanding of architecture as a hybrid system in which social forces and natural mechanisms blend. We don’t need to abuse digital computation in order to “fake it” – this only leads to a suppression of the ecological conflict between them. By replacing the dialectical relationship between the built environment and nature with one of inclusion, we discover a better framework for tackling the complexity and subtlety of the environmental issues confronting architecture.

Furthermore, there is a significant theoretical base supporting these experiments in computational architecture that attempts to legitimize the architecture as meaningful and usable. Yet, more often than not, these jargon-cluttered texts are little more than rhetoric carefully disguised as unbiased theory. Links to abstract datasets are used to justify the claims of legitimacy and performance of a given design. The results, however, amount to nothing more than disembodied data[6] – un-rigorous translations of information by arbitrary rules and subjective algorithms into geometric forms. The speculation that the diagram becomes reality and that reality becomes a diagram, while valid from a philosophical standpoint, is limited in practice – and certainly in architecture – by the precision of our measurements and our bounded predictive capabilities.[7] In short, computational architecture is far from being able to devise a Deleuzian abstract machine pertaining to itself.

To sum up, I would like to advocate for a more considered assimilation of computational tools. Rushing to repeat history and promote radical shifts has a high chance of failure and of improper application, and architecture is a realm in which mistakes are difficult and painful to fix. Speculating on the raw power of generating novel formal language is something that should be looked upon with caution. The desire to make the new scientific and philosophical paradigm legible through metaphorical translation of its ideas into architectonic expression is problematically and uncannily reminiscent of postmodernism’s failed formal project. Arie Graafland has argued that “The computational universe turns dangerous when it stops being an [sic] useful heuristic device and transforms itself into an ideology that privileges information over everything else.”[8] Coupled with the natural limitations of a systematic approach, this warning denies computational architecture the convenient “unbiased” arguments often employed to justify its design process. The apparent objectivity of computational techniques cannot mask the subjective, authorial aspects of the design process, still less erase the social, political, and cultural responsibility of the designer. Whatever methods and tools we use, we still play a critical role in the decision making process out of which the built environment emerges.

Bibliography:

1. DeLanda, Manuel. 2000. A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. London: Zone Books.

2. Stewart, Ian and Jack Cohen. 1995. The Collapse of Chaos. Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. London: Penguin Books.

3. Picon, Antoine. 2003. Architecture, Science, Technology and The Virtual Realm in Architectural Sciences, Princeton: Princeton Press, p.292-313.

4. Graafland, Arie. 2010. From Embodiment in Urban Thinking to Disembodied Data. The Disappearance of Affect. Delft: TU Delft.

5. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

[2] A. Picon. 2003. Architecture, Science, Technology and The Virtual Realm in Architectural Sciences, Princeton: Princeton Press, 294.

[3] From the way cells are organized and shaped to the veins on a dragonfly’s wing to the scales on a crocodile’s skin  to the way matter is distributed in the universe, the principles of the Voronoi diagram fundamentally shape matter at completely different and surprising scales.

[4] For a more in-depth description of this phenomena, see Dimitrie Ștefănescu, “f* Voronoi.” Last modified October 28, 2010.0. http://improved.ro/blog/2010/10/f-voronoi.

[5] This is probably the biggest change in thinking we, as architects, have to assimilate. Ever since the Roman rituals for founding a city by removing a plot of land from the chaotic influence of nature, the artificiality of the built environment has been conceived as existing in opposition to the natural world. The critique of this dichotomy is an important element of contemporary architectural discourse, and deserves a longer discussion than can be provided here. An extended and incisive treatment of the subject can be found in Manuel de Landa, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. London: Zone Books.

[6] Graafland, Arie. 2010. “From Embodiment in Urban Thinking to Disembodied Data.” The Disappearance of Affect. Delft: TU Delft, 42.

[7] We will never be able measure to the last significant digit – therefore, whatever the accuracy of our predictions, they will still have the seed of a design. Coupling this with Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which states that for any system there will always be true facts within it that cannot be proven to be true using the rules of the same system, we can clearly see the inherent limitations of any systemic or structuralist approach.  For example, for all the advances of technology and science, weather predictions more than five days in advance have had the same accuracy rate since the 1950’s.

[8] (Graafland 2010, 46).

Please support the journal by purchasing a copy!

Assembly: Bogdan Badila, Vlad Pop, Georgiana Hlihor, Denisa Lula, Robert Veber, Zoltan Vaida, Imre Vekove, Ciprian Colda, Mihai Pascalau, Calin Negret, Bogdan Borbei, Iustin Nechiti, Dan Ioanici, Razvan Luca, Stefan Grosariu, Ioana Suceava, Alexandra Man, Andreea Darac, Irina Mates, Oana Bogatan, Andrei Varga, Radu Badila, Elza Sandor, Alex Greceniuc, Oana Matei, Alex Vladovici, Marcel Oprean, Ioan Pop, Vlad Rusu, Ioana Tomoioaga.

Location: Cluj, Romania Date: 4-7th May2011

Photographs: Patrick Bedarf, Georgiana Hlihor, Daniel Bondas, Georgeta Macovei Text: Dimitrie Stefanescu

Intro

The project started out as an ambitious student-powered endeavor to design and fabricate at a 1:1 scale the flagship pavilion for the ZA11 Speaking Architecture event in Cluj, Romania. While at the same time integrating into its historically-charged context, the design (which was elaborated to a concept stage during a week-long workshop) boasts a strong representational power which was much needed in order to fulfill its main goal: attracting passers-by to the event. At the same time, the object, through its tectonic characteristics, tries to make legible the new ontology which is slowly defined by computational architecture and thus becomes a showcase for the design processes empowered by digital tools.

Process

The design was elaborated during a week-long parametric design workshop (CLJ02) specifically geared towards its production which, in theory, was seen as a continuation of the previous event (CLJ01: Parametric Desing Workshop, organized by Ionut Anton and myself). We were faced with the harsh requirements of creating an actually working design with just the material and tools available from sponsors (over which we hardly had any choice) while at the same time fitting costs inside a budget dwarfed by its expectations. Subsequently, the creative exploration agenda was constrained to a relatively limited approach which, most importantly, was scalable in terms of materials and fabrication techniques. The realization of the design was made possible by advanced use of parametric design techniques (using Rhino+Grasshopper), with the help of which the whole process was controlled from exact geometry generation to piece labeling, assembly logic, actual fabrication (CNC milling) and, of course, cost control.

SuperConnect in action. We have plans for releasing the whole Grasshopper definition and Rhino file used for the project – stay tuned!

Here’s a time-lapse video of the assembly process:

As an educational exercise it completed the design phase and proved to be invaluable in terms of actually understanding and working with the constraints encountered in real-life. Varying material thickness (and subsequent extra flexibility and less joint stiffness), rain and wind posed many challenges which had to be resolved on-site as quickly as possible so as to meet the assembly deadline.

Conclusions

The ZA11 Pavilion emerged as a powerful urban attractor which managed to engage the local society on all levels. Interest was aroused in both young and senior citizens, both professionals and non-architects by the completed pavilion as well as during the act of its construction, thus proving to be more than an indifferent temporary shelter. Furthermore, it successfully provided a flexible and comfortable space for the different events pertaining to the event (temporary bookshop, open-air cinema, tea party, jam sessions and a small concert + sleeping in the sun) to unfold.

The first of its kind in Romania, the ZA11 Pavilion can be definitively called a successful architectural experiment. Designed and assembled only by students (with little preliminary outside help), it successfully met all expectations and proved to be an invaluable experience in blending avant-garde design techniques on a relatively large scale with a low budget and a skeptical professional context.

construction

construction photos

Special thanks to: Mircea Stefanescu, Dan Brasoveanu [Graphtec], Nejur Andrei, Rares Dragan [Atelier RVD]
Sponsors: Graphtec, Holver

To make it work, you need to download qhull. Get it here: http://qhull.org/. After you install it, double click the scripting component and edit the path to your qhull folder (line 101). If things do not work, take care to unblock (right click and fiddle with the permissions) the qhull execs (sometimes window$ blocks them).

Nevertheless, please take your time and read this or/and this article as an exercise in self-critique (especially the first one). Maybe you’ll change your final presentation discourse a bit.

A few weeks ago CLJ02,  the second workshop centered around parametric design, happened in Cluj. Setting it alongside previous similar events in Bucharest and Iasi, we can clearly see an increasing attention being dedicated to this ever expanding side of architectural practice and theory in Romania. Though still yet to be adopted in the official curricula of the local architectural schools, the response we got was quite staggering – while last year for DTAL’s CLJ01 workshop we barely filled up the 20-odd places, this year we had to stop counting around 60 and were forced to disappoint one third of the applicants.

The event itself was organized by ASTA Cluj (by Bogdan Hambasan and Anamaria Androne) as an integral part of the Zilele Arhitecturii 11 event which will take place at the beginning of May. It was tutored by Patrick Bedarf and myself, both of us being heavily involved in the computational architecture scene since its early days. The main goal of the workshop was to produce a working design for the ZA lounge pavilion. This assignment with its inherent very strict feasibility requirements was mainly the key to the success of the workshop. It is said that creative ideas sprout from constrained freedom and we didn’t prove the saying wrong. To elaborate on the feasibility requirements mentioned before, I would like to start by first saying that parametric design or, more generally speaking, computational architecture can prove to be an architecturally treacherous space. The creative freedom allowed by computers and subsequent software packages is immense and, left to itself, can generate results which, though aesthetically pleasing to the eye, are unbuildable architectural objects. On the other hand, we were faced with the harsh requirements of creating an actually working design with the material and tools available while at the same time fitting inside a budget dwarfed by its expectations. Therefore we constrained the creative exploration agenda to a relatively limited approach which, most importantly, is scalable in terms of materials and fabrication techniques. I won’t go into technical details, since “adaptive surface subdivision”, “diagrid-based deep facet” or “multiple facet intersection connectors” would probably start to bore a few people, and usually I try not to beat people into submission by using complicated jargon. Suffice to say, we enforced and detailed some effective parametric techniques which would have the highest chances of producing manageable projects. Participants gained the knowledge to create their own tools to manage complex geometry from a design phase all the way to fabrication phase – or what is called a file-to-factory process. This implies that you create the design which is then directly fabricated using different CNC machines and digital crafting techniques. Assembly becomes thus a giant 3D puzzle. These techniques scale up from models to the most innovative airport designs and have basically reshaped the construction industry throughout the world and, on a theoretical level, have prompted some to state that reality becomes a diagram and the diagram becomes reality (Deleuze) due to the seemingly free of interference translation from a digital, virtual, product to a real, material object.

Computational techniques have been and still are undergoing a serious settling-in process inside architectural practice and education. Though still in a “volcanic” stage, both theoretically and practically, parametric design has been widely adopted throughout the world and almost all universities consider it an essential part of architectural education. Romania can now benefit from all the advantages of a late adoption of these practices – essentially skipping out several steps in the formation process and embracing the already proven and tested ways. Furthermore, the statement mentioned above regarding reality as a diagram and vice-versa, has to be treated with caution – more often than not we see projects which amount to little more than disembodied data. Given the local “no-bullshit” economic and social scene, where better to start finding meaningful computational approaches than here? As a final word of wisdom, with which I would like to conclude this text, I will mention a phrase coined by Douglas Rushkoff regarding the current information age in which we seem to be: “program or be programmed” – extrapolating from this we can say that, as an architect, you can either let yourself be controlled by the software you use or you can control it to your own ends.

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Delft, 2011

C:Strip is best described by an attempt to translate the environmental qualities of the proposed site into a meaningful architectural geometry that can accomodate and maximize the performance of an adaptive and fluctuating programme which focuses on producing and distributing information through the use of informal societal behaviour.

The developement and subsequent use of different computational techniques allowed for the collage of the several dimensions of environmental and programmatic datascape into a finite three dimensional architectural object. The developement and subsequent use of different computational techniques allowed for the collapse of the several dimensions of environmental and programmatic datascape into an finite three dimensional architectural object. Thus, the windspeed and solar insolation grid was processed with the help of Ecotect. The visibility analysis, crucial for our later functional distribution was explored in DepthMap. The traffic density was elaborated using an elaborate circulation analysis programmed in Processing/Java, whose starting parameters were informed by local observations of pedestrian and bycicle flows in different key points of the site.


The detailed programme description underwent a series of evolutionary changes which were based on the interpretation of the given assignement in relation with existing conditions and as well as a macro-analysis at an urban level and subsequent scale detailing of the aforementioned process. Thus, we shifted from an information distribution centric set of functions to a leisure-oriented setup which would favour not only the spread of data, but would actually become an place for the creation of new information through informal social mechanics.

The project evolved into two systems which cater to two different requirements: the areas which required adaption are empowered by a flexible system of interlocking umbrellas which can fold and unfold individually and comprise energy harvesting systems such as greywater extraction and photovoltaics, based on locally sensed conditions; the areas which emerged as having no need for physical adaption are hosted inside a cracked landscape with punctuated apertures whose geometry result from the ventilation and lighting conditions required by the program underneath. Videos by Patrick Bedarf:



By thus splitting the process into two individual parts, we were able to maintain the local topological qualities of the site while at the same time we enhanced them without disrupting the existing local circulation flows and visual parameters.

A symbolically critical pamphlet

For the hip architectural public, there surely isn’t any need of introducing the (in)famous Voronoi diagram. If there is, then you probably shouldn’t be reading this text and you’re better off doing something else.  Nevertheless, I find myself under increasing pressure to express my thoughts regarding what I find to be a shallow, often completely mis-interpreted and un-justified use of what started out to be a mathematical “toy”. The practical applications of the Voronoi diagram are quite numerous highly fascinating. However, they are beyond the scope of this article – I want to focus mainly on the (mis)use of the aforementioned algorithm in architecture and urbanism.

I think it is quite safe to state that voronoi diagrams have now probably become the “golden mean” of computational architecture. However, I am quite surprised that it took this long for people to notice this – and, what’s even more surprising, there seems to be a severe lack of constructive criticism regarding this quite common and recurrent space-partitioning algorithm. Before moving forward, I would like to clarify the fact that I am not against using voronoi in architecture or urbanism whatsoever – there are clearly numerous meaningful uses, both in generating actual geometry and, probably more, in analyzing and visualizing data on an urban scale. What I am trying to criticize and draw attention to is the mental lock that this catchy algorithm has imposed, and, even worse, the common and frequent misconceptions induced by its strong affiliation with natural phenomena.

There are many reasons for the constant abuse of Voronoi cells (be they two-dimensional or three-dimensional) in architectural and urbanistic projects (the majority of which, by a lucky turn of events, are yet to be built). Crucial to this point is the association of voronoi patterns with organic structures found throughout Nature (living and non-living as well). The unmistakable silhouette can be found in numerous instances: you can see it under a microscope in almost any compact tissue like skin, you can see it in the way cells are distributed in a tree trunk, you can see it in the wings of a dragonfly; the list can carry on for quite a bit more. Taking into account the respective system’s constraints, voronoi cells can provide the most efficient structure or spatial routing paths for matter to organize itself into. This frequent recurrence in nature elevated the voronoi algorithm to the same status as that of the Fibonacci series and the golden mean  was enjoying before. On top of this, its organic and apparently random appearance made it the perfect candidate for a wide range of good-looking geometric experiments. Furthermore, its close ties with nature somehow transcend the barriers of reason and magically attach organic, eco-friendly, pro-environment qualities to any product designed by using this technique.

For example, one common misconception is the fact that generating structure via a three dimensional voronoi diagram would automatically create a super-efficient, really optimized and, on top of this, organic looking structural system. This quite big confusion is probably caused by the numerous natural structures that resemble the output of a voronoi algorithm. There is however a quite obvious missing link in the association which should pop up instantly to any attentive observer. The structures generated by the voronoi algorithm are to be found at microscopic scales, starting off from somewhere near 1*10^-5 m and continuing to decrease. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that architecture begins somewhere around 10¹ m. There’s quite a big difference in scale, and due to symmetry breaking, physical laws (which, as any scientist worth his pay would tell you, are not universal truths, but the best approximations humankind has found for the way things work) rarely transcend through big scale jumps[1]. In the present case it’s quite obvious – the predominant force in a living tissue at 10^-5 m is a uniform pressure exerted on a cell by surrounding cells – and nature’s elegant response is a complex three dimensional voronoi structure which can be said is roughly indifferent to the main constraint which has shaped structural systems in architecture – namely Gravity. If you do a simple FEA analysis on a voronoi cell grid, you will see you’ll probably need more steel than a simple orthogonal grid to support the same loads, you will double production and building costs[2], besides getting less flexibility in terms of interior organization (spaces restricted to unique, bulky but flexible-looking cells). On the other hand, when used in straight-forward metaphorical approaches, and when this status is recognized and clearly expressed and not masked by a multitude of seemingly objective attributes, the approach can be considered to be “fair use”[3].

Another type of misuse of the Voronoi algorithm can be found throughout large scale urban projects – masterplans, local developments, etc. Cities are not composed of living “cells” in the literal sense – that’s where voronoi works. Cities are living organisms, but the rules behind the dynamics of city growth and crystallization are something completely different from a two-dimensional petri dish[4]. You can use the voronoi diagram to compute the shortest possible paths around a set of point-like obstacles, but this argument is insufficient for justifying its direct transformation in a street network[5]. Actually, street networks never had anything to do with the forces found generating voronoi cells. What you can often see is actually the same dangerous attitude and way of thinking behind modern urbanism clothed and presented as the exact opposite – naturally grown, organic urban lattices etc. – while in the end, if you start to rationally question and compare both approaches you can find dangerous similarities: both are lacking the same links with reality and are somehow strictly imposing their vision. This discrepancy noted here is actually, I believe, part of a bigger and much more comprehensive issue relating to digital and computational architecture[6].

What I find most distressing is the fact that there is a lot of cover-up work being done – voronoi diagrams, be they in three dimensions or two, always stand for some deep underlying natural phenomena whose efficiency and environmental-friendly qualities are automatically transferred to the respective project through a few rhetorical loops empowered by sophisticated jargon. The Voronoi algorithm does generate beautiful patterns and structures – which, when carefully used in the right places, are completely justifiable, sometimes even by aesthetic principles only. To conclude, I strongly believe that a certain level of sincerity should be (self)enforced when employing voronoi diagrams in architecture. While the manner in which this article is written might seem to some to be a bit too vehement, I am deeply concerned about the ease and nonchalance with which the voronoi algorithm is used – in the manner of an architectural recipe which can be applied anytime and anywhere, regardless of any other considerations. That’s why I have tried to raise awareness about the creative abuse taking place and its philosophical idiosyncrasies which, on a broader scale, do not restrict themselves to just this algorithm.

Dimitrie Stefanescu, 28 Oct 2010, Delft

Notes:

[1] The most straightforward example of this is probably the duality of gravity and quantum forces. While at a large enough scale, space is dominated by gravitational fields. The smaller the space gets, gravity loses influence in the favor of electrostatic forces, in the end becoming a negligible factor. The analogy is quite relevant – voronoi-like patterns are found mainly at microscopic scales, whilst architecture operates on a completely different level which can be said to be under the strong influence of gravity.

[2] I am acutely aware of the advances in fabrication technologies and related sciences which might render this argument useless in the possible future. I am trying to argue that, given the sensible ecological context of our current world, we should look for more sensible uses and applications for the tools and techniques that science makes available.

[3] As any ego-centric person would do, I can’t help not to throw in a reference to one of my early projects: http://dimitrie.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/77/

[4] For more in-depth knowledge of this, I strongly recommend both Manuel DeLanda’s much praised  A Thousand Years of Non-Linear History, as well as his interview with Neil Leach in the Digital Cities issue of AD (June 2009, p.50).

[5] I am not afraid to admit that I know this from personal, first-hand experience of the mentioned trap: http://improved.ro/blog/2010/01/urban-developement-proposal/

[6] To be more specific, an overall observed trend is that of employing computational geometry algorithms, often with spectacular visual results followed up by an active effort of fitting architectural qualities in the resultant shapes which usually ends in projects which are, for lack of a better word, fake.

DTAL is very pleased to announce a new workshop taking place at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism in Cluj during 17-20 May, which is very nicely timed with Neil Leach’s conference there (20 May). It all happens under the umberlla of the +/- Cluj Center of Architecture. Thanks to AStA Cluj for the invitation.

I will be tutoring alongside Ionut Anton.

Watch this space for more details regarding participation and the workshop schedule and theme.

Initial explorations: Culture Cracking.

Bucharest never had a coherent image in any point in history. Its only true comon denominator would be the highly despised disorder generated by the struggle between
western rigor and local chaotic impulses. It is one city where conflict is strikingly out in the open, little existing in maters of interface between old and new, poor and rich, highrise and low-rise. This project taps into these conflicting energies, drawing strength and geometry from them while at the same time exposing them and becoming an icon of their formative power.

We parametrically explored possible future configurations for the study area (450ha large, at the intersection of two main planned road-infrastructure extensions) and tried to push for a solution that would maximize performance (density, height, shading, access to natural elements and connectivity) of the whole region while leaving ample potential that allows for unplanned emergent evolution.

Our goal was to envision an urban tissue that could flexibly respond to all local input factors as well as accommodate desired (planned) goals. An universal 130m by 130m grid was proposed and then deformed to differentiate and create a unique lattice that allows for surprise and yet is easily mapped due to its inner space-partitioning algorithm.

We iteratively cycled through several circulation analysis (using Depthmap) and continuously changed the main axial map of the area to maximize integration.

The text on the boards is in romanian, sorry about that – hopefully the explanations given around the post should be enough. Here are the final boards, reduced:

It was great to work on this project, and also great to find recognition for an approach that is considered risky by our faculty’s standards   We used Rhino and its parametric plugin Grasshopper for the main work and Depthmap for the integration analysis.

Project teachers: Tiberiu Florescu, Sebastian Guta.

My vision concentrated on issues relating to the poor visibility/readability of the overall area (and the necessity of a landmark) and the lack of “free” public urban space. The functional program was mainly derived from the observation that most historic centers (Lipscani being a prime example in this) loose their initial cultural and traditional economic value in favor of the over-dominant bar/cafe. This leads to a certain repetition of fluxes (economic, cultural, pedestrian) which harms the respective area.

Geometry-wise, my proposal respects local aspects of the area, namely its porosity and the way the urban tissue coagulated around narrow winding streets and small interior courtyards in a constantly surprising lattice.

In respect to this approach, i considered the lot as a solid volume on which forces are applied in respect with the openings and general director lines of the site. Performing a “structural” analysis on the site revealed the patterns by which these forces would naturally flow towards given points of rest (namely the designated openings of the courtyards).   Using topological optimization techniques these patterns were transformed into geometry which was later subtracted from the original body thus giving the overall shape of the building.

By following this design method I ensure an optimal circulation flow through the built site, encouraging interaction and furthering the development of the local urban tissue in a manner very close to its characteristics (gained by spontaneous evolution) thus fully integrating the new implant.

That’s wrapper of the last month, give or take.

(27.05.09) The Symposium takes place at 18:00 in the Geodätenstand 6 O.G. TU Berlin Hauptgebäude, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin.

The Rule Based Design Symposium highlights contemporary academic and practice based research employing CAD, CAM, Coding/Web tools in addressing & communicating architectural design intents & constraints. The research spectrum ranges from theory to the digital crafting of buildings and their components.

Organized by Christophe Barlieb.

Flexibility in thought and expression is vital to all creative fields. The power of a new generation of parametric and bespoke CAD tools lies in the ability to negotiate and communicating the design intent clearly. This streamlining saves time, materials while integrating architecture, engineering and fabrication over the course of the entire architectural design process.

The symposium features research works by young contemporary academics in the fields of mathematics, architecture and fabrication

Schedule:
Time Speaker Affiliation Theme
18:00 Gisela Baurmann TU Berlin RBD Opening Statements
18:05 Kristoffer Josefsson TU Berlin Mathematics in Architecture
18:25 Dimitrie Stefanescu U.Bucharest Scripting Architecture
18:45 Christophe Barlieb TU Berlin Integration of Engineering & Design
19:05 Norbert Palz CITA Rapid Prototyping in Architecture
19:25 Martin Tamke CITA Fabrication of Architecture
19:45 Baurmann, Barlieb, Pfeiffer TU Berlin Discussion with Speakers & Public
20:00 PARTY

Deprecated. Here’s the new version.

More as a scripting experiment, when i was mucking about trying to make the delaunay triangulation work in grasshopper i somehow found the wonderfully complex qhull library which i promptly set to push and pull to get it to work with grasshopper. As advised on their website, the best way to do it is to call it as an external program, which is exactly what i’ve done:  no files are written or read, no dos windows pop up, everything’s smooth.

Given that you don’t have many complex operations in grasshopper after the solution is generated, you’ll be able to handle quite an impressive amount of points (say 200 on my three-year old toplap) in real time. If you add the simple planarSrf operation, then say 60-70 and it gets sloppy.

What you’ll need to do to get things rolling:

0. Download the 3dvqhull definition and example file, and remember not to use it for commercial purposes, share-alike whatever you do with it and take the time to give the proper credits: 

1. Download qhull, and unzip it in a folder of your choice.

2. Get going and search for “System.dll”. What you’re interested in is the 2.0 version which you’ll usually find in here: “C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.5[...]\”. If you can’t find it, I’m amazed grasshopper works for you. Anyway, you can find and install it from here.

3. Add the newly found System.dll version 2.o as a referenced assembly of the qhull component in the definition file.

If it turns orange, it’s cool.

4. Write in the panel that is linked to the “path” input the full path to the qhull program qvoronoi. You don’t need to add the .exe extension, but you can do it if you feel confortable.

5. There’s just one more thing you should know: facets that contain the infinite vertex are omitted altogether, without remorse. So as to have as little facets tending towards infinitum, I always add the corners of the points bounding box to the input sites.

You can scale the bounding box in respect with its center, or you can just call the whole thing off – it’s your choice.

I think this just about covers everything. Take care and have fun.

didi out.

PS: Qhull does more than voronoi. So if you have the time to explore and test, please do – the package is very powerfull and it can be used for more than this.

I talked about some projects I did (some together with Veronica Popescu) over the last two years, always insisting on the computational approach and detailing the techniques used.

I presented scripting approaches and more interactive (parametric) grasshopper based modeling. Some  Processing based approaches were presented and I insisted on the necessity of using multiple open tools that can be made to communicate between one another.

I tried to clearly mark out the relationship between fabrication and the overall design – how material properties and building techniques inform the design and viceversa.

Reactions were good, and it seems computational approaches are definetively stirring people up.

Thanks are required to Patrick Bedarf, who made this possible and is proving to be an excellent host in Leipzig, and also to prof.  Henning Rambow for all the support.

Also if you are reading this from Leipzig and are interested in joining us tommorow at 16.oo @ HTWK computer pool for some hands-on grasshopper work, there’s  no one stopping you.

For those who really like to play with voronoi regions and stuff, here’s the final grasshopper definition file (right click, save target as – else you’ll get a ~250kb of useless xml in your browser window).

The vcell component outputs now individual cells as closed polylines and closed nurbs curves. This is useful if you are using this for some urban project like i am i would have liked to, mostly due to easy offsetting and area calculation possiblities – included in the definition file – or height extrusion – included as well. You can even go further and color (using shaders) each cell coresponding with its mass/area/height etc.

Massive unroll Script:

Select as many surfaces as you like and then unroll each one of them.

Download it.

Adaptive fenestration script:

An interesting script that cuts holes in a surface based on the relation with a given attractor(point). I used it to generate a porous membrane for my latest project.

Download it.

Here are some other potentially super-bugged scripts:

Faceting. – Does the same as the adaptive fenestration script only it also “facets” the seed surface.

Ribs. – My attempt (quite sucesefull) at writing a honeycomb script.

We started out on this by analyzing the area and its surroundings from the point of view of circulation (more on how we did this). How would people move around? The conclusions from this study where integrated later on in the project.

Next we took on the task of (re)creating the landscape – modify the terrain in a functional yet unobtrusive way. Formal concepts revolved around radiolaria, foam, water, waves etc. Luckily we had a working circle packing applet in processing ready (which was used for this). From here on, it was quite straightforward: expand the circles to smooth spherical caps and smartly transform them into urban furniture.

The interstitial space that remained between the”bubbles” is packed with wood alongside the routes we discovered to be ideal using the circulation study. The rest is English lawn pure green smartly-cut grass.

This project is a collaboration between Veronica and me.

Tools we used include:
Processing was VERY important early on in the design process – we used it for the circulation study as well as for the early circle packing experiments (size, density, spread etc).

Rhino and RhinoScript: RhinoScript is great – we used it extensively (create spherical caps based on the generating circle’s radius, expand circles, contract circles, import circles which the processing applet generated, etc.). Rhino was used for everything else – 3D modelling and, of course, making valid STL files for the 3D printer and also exporting the right things for the laser printer.

Laser cutting was done here (as always).

3D wax models were kindly made for us by mazarom (at the moment the only 3D printing service in Bucharest). If you need a complicated model, don’t hesitate to contact them!

Plotting the final presentation was done at studio spot. They don’t have a webiste…

parametric variation of given frame (lateral walls) in given limits. each house becomes uniqe, escaping repetition. hints of emergence.

Basically the facades are independent from the core. Each lateral wall (calcan/blind wall) starts from an ideal shape that is subtly altered by a small script. This creates variation, as opposed to the usual repetition of a terraced housing lot. Mass production of 18 identical houses becomes mass production of 18 identical and UNIQUE houses. I would like to stress that: Mass production of 18 identical houses becomes mass production of 18 identical and, in the same time, UNIQUE houses.

There. Now I feel better.