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!

I’ve got a huge interest in anthropic growth – namely growth enabled by humanity – and the rules behind its development. More importantly, we can now see a new materialist framework being contoured by philosophers like Manuel DeLanda together with Adrian Bejan and Constructal Theory, framework which encompasses both natural and anthropic growth and development under the same paradigm. The world is no longer split into Nature and Culture – Modernity’s dichotomy is being erased by rules and principles which guide both, making the distinction irrelevant.

Anyway, the main reason for this post is not to blabber about modernity and its dissolution (maybe that will come in the future in the writings section), but to share with you a processing implementation of RRT (Rapidly-exploring Random Trees) which is repurposed to grossly simulate growth through the perspective of Constructal Theory.

If you have a given surface (or volume) consisting of a population and the main goal of that population is to reach, or flow towards a specific point in the given surface, the most efficient structure, imposing the least flow resistance, is a dendritic one as shown in the video below.

In the case of a city (or the built environment), the main difference between it and a tree is that it does not have a single attractor, and flow is not linear in one direction. A city is composed of many attractors of different forces, each generating a different type of traffic flow which can be described as having different velocities, therefore requiring different flow resistances. For example, the average traveling speed in a medieval city was low, therefore the highly tortuous street network. As travel velocity increased, so the need for less flow resistance, which ultimately resulted in the Manhattan Grid. In this way you can differentiate between layers and layers of infrastructure. The video below shows how the networks of five different attractors merge with each other. Flow resistance is slowly decreased as the simulation progresses.

Finally, here’s a zipped processing sketch which contains a basic implementation of Constructal Theory generating infrastructure (based on this sketch). Of course, this can be enhanced further by limiting growth to certain angle variations and a host of other tricks which would more accurately simulate infrastructural growth. Each infrastructure type has different needs and limitations which can be transformed into parameters for this sketch.

You can play with an online version here!

Enjoy, and share alike. I am sharing out of goodwill, please do the same and do not abuse. Everything here is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Licence if not specified otherwise.

Recently I’ve tutored a Processing workshop for the Hyperbody department at the TU Delft. I’ve decided to share the sketches with the open world – who knows, maybe someone will find them useful. There’s quite a few variations included – clustering, attractors, collision avoidance, etc. Read below for the download link and some screens of some of the sketches.

2d and 3d clustering:

Swarms interacting:

Attractors and structures:

Collision avoidance:

Here’s a .zip file containing everything – including some Grasshopper sketches which allow for some basic interchange between Rhino and Processing via standard text files.

This is the final studio (Border Conditions) project for msc2. Though quite a lot of parametric techniques went into the making of it, they were subservient to rather than defining the project’s outcome.

This project embodies a virtual study of the process of folding with its conjectural actions (re-folding, unfolding).

The shift from a deterministic view of the world to one dominated by chaos and complexity has had (and still has) huge implications in both philosophy and science – two main tools of architecture. Before, we thought the sphere as being the perfect shape – now we consider it a mere theoretical possibility. Architecture used to be deeply rooted in the smooth, unchanging and abstract Cartesian space, described by its three axes meeting at 90^o angles in an universal Origin point who’s meaning different religions didn’t hesitate to speculate and impose upon it various connotations[i]. Jumping over a few decades of history, we now no longer understand space as the previously pure, abstracted medium.

Space is filled up by potentials. Space folds, bends and warps around itself and into itself into a topological revelry. We now no longer differentiate space with fixed, impossible boundaries: we have renounced the mathematical constructs of lines and planes as being limitations which we now no longer need to perceive the world. The demarcation mechanism is now based on differences of intensities, on gradient fields merging one into each other. As DeLanda notes, there are no different entities per se, just different manifestations of one modulation coexisting and relating to each other in a field of intensities (DeLanda, 2000).

There is much more to it that can be published here – basically a semester’s worth of branching, merging and killing explorations and various experiments, both digital and analog. You can maybe catch a glimpse in the following time-line, which tries to schematically represent and trace the overall design process.

Here’s the final portfolio booklet, which goes into more detail and shows a more coherent picture of the project:

Here are some pictures of the model(s):

A nifty little tool for creating connectors between pretty much any kind of planar surfaces which intersect themselves at the edges.

What it basically does is to output in a ordered structure the intersecting faces (as tree branches) and their intersection line. From there on you can continue to build up your own connectors however you like.

The example file contains the Grasshopper definition, Connector-Notch Script and an example Rhino file. Read below for more.

The workflow is as follows:

1. Select the faces you want to make the connectors for and input them into the Grasshopper definition.
2. Bake on separate layers the offset faces and the connectors.
3. Run the script provided and provide the necessary inputs in the correct order (connectors, faces and material thickness).
4. Enjoy.

Troubleshooting:

There will be errors. They always are. Here’s how and where to look for them:

• Faces might actually not intersect, even if they seem so. To check, manually select the faces causing problems and use Rhino to detect their intersection (type intersect). Sometimes things are not as it seems.
• If the radius of a connector exceeds the faces’s size, the script will go berserk. Try reducing the connector radius and things should start looking up. You can also improve the script to use adaptive connector radii in respect with the face size.
• If the material thickness is too big or too small, geometry will start crashing.
• Cull faces which are too small – you might have a little face somewhere which is 0.0004 m^2 and causing problems.
• Check the units you’re working on. The definition’s parameters are set for meters.
• Otherwise, you can email me. Take note that this is a free, spare-time, no-guarantee, as-is service – don’t send me three emails just in case i didn’t get the first one

Download: 110615 SuperConnect.zip (2.21 mb)

SuperConnect working in real-life (spoiler for the future)

Second part of the previous project, this time exploring the possibility of scaling up the same design process to the level of a facade design.

The wetgrid principle (based on Frei Otto’s wool thread experiments) evolved to into a hybrid hanging chains experiment – on the basis of one algorithm connections were merged while the other insured a theoretical optimal distribution of forces.

Final build-up diagram illustrating adaptive shading possibilities along the main structural elements.

3D printed models (below).

Project focused on the formal exploration of ornament and tiling, mainly based on the formal language derived from the wetgrid experiments.

The projects explores the possibility of creating a structurally sound three dimensional lattice which can present multiple stacking and tiling possibilities. This results in several possible variations which can form different patterns with different porosity qualities.

Fabrication-wise, the W*TILE is meant to be cast (mold-injection) into a flexible plastic resin which would allow for flexibility outside its original plane, thus allowing for the creation of different curvature shapes.

The aesthetic of the tiling configurations reminds of an intricate late-gothic visage (above). 3d prints of the models (below).

COMP{M}UTATION: Parametric design workshop @ Faculty of Architecture, Brno (CZ) for architecture students, starring Patrick Bedarf, Dimitrie Stefanescu, Rhinoceros and Grasshopper. Thanks to Thomas for the invite!

Check here for more information on registration (Czech only).

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.

Here’s a movie of the thing in action (realtime):

Importing geometry (lines) from Rhino+GH into Processing, then switching back. Springs are rendered via a nifty hack, ie inverse proportional to the tension inside them. This corresponds to the most cluttered areas where particles get together more. The attraction force is good ‘ol newton’s law.

Of course, you can use it in 2d as well for any number of geometrical network relaxation uses you may find it useful for (street networks, for one, infrastructure at a more abstract scale, city planning, fancy urbanism projects, the like).

For the more architecturally inclined, here’s what happens when gravity enters the mix:

Nice, isn’t it? A nifty form-finding algorithm for a fancy support system of, well, any surface you please (I used a rectangle in example, a bit dull, but aren’t you fed up of double curvatures?). Here’s some screen grabs:

The structures presented here are self-normalizing, ie they reach an equilibrium at some point in the system. However, this is achieved via a delicate balance of quite a few parameters in the processing sketch: path resolution, spring strength and damping, world physics damping & min distance for the attraction force. I strongly recommend taking a look at traer’s physics lib documentation before starting to juggle the values (and to know where to look to juggle the values).

Enjoy & share alike!

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.

Does what it says on the tin.

What’s nice is that there are a lot of embedded parametrics inside: the canopy structural system, terrain modding (site), shape cracking of the canopy. Sometime ago there even was a def for controlling room sizes in respect with planar geometries.

Floor plan:

Second and third floor plans:

UPDATE:

Here are some pictures of the final model i built:

Hope you’ll like and love.

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.

Jury was composed of:

prof. arh. Dorin Stefan (DSBA)

arh. Bruno Andresoiu (igloomedia)

Anne-Line Citrene (DuPont France)

Gabi Rottes (DuPont Germany)

Some pictures from the exhibition, which can be seen at the University Underground Passage until the 7th of December (09):

Here’s the outcome: judge it lightly since the overall design was conceived with a specific public in mind during a brief four hour period, including plotting.

Man, this post is definitively sarcastic. I’m working on improving that (as in downplaying the sarcastic note).

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.