Sophie Bardoel - StudioAIR Journal

sophiebardoel bachelor of environments student the university of melbourne

architecture deign studio: AIR

CONTENTS

1.0 The Case for Innovation

1.1 Architecture as Discourse

1.2 Computing in Architecture

1.3 Parametric Modelling

2.0 Case Studies

2.1.1 Group Research & Arguement

2.1.2 Case Study 1.0



2.2.3 The Matrix

2.2.4 Digitial & Physical Models

2.2.5 EOI Feedback

3.0 EOI Feedback

3.1.1 Week 9 Progress



3.1.4 Feedback

studioAIR

1.0 The Case for Innovation

studioAIR

sophiebardoelbachelor of environments student the university of melbourne


I previously transferred from Monash University at the start of 2012, where I was

studying Bachelor of Interior Architecture. I moved to Bachelor of Enviroments majoring

in Architecture, to pursue my ambition to become an architect. I enjoy travelling, and

have been lucky enough to have been overseas a fair few times. This might sound

cliché but I have an internet shopping addiction, which in no effort do I try to suppress.

From my previous study at Monash I was introduced to AutoCAD and 3ds Max. I can

model and render in 3ds Max at a sufficient level. After completely Construction Design

last semester I can quite happily say I could use AutoCAD blindfolded, after spending

hours upon hours on it. I also did a 3 day Rhino course up at UTS which introduced me

to the basics, which I picked up quickly as it fairly similar to AutoCAD and 3ds Max. I

can also use SketchUp to a high level, and Vray.

I’m very interested in digital architecture. While I was doing my Rhino short course up at

UTS I was very quickly shown what grasshopper can do, and have been eager to try it.

This semester seems like a big challenge, I’m scared but also really excited at the same

time. I do not know any theory behind digital architecture, so I will have a lot of research

to do this semester concerning it. I know parametric architecture has been used a lot to

design buildings in the last decade, however I don’t know any inparticular- but I’ll take a

stab at it a say the Nest in Beijing.

I love architecture because it is my two favourite things merged together- art and design.

On one level you are creating a beautiful sculpture and on the other you are making a

functional space and environment for people to use. From as early as I can remember

I’ve always been fascinated by architecture. From make-shift cubby houses to lego manisons and dioramas and my numerious visits to glorious cathedrals and monuments in Europe and the United States.

studioAIR

aboutME

the GETTYCENTER richard mier


studioAIR

the GETTYCENTER richard mier

After doing the architectural tour of the Getty Center,

I fell in love with Richard Mier’s precious methodical

execution of the building. Mier spent 12 years sitting

on the top of the hill in Los Angeles designing it, with

a brief that stated he could not take any land away. I

liked this constraint he had. I love how Mier designed

everything to a grid. The primary grid structure is a

30-inch (760 mm) square; most wall and floor elements

are 30-inch (760 mm) squares or some derivative

thereof. Meier has exploited the two naturally-occurring

ridges (which diverge at a 22.5 degree angle) by

overlaying two grids along these axes- making for a

rich architectural experience. When at the Getty Center

these architectural design techniques of the grid and

axis made the interior and exterior morph into one. It

was hard to decipher the transition between inside and

outside, it was truly a magical experience- and that’s

why it is one of my favourite buildings.

the REICHSTAGDOME sir norman forster

“Within it, two helical ramps take members of the public to a viewing platform high above the plenary

chamber, raising them symbolically above the heads of their political representatives. ” -Sir Norman Foster


the REICHSTAGDOME sir norman forster

Reichstag building in Berlin is one of my favourite pieces

of architecture. I like this design not only for its aesthetic

appearance but the theory of why it was designed how

it was. As it became the new home of a unified German

Parliament after the fall of East Germany, it needed to

address the issues of the past while giving Germany a bright

new future.

I like how the design focused on making the processes of

government more transparent for the German people with

an innovative architectural design that can be described as

a sculpture of light. I think the design of the high-tech glass

dome is conceptually quite simple, yet impressive. I like

how Forster translated this theory into the architecture by

designing the cupola to contain skylights with a significant

inverted cone of mirrors in the middle of the opening with

reflected light that illuminates the chamber below. This

element of the structure creates a symbiotic relationship with

the democratic ideal of, people above government.

I like how the architecture is poetic of the past, present and

future of Germany. After recently visiting the dome I became

in awe of it, I like how the dome overlooks the debating

chamber for the Bundestag, allowing you to look down

upon their Government’s Parliamentary proceedings below.

After Germany’s history I like this idea of keeping watch of

parliament, adding a ‘big brother’ element to the design.

studioAIR

pastwork


This model was a part of a project I did in my first year of Interior Architecture. It was a design for a Reading Room at

Monash University for the Art & Design students. We had a partially difficult site which was situated between two buildings

at Monash’s Caulfield Campus that was only 4200mm wide. The design was influenced by the semantic network (the

connections made in the brain when thinking). One of the reasons I liked this project the most was because we were allowed

to design the whole thing- the exterior!

This model was a second year project for Furniture. I decided at the start of semester to

focus on lighting, and was very interested in exploring geodesic domes. The final lamp

design was inspired by geodesic domes and pattern. It is design to be a sculptural floor

lamp piece, measuring 600x600mm.

studioAIR

This model was a part of a project I did in my first year of Interior Architecture. It was a design for a Reading Room at

Monash University for the Art & Design students. We had a partially difficult site which was situated between two buildings

at Monash’s Caulfield Campus that was only 4200mm wide. The design was influenced by the semantic network (the

connections made in the brain when thinking). One of the reasons I liked this project the most was because we were allowed

to design the whole thing- the exterior!

This model was another one of my first

year projects called ‘Cut & Fill’. The brief

allowed for only one cut to be made in

the box and to explore the outcomes of

this. I decided to make my project the

entrance to Hamer Hall in Southbank.

The design could morph into several

different variations, adapting to the need

of the venue. When the Hall was closed

the structure would morph back into a box

shape, making it an ambiguous structure

till it was occupied.

This model was a second year project for Furniture. I decided at the start of semester to

focus on lighting, and was very interested in exploring geodesic domes. The final lamp

design was inspired by geodesic domes and pattern. It is design to be a sculptural floor

lamp piece, measuring 600x600mm.

pastwork


This was a design for Monash Universities Student Service Centre at Berwick Campus.

The existing design was closed off and hard to notice, especially if it was your fisrt time

at the campus. The brief was to redesign the existing space and combat these issues. I

decided to open up the space and use curvature in the joinery to give a sense of flow to the

space.

studioAIR

This was a design for Monash Universities Student Service Centre at Berwick Campus.

The existing design was closed off and hard to notice, especially if it was your fisrt time

at the campus. The brief was to redesign the existing space and combat these issues. I

decided to open up the space and use curvature in the joinery to give a sense of flow to the

space.

This design proposal is for the Norman Robinson Stand (Promenade level) at the Caulfield

Racecourse Melbourne. This space encapsulates the elements of movement through

the arrangement of timber studs that transcend from the ground to the ceiling. The space

depicts a movement captured in time. Just like the photo finish of a race, this space

captures the essence of frozen movement.

1.2 Computing in Architecture

As CAD softwares entered into mainstream practice over the span of the 1990s their

nature rapidly changed, and they became increasingly used for computerisation, rather

than computation. This was because they embraced the use of graphical user interfaces

in order to make the programs accessible to a wider audience. Although this made the

software accessible to those without a knowledge of programming languages, it did so

by reducing common programmatic procedures into predefined ‘tools’. Moreover, these

tools themselves could now be used to directly manipulate visualisations of geometric

data, thus producing an interactive feedback loop between these tools and architectural

form. This ability to directly manipulate a graphic model through a graphic interface

made CAD accessible to designers, and thus this mode rapidly eclipsed the previous

code-driven approach, and became the dominant mode of utilising CAD software.

OLMPICFISH frank gehry

studioAIR

The accessibility provided by these graphical interface tools came at a cost. Previously, a

set of programming routines would be written especially for the forms that each specific

building required — however, the use of standardised tools severely limited the range of

operations available within CAD programs, and thus the possibilities of form-making.

Furthermore, because these tools were designed to mimic conventional pen and paper

draughting concepts, as well as the traditional elements of architectural geometry, they

embodied highly entrenched architectural forms and methods. As a result of this, the

computer lost its ability to generate specialised forms on a project-by-project basis, and

thus became predominantly used as tool to represent preconceived forms, rather than a

means in which to design highly specialised forms.

This reliance upon standardised tools was evidenced in the emerging presence of complex

curvatures within the architecture of the 1990s. The popularity of such forms can be

directly traced back to CAD tools that allowed for the manipulation of spline curves and

surfaces . However, even though these tools could produce highly complex results, they

were still predominantly used as methods of computerisation in that they were a means

to represent or optimise a pre-imagined design. This was prominently demonstrated in

the design process of Frank Gehry, where his buildings were conceived through the use

of traditional modes — such as sketches and mock-ups — and the computer was used

only to test structural viability and produce technical documentation.

Another common use of CAD was to employ the software as a kind of improvised

sculpting environment to manipulate form according to the successive musings of the

designer. This remains, however, as a primarily computerised mode of operation because

it mandates tweaking a depiction, and is thus only a digitisation of a traditional modelmaking

OLMPICFISH frank gehry

1.3 Parametric Modelling

Following Patrick Schumacher’s manifesto unveiling at the Venice Biennale in 2008 much has been written and

debated about ‘parametricism’, ‘parametric design’. This advent-garde agenda has quietly begun to make its way

into architectural discourse over the past 15 years. At the biennale Schumacher, director at Zaha Hadid Architects

and leading contemporary writer, architect and theorist, enunciated Parametricism as the ‘next great style after

modernism’.

This movement has been made possible by the development and advancements in digital design tools which have

existed in other industries for some time but have found their way into offices of architecture only recently. Software

such as Grasshopper for Rhino have brought associative and generative modelling tools to the realm of architecture

and urban design, and, whilst associative modelling is often considered as the main tool in a parametric tool set,

other advancements in scripting, simulation and agent based modelling have also contributed to the research and

development of the movement

This discussion is important as there is current debate within the profession about in which direction it should be

heading. It has been argued that as a society we haven’t had an overarching design movement to guide progress

since the decline in modernism during the 1970s and 1980s. Patrick Schumacher describes this as ‘the crisis of

modernism’ and argues that since then we have only had a series of transitional styles such as postmodernism,

deconstructivism and minimalism. Schumacher looks to utilize this ‘crisis’ by pushing parametricism as the successor

to modernism.

studioAIR

Following Patrick Schumacher’s manifesto unveiling at the Venice Biennale in 2008 much has been written and

debated about ‘parametricism’, ‘parametric design’. This advent-garde agenda has quietly begun to make its way

into architectural discourse over the past 15 years. At the biennale Schumacher, director at Zaha Hadid Architects

and leading contemporary writer, architect and theorist, enunciated Parametricism as the ‘next great style after

modernism’.

This movement has been made possible by the development and advancements in digital design tools which have

existed in other industries for some time but have found their way into offices of architecture only recently. Software

such as Grasshopper for Rhino have brought associative and generative modelling tools to the realm of architecture

and urban design, and, whilst associative modelling is often considered as the main tool in a parametric tool set,

other advancements in scripting, simulation and agent based modelling have also contributed to the research and

development of the movement

This discussion is important as there is current debate within the profession about in which direction it should be

heading. It has been argued that as a society we haven’t had an overarching design movement to guide progress

since the decline in modernism during the 1970s and 1980s. Patrick Schumacher describes this as ‘the crisis of

modernism’ and argues that since then we have only had a series of transitional styles such as postmodernism,

deconstructivism and minimalism. Schumacher looks to utilize this ‘crisis’ by pushing parametricism as the successor

to modernism.

2.0 Case Studies

studioAIR

2.1.1 Group Research & Arguement

So far I initially found grasshopper quite challenging however I am getting more of a grip to it now, and actually understanding the tutorials I’m dong-

not just following the instructions. I’ve found the software fascinating, enjoying learning how to use it.

I’ve teamed up with Nick Bergin and Michael McLoughlin to form a group.

Our groups interest lies in bridging the gap between engineering and art through the marriage of structure and ornament in digital architecture. To

unify structure and ornament, both must be considered in equal measure at the beginnings of a design. Digital architectures allow us to work with

both, holistically, throughout the design process.”

We gravitated towards structure because we felt that the current trend in digital architectures focused too much on form-making neglecting structural,

functional and performative considerations.

Structurally performative digital architectures allow the designer to create interventions that reveal and celebrate structure in architecture that can

be modified and reshaped without laborious recalculations. Beyond this, structural optimisation allows the architect to reduce the materials involved

in construction while maximising the presence and scale of the built form. Structurally perfomative digital architectures bridge the gap between

engineering and art, and construction and sculpture, and return a structurally functionalist aesthetic to architecture.

Our group is focusing on parametric structural architecture, exploring the tension between industry, urbanism and the non-human environment that

the location of Wyndham between the industrial and urban centres of Geelong and Melbourne exemplifies. The aim of our intervention is to cross

the (false) dichotomy of purely rational engineering structures and purely artistic sculpture. By doing this, we hope to show the beauty of structurally

performative architecture arrived at through a digital parametric medium. The potential of our method is exciting due to it’s ability to offer.

THEGROUP

studioAIR

So far I initially found grasshopper quite challenging however I am getting more of a grip to it now, and actually understanding the tutorials I’m dong-

not just following the instructions. I’ve found the software fascinating, enjoying learning how to use it.

I’ve teamed up with Nick Bergin and Michael McLoughlin to form a group.

Our groups interest lies in bridging the gap between engineering and art through the marriage of structure and ornament in digital architecture. To

unify structure and ornament, both must be considered in equal measure at the beginnings of a design. Digital architectures allow us to work with

both, holistically, throughout the design process.”

We gravitated towards structure because we felt that the current trend in digital architectures focused too much on form-making neglecting structural,

functional and performative considerations.

Structurally performative digital architectures allow the designer to create interventions that reveal and celebrate structure in architecture that can

be modified and reshaped without laborious recalculations. Beyond this, structural optimisation allows the architect to reduce the materials involved

in construction while maximising the presence and scale of the built form. Structurally perfomative digital architectures bridge the gap between

engineering and art, and construction and sculpture, and return a structurally functionalist aesthetic to architecture.

Our group is focusing on parametric structural architecture, exploring the tension between industry, urbanism and the non-human environment that

the location of Wyndham between the industrial and urban centres of Geelong and Melbourne exemplifies. The aim of our intervention is to cross

the (false) dichotomy of purely rational engineering structures and purely artistic sculpture. By doing this, we hope to show the beauty of structurally

performative architecture arrived at through a digital parametric medium. The potential of our method is exciting due to it’s ability to offer.


the WATERCUBE arup

studioAIR

First my first case study I decided

to research the Beijing National

Swimming Centre more commonly

known as ‘The Water Cube’.

The building structure is a 3D

Vierendeel space frame 175 meters

on each side and 35 meters high,

based on a geometric cell made up

of 12 pentagons and two hexagons,

which is repeatable in 3D without

leaving any empty spaces. Covering

this frame are the translucent bubbles,

or ETFE pillows.

Using Bentley Structural and

MicroStation TriForma,Arup generated

a 3D array of the cell, rotated it

about two axes, and then sculpted

the building. The cut surface planes

of the remaining elements form the

flanges of the composite structure,

while the internal elements form

the webs.

Stuart Bull,Arup senior 3D technician,

described the modeling and

documentation process as a “daunting

proposal.” Arup created a 3D

centerline wire-frame and exported

it to a structural analysis program

for engineering.

“The ability to use the VBA scripts to create our geometry, which gave us the link from the engineering and analysis model to our working 3D CAD model, was very important.” - Arup

The analysed model

was output to a text file containing

geometric and structural member

design data.

Next, Arup wrote a MicroStation

VBA routine that used the text file

to create a complete 3D model of

the steel structure. By enabling

MicroStation Development Language

(MDL) functions, the model could be

created as surfaces, solids, or structural

elements as appropriate.

the WATERCUBE grasshopper steps


1- In the first step, I parametrically defined different dimensions of the building. I have used two “Box 2Pt” nodes and 3 sliders to create the general shape of the building parametrically. Image-1 shows the nodes.

studioAIR

2- In order to generate the bubble shapes I have used “3D Voronoi”. To use the Voronoi battery, I need to generate some random points. In a building as big as Watercube, to get the bubble size small enough I need a huge number of points. But as the number of points increases the simulation process gets slower and slower. Therefore, I had to find a way to limit the number of the random points. I decreased the number of points by putting some constrains to limit the points to be generated only in the parts that I need them (Walls and Roof of the building and not inside it).

3- In this step I have used the generated points and boxes in the previous steps. As you can see in image-3, I have used “Solid Difference” node to find the difference of the big box and small box to get closer to the building deign.


CITYHALL forster & partners

studioAIR

The main concept was to design a

building that expresses the transparency

and accessibility of democratic process

and demonstrates the potential for a

sustainable, virtually non polluting public

building.

The main design approach was to

generate the architectural form by

environmental performances with respect

to light, heat, energy, movement and

sound; so both the design and design

development are integrated in this project.

The shape of the building, is derived from

a geometrically modified sphere, which

has a surface area 25 % smaller than

that of a cube of identical volume. This

was the result of a process of energy

performance optimization.

The form of this building is not only

designed according to the thermal and

acousticsimulations of the inside space

of the building but also the wind. The

wind directions formed in its surroundings

are also taken into consideration. The

building is designed so that its mechanical

systems consume fifty percent less

energy

The surface area exposed to

direct sunlight was minimized, and

consequently, there was a reduction in

solar heat gain and heat loss though the

skin of the building (Kolarevic 2005).

In the design of the interior space, the

main criterion was the transparency. In

order to provide visual connections, a

huge spiral was located in the building. Its

function is to connect all ten floors of

the building. Consequently, the building

provides the feeling of light and open

space. This openness is only obvious to

pedestrians after dusk, when its lighting

transforms the building into a transparent

form.

Acoustics also played a role in the final

form of the structure. While designing

the outer form, architects noticed that

its shape resulted in some acoustic

problems. The initial scheme for the

assembly hall, which had a very smooth

profile, was excessively reverberant.

Arup developed a process for visualizing

the reflection and absorption of sound

by surfaces. After several iterations, a

solution emerged which was considered

both architecturally and acoustically

studioAIR

KINGSCROSS john mcaslan + partners

I like the new extension to Kings Cross Station as it reminds me of

1852 train sheds. Like the 1852 train sheds, this is a structure that is at

the limit of what’s possible, and the components are celebrated. The

steel castings at the top of the perimeter columns weigh 1.5 tonnes

each: they’re like overgrown Meccano. The engineer Arup came up

with the detailed design of the roof, and the constantly varying sizes of

the panels needed to make the double curve would only be possible

to calculate on this scale using parametric computer-aided design.


KINGSCROSS john mcaslan + partners

studioAIR

Creating Kings Cross Station on Grasshopper

2.3 The Matrix

1. 2. 3.

As we decided to use the diagrid as our technique

as it has the capability to form patterns, we began to

test with these capabilities to see how far we could

push the patterns boundaries.

In the first column we varied the amount of divisions

in the grid, as well as the patterns of the grid by

using a Dispatch component. In the second column,

we have changed the base geometry that the grid is

stretched across. Thoughout this process we have

defined geometries in Grasshopper opposed to

Rhino. We found it very easy to visualize functions,

with Michael having a solid maths background.

It also allows us to change the base geometries

dynamically in grasshopper with ease. Having

decided that some form of barrel vault for highway

users to drive through would be apt for Wyndham

gateway project, column 3 experiments with changed

patterns and base geometries along the barrel vault’s

arches along its short axis, allowing for a structure

that curves along its long axis. At the bottom we

have experimented with splitting the grid into multiple

sections, or placing two grids on top of each other.

Having decided that a long snake-like structure

would allow for longer and more profound experience

while traveling along the highway, we moved the

start and finish points further along the long axis,

studioAIR

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2.4 Digitial & Physical Models

studioAIR

2.4 Digitial & Physical Models

FINALMODEL

We decided that we want to focus on making a joint that we can use to join the structural members on

our design. We want to explore the tectonic relationships between the members. We also wanted to

experiment with making a material that could bend in both directions- as we needed this as the curves

in our diagrid bend in opposite directions. This was best investigated through our silicon model which

was reinforced with wire. The idea was inspired by reinforced concrete. The wire give the form the

ability to bend in both directions and the silicon withstood the flexibility of these bends. This model was

the most successful outcome of all our models, as it experimented the best with what we needed to

achieve- a member that could bend in opposite directions. The other two models explored the form of

the structure more, yet their drawbacks were that they were merely representational of the form and

didn’t achieve a construction technique that could be used in reality.

studioAIR

FINALMODEL

EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST: GATWAY TO WYDNHAM

michaelMcLOUGLIN/nickBERGIN/sophieBARDOEL

EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST: GATWAY TO WYDNHAM

michaelMcLOUGLIN/nickBERGIN/sophieBARDOEL

studioAIR

02 | KING’S CROSSJOHN McASLAN + PARTNERS

01 | AAMI PARK COX ARCHITECTS

04 | SOUTH PONDSTUDIO GANG

05 | CARDBOARD PAVILLION

SHIGERU BAN

06 | ‘THE GHERKIN’ FOSTER + PARTNERS

OPTIMIZATION OF STRUCTURE

FLEXIBILITY OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

OPTIMIZATION OF MATERIALS

STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

03 | BRITISH MUSEUMFOSTER + PARTNERS FLEXIBILITY OF

STRUCTURE

07 | CHIDDINGSTONE ORANGERY

PETER HULBERT ARCHITECTSSTRUCTURE AS

ORNAMENT

STRUCTURE

OPTIMIZATION

FLEXIBILITY

DIAGRID

PRECEDENTSRESEARCH

grasshopperDEFINITION

2.5 EOI Feedback

EOI/FEEDBACK

MIDSEMESTER

studioAIR

Our group received relatively positive feedback. We received some good constructive criticism such as; we were too focused on looking at the joint and how to construct the structure rather than the actual form of it. Another criticism was that we were far too involved in exploring structural optimization than the more important factor of monumentalizing movement- which the panel said was our strongest point. What we have taken from this is that we need to be more critical of ourselves and focus on taking this design to the next level. We have taken the criticism on board which has helped us greatly in the areas we need to work on.

From here we are now making a site model so that we can explore the urban-geographic relationships of Werribee and its surroundings. We are now working on a whole new grasshopper definition so that we can have more control over the overall form, which will allow us more flexibility to fine tune the design. EOI/FEEDBACK

3.1 Week 9 Progress

Our group decided that we wanted to explore collision in our final design. This “collision” would be between the ‘movement’ of the human geographic forces of Geelong, Melbourne and, Werribee; centered on Werribee. Similarly, this would be like the collision that would happen between plates in a physical geography context. We investigated this through our parametric models, but found that our original parametric models developed for the EOI were too ‘rigid’ to highlight a collision of forces in their form, so we set about finding a toolset that would allow us greater flexibility and less rigidity.

Once trialing with point attractors on a grid in 3D space, we was trying to work with points manipulating nearby points by an inverse square law, like gravity, once again exploring the idea of the inter-relationship between physical natural forces and human forces. We began to find that the mathematics behind the model were becoming increasingly complex- beyond our ability. After doing some research we came across a package of components called JellyFish, which is described by its creator as a magnetic displacement definition in 3-dimensions. The real power that lies in the component was that it tended not to force points to cross over each other, which was an issue we were having with original definition. By inverting the magnetic attractor, we were able to create a magnetic repulsor, which allowed us the ability to experiment with peaks and troughs. This influenced our idea of collision into the idea of waves of the coming urbanism (peaks) crashing along the geographical constant of the highway (the trough). This new definition gave us a great deal of flexibility as a form finding exercise and we were able to create forms that were very organic and really emphasised the idea of a collision. A problem we ran into was when we tried to transpose our designs onto the site. While JellyFish’s flexibility was what attracted me to it, when it came to actually placing the form onto the site, its randomness became its downfall. In attempting to create connections between the design and the landscape, one slight movement of a variable would push the design into the middle of the road, or out of the boundaries of the site.

studioAIR

We want to push the boundary of what a diagrid pattern could be used for. We were inspired by MyZeil in Frankfurt, by Massimiliano Fuksas, with its vortex in the facade that descends into the internal space of the building. This building shows a diagrid pattern used as more than a structure to span an internal space, rather it can be an ornamental, gestural piece of architecture. We believe this is relevant to a freeway art project because it creates a monumental form that emphasises movement and embodies the colliding forces of the local human geography. This type of structure is often used to monumentalise other places of movement, like Southern Cross Station; so lets apply this to the highway!

URBAN CONTEXT URBAN CONNECTIONS

3.1 Week 9 Progress

Current human geography of Greater Melbourne; growth of urbanism; collision of urban forces in at the site of Werribee.

urbanCOLLISION

CURRENT CONTEXT

URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN MOVEMENTURBAN CONNECTIONS URBAN COLLISION

studioAIR

Current human geography of Greater Melbourne; growth of urbanism; collision of urban forces in at the site of Werribee.

URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN COLLISION

3.2 Week 10 Progress

We were able to overcome the problems we were run into with the JellyFish component. We started restructuring the definition into one that permitted us to modify one shape into another along a rail curve. This would allow us the rigidity of a pre-defined starting point, but with the flexibility and randomness of interpolating between varied shapes. While the definition did not have the flexibility of JellyFish, and is entailing interesting forms, it did allow us to create a form that we could actually situate on the site.

For a while we got too stuck on the ideal of designing a ‘universal’ joint that could be applied throughout the whole structure. After a great deal of research on what this universal joint could be, we came across the ArcelorMittal Orbit in London by Anish Mapoor and Cecil Balmond. In this structural sculpture, the bolted joint was not at the node where individual members, but rather half-way between the members. This allowed all the nodes to be prefabricated and then simply delivered to site, craned into position and bolted together. We were very excited by the efficiencies created by this joint, while allowing us the flexibility of not having a joint that restricted how our nodes could fit together.

studioAIR

We had a few conversations with Paul about tectonics and materiality. This helped us decide against using steel for the structure- due to the sheer tonnage of steel necessary and the environmental impacts of using the material. After eliminating steel as our material we decided to use timber, this is because we came to the conclusion that we had slightly ignored the non-human environment in our proposal, and that timber and a native planting scheme would do more to celebrate Werribee’s unique position in its environmental context than tubular steel.

We started designing and making various joints for our design that utilised timber. Originally, we intended to secure our members in a method similar to that of Chiddingstone Castle Orangery. This would allow us to have two sets of members, which ran in different directions, held in place by a vice-like joint. We also considered simply bolting the members together where they overlapped. Another idea we explored was simply rebating a groove into timber member at its end and placing a prefabricated welded steel joint within the members. This would allow us to somewhat deny the joint visually, creating a more continuous structure, without a bulky joint at every node. We also created a simple steel pin joint for the footing connection of our structure. This would allow one mass-produced joint to be used


grasshopperprogress

studioAIR


It turned out that interconnecting and placing a series of curves along a rail curve was a lot more difficult than we thought it would be. The curves would randomly rotate and create spasmodic lofted surfaces that had massive kinks in them. We needed to fix this problem fast- as we were desperately running out of time, with semester review impending. So we had to opt for an alternative solution to fix this problem and decided to draw 8 curves in space along the highway where chosen, and interpolated and lofted curves between them.

After we had our chosen form nailed down we had to tackle the fabrication of the structure- and this was tricky! We were originally going to detail the structure the same way as the Chiddingstone Orangery, with two sets of members running in different directions placed on top of each other, however, we were unable to figure out how to construct this into its final form and opted for a cast steel node joint (which I actually preferred). I personally thought that this joint would deliver more freedom and flexibility in the structure as it didn’t have overlapping like our previous idea. We had made a 1:100 template of the Chiddingstone Orangery style joint construction to get lasercut, however, we had to abandon this when we decided to change joint design. It also took us a large amount of time to get the file for the 3D printer ready- around a whole day, and another whole day in communication with 3D systems. If we had more time we would of wanted to make a 1:100 section of our design, but I still think our presentation communicated our intend to a good standard without. I think the renders turned out well, it was about 30% Vray, 70% Photoshop- it took some time to gather a nice palette in Photoshop to paint with.

Our group worked really well together, we separated the tasks to make it more efficient and a speeder process. I think we might of moved away a bit from our concept of monumentalizing movement through collision, however, I think with the time we had we did the best we possibly could.

modelphotos

studioAIR

modelphotos

modelphotos

BRIEF |

The Western Gateway should propose new, inspiring and brave ideas, to generate a new discourse.

• Entry statement• Arrival experience• New identifier• Focal point• Iconic scale

AIR | FINAL PRESENTATION | Gateway to Wyndham

CONSIDERATIONS & ISSUES |

• Prominent location• Service station/centre• Integration of landscape.• Scale• Sculpture and landscape.• Form• Experiential

01. | PROJECT BRIEF | GATEWAY TO WYNDHAM

• Literal or abstract;• Regulations• Day vs. night• Maintenance

| INTENT |

• Explore the unique position Wyndham has in the broader industrial, urban and non-human environ-ment

• Monumentalize movement

• Highlight the relationship Wyndham and the high-way share with urbanism, industry and nature.”

0.2. | DESIGN INTENT

| INTEREST |

• Bridge the gap between engineering and art.

• Marriage of structure and ornament.

| INTENT |

• Explore the unique position Wyndham has in the broader industrial, urban and non-human environ-ment

• Monumentalize movement

• Highlight the relationship Wyndham and the high-way share with urbanism, industry and nature.”

0.2. | DESIGN INTENT

| RESOLUTION |

Expressed through the monumentalization of movement, the design translates Wyndham’s role as the epicentre of new urban expansion. In a Western regional context, its urban boundaries ‘creep’ towards a collision with surrounding cities in the future. This future collision phenomenon will be visible as one oscillates through the continuum of Geelong road.

The structure reflects a commentary on the urban expansion of the Wyndham region as it expands outwards to carve its own identity in Melbourne’s Western Metropolitan region.

| 01 | MONUMENTALIZING MOVEMENT | 02 | STRUCTURE & ORNAMENT | 03 | COLLISION

COLLISIONAIR | FINAL PRESENTATION | Gateway to Wyndham

04. | SITE CONTEXTMICRO SCALE | HIGHWAY SITE

TO GEELONG

COLLISION

04. | SITE CONTEXTMICRO SCALE | HIGHWAY SITE

TO MELBOURNE


GATEWAY SITE

WERRIBEE


05. | SITE CONTEXT | LOCAL SCALE | WYNDHAM CITY

WERRIBEE

06. | SITE CONTEXT | MACRO SCALE | WYNDHAM CITY

| 01 | Collision UPWARDS| 02 | Collision OUTWARDS



URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN CENTRES

URBAN CONVERGENCE

UPWARD COLLISION

| 01 | Collision UPWARDS

| 02 | Collision OUTWARDS



URBAN MOVEMENT

URBAN CONVERGENCE

OUTWARD COLLISION

0 200

SITE A

SITE B

SITE C

PRINCESS HIGHWAY TO GEELONG

PRINCES

S HIG

HWAY TO

MEL

BOURNE

CALTEXSERVICESTATION


10. | SITE PLAN

0 200

SITE A

SITE B

SITE C


PRINCES

S HIG

HWAY TO

MEL

BOURNE


COLLISION

10. | SITE PLAN

COLLISION


11. | STRUCTURAL PRECEDENT | HERBERT MUSEUM & ART GALLERY


12. | DETAIL | JOINT + MEMBERS

TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW

CAST STEEL NODE |

• Fabricated off-site• Reduces construction

time• Flexible with angles• Transportable

GLULAM TIMBER |

• Strong in compression and tension

• Large spans• Proven results in large

span structures.• Laminated for

waterproofing

FOOTING DETAIL

COLLISION

12. | DETAIL | JOINT + MEMBERS

FRONT VIEW PERSPECTIVE

FOOTING DETAIL


13. | LOCAL SCALE CONTEXT | PLANTING

CANOPY UNDERSTOREY

River Red Gum Round Leafbox Australian Blackwood Black Wattle


13. | LOCAL SCALE CONTEXT | PLANTING

SHRUB LAYER

Black Wattle River Bottlebrush Tree Violet Wooly Tea-Tree

3.1.4 Feedback

studioAIR

I personally excepted the feedback our group was given. We were aware of the flaws in our project, so it didn’t come as a surprise to me when they were pointed out, such as, if the structure could stand, the difficulty of our grasshopper definition and plants. Studio Air was all about extending past the horizon in design, and I felt the board thought we didn’t achieve this. We were heavily criticized on the structural integrity of the design, and I thought we did a pretty good job as 3rd year architecture students as to giving a design for it. However we feel that the level of structural knowledge needed would require considerable consultation with a structural engineer.

We were also questioned about the sizing of the structural members from our renders, this is something if we would need to work out further if our design went into development.

We were criticized from a technical side of our grasshopper definition that it was fairlysimplistic. This might be the case, however, during the semester we fought hard to try and not take the easy way out by having everything parametric. We unfortunately ran out of time and had to reference in curves to be able to complete our design into for the presentation. That’s the thing about architecture, there is a time limit and you need to meet your brief with the best possible outcome you can. Sometimes you need to sacrifice elements to meet these requirements- nothing can ever be complete, you could always keep designing and developing your ideas. You just have to learn to know when push comes to shove, to get the project complete on time.

We also got criticized that our planting idea was ‘half baked’. We realized quite late in the piece that we hadn’t really engaged in the environmental elements of the site. Paul felt as did we, a week before the project was due that we need another purpose for our design. This might of come off in our final design as rushed and not thought through properly, however, I think the problem was that we actually just needed to explain ourselves better- perhaps nerves and lack of sleep got the better of us! What we need to say was that we wanted the structure to appear as though it had evolved out of the natural landscape, as Wyndham had. Hopefully this was realized by the paneled upon closer inspection of our proposal.

presentationfeedback

4.0. Parametric Experience

I found the parametric experience to be a roller coaster of

learning new programs and tools. I feel very lucky to have

done such a unique studio where I was able to gain computer

skills and techniques. I am still not sold on the parametric is

the way, and not too sure if I’ll be using these grasshopper

skills in the near future. I’m actually a bit relieved to be

going back to an ordinary studio where the system doesn’t

dictate the design. This is what I thought was the parametric

approaches major flaw, that it does not think about the

users experience of the space- that it’s too detached from

the designers intent of spatial experience of the occupants

of the space. However, after saying all this I think using

grasshopper for doing simple tasks like paneling is very

efficient and convenient. This is something I would consider

using grasshopper again for. All in all it’s been a positive

semester where I have been able to gain practical and

technical skills that I’ll hopefully be able to use further down

the track. Over and out.

studioAIR

ADS3 | COLLISIONGATEWAY TO WYNDHAM |

| COLLISION |

“Expressed through the monumentalization of movement, the design translates Wyndham’s role as the epicentre of new urban expansion. In a Western regional context, its urban boundaries ‘creep’ towards a collision with surrounding cities in the future. This future collision phenomenon will be visible as one oscillates through the continuum of Geelong road.

The structure reflects a commentary on the urban expansion of the Wyndham region as it expands outwards to carve its own identity in Melbourne’s Western Metropolitan

NICK BERGINSOPHIE BARDOEL MICHAEL MCLOUGHLIN

0 200

SITE A

SITE B

SITE C


PRINCES

S HIG

HWAY TO

MEL

BOURNE


Sophie Bardoel - StudioAIR Journal

Documents

Transcript of Sophie Bardoel - StudioAIR Journal