Tag Archives: dynamic form

Formeta 0.9

Architecture today is falling behind many fields it once influenced, remaining entrenched in static modes of design while innovations in aerospace, automotive, and engineering fields have long since moved on to consider dynamic flows of forces in time (Lynn). With developments such as carbon fiber composites and nanotechnology, architecture can no longer blame material and technological constraints for a lack of change in the building industry and its product. As new technologies converge, the profession is at a critical juncture–will it embrace technological development and take advantage of existing research in science and industry and begin to regain its influence, or will it continue to allow itself to be sidelined under the weight of tradition and the threat of liability?  We believe that architecture must embrace the element of time and move to a dynamic architecture, facilitated by technology, that will allow it to remain relevant for decades to come.

We begin a progression into this new mode of design by accepting the following:

1. Time is always at play. Conditions are ever-changing. 

2. Optimization is not possible. There is only compromise.

3. Form cannot ultimately be static. Only a dynamic response can account for dynamic conditions. 

The critique of architectural form to date has largely accepted it as static, valuing the sense (or illusion) of permanence, strength and power that a building can impart. Responses to conditions, even with respect to time, have attempted to do so in a manner that seeks a single optimal form for it to assume for the entirety of its existence. While we as architects understand that these conditions–such as environment, structure, context, and program–change over time, we continue designing static spaces that are far below the potential enabled by current technology. This is because we have accepted that attempts at optimization are the only possible response.

 

There will never be a building or space that always optimally addresses all of the conditions at play in a given environment. We design with conscious or unconscious intentions to consider some conditions more significant than others. This is good because–without doing so–we would find ourselves attempting to consider program over structure and inevitably put people at risk. We create quality buildings and spaces by prioritizing our responses, considering trade-offs and compromising.

In such a reality architecture is disadvantaged if its only possible response is static form. If it is ever to respond appropriately to dynamic conditions form too must be dynamic. This presents challenges to architecture that convention cannot address, which is why the profession must cultivate innovation. We seek to discover what is necessary for form to be dynamic and to understand the implications of that shift for architecture.

Dynamic Authorship For Dynamic Conditions

Dynamic form calls authorship of form into question. It breeds an entirely new set of design considerations unprecedented for the architect. If form has the ability to adapt, how can we ensure that form is still articulated and informed so that it can maintain some aesthetic and metaphysical quality. The architect of the future may therefore see a resurgence of cultural significance as clients depend on the architect’s training to shape their dynamic existence. One could question whether the architect even exists in such a world, suggesting that it is the individual who will maintain her specific reality. This may be; however we believe it will be an opportunity for the architect to take the lead in designing dynamic spatial environments in a ongoing fashion.

 

Formeta 1.0: A Project Proposal

In Formeta 0.9 we stated our desire to see architecture move into the world of dynamic form. To move forward, architecture must accept the reality of changing conditions, that optimization has never been fully attainable, and that only a dynamic formal response can adequately account for dynamic conditions. Given these changes to architecture a discussion of dynamic authorship emerges.

Formeta is an exploration of dynamic authorship in a world of dynamic form.

To learn about these concepts and facilitate a discussion we propose a series of projects that investigate what ongoing design looks like in this new context. Using the language of morphogenesis we plan to setup scenarios involving the interaction of forces in a specific environment. Initially we will confine these experiments to a specific smaller scale examining different forms of authorship in response to changing conditions and unpredictable outcomes. Based on the knowledge, experience, and values we acquire from these experiments we plan on developing a larger scale project that will bring these concepts closer to human experience. Our ambition is that this project will communicate our vision of a dynamic architecture.

 

\\small scale

Our strategy for understanding dynamic authorship begins by making certain assumptions in an attempt to uncover approaches to this new mode of designing. Some of these assumptions may include:

  1. Authorship of form remains a periodic practice.
  2. Authorship is an ongoing process in response to certain stimuli.
  3. The architect defines the parameters of what is dynamic.

We expect the conflicts that might emerge from these assumptions will lead to a deeper understanding of what dynamic authorship will require of the designer. Examples of how we may explore these assumptions will include experiments in materials, kinetics, interactivity, and responsiveness. The tools we intend to employ involve various software such as Rhino, Grasshopper, Kangaroo, Maya; hardware such as low cost microprocessors and actuators, a CNC mill, KUKA robotic arm; and materials such as carbon fiber, fiberglass, shape memory alloys, and others that prove useful.

 

\\large scale

In order to exhibit our findings in a manner that is experiential rather than theoretical our final exploration will be of a relatable human scale. This may take the form of a piece of furniture, a building element, or an installation. This object will exemplify a refined utilization of tools and methods we have developed during the thesis semester, will further develop our understanding, and will allow us to demonstrate one or more aspects of dynamic authorship. Even at this scale the object will be designed with mobility in mind to facilitate exhibition and allow outside audiences to experience its dynamism.

 

\\documentation

The documentation of dynamic authorship and form mandates the use of media that capture events over time. Video, animation, and time-lapse photography of our work will be presented through this website and other appropriate tools. This approach will also allow us to share and promote our work across a wider audience. The documentation will also form the body of submissions to various conferences and awards with the hope of public recognition for our work.

 

 

 

Review of Emergence: Morphogenetic Design Strategies

Weinstock, M. (2004). Morphogenesis and the mathematics of emergence. Architectural Design, 74(3), 10-17.

Michael Weinstock’s discussion of morphogenesis in his article “Morphogenesis and the Mathematics of Emergence” in Architectural Design intersects significantly with Lynn’s concept of forces interacting in an environment and influencing form.  Weinstock examines the way a given instance of a species or natural system grows and adapts to its environment.  Each instance, while of the same species, is influenced uniquely by the forces at work at its specific position in relation to those forces, resulting in specific forms and behaviors as the organism develops. In place of an exact blueprint of a fully-grown organism, instances of a species follow growth patterns that enable them to organize themselves in relation to each other and to local conditions.  The resulting forms and behaviors influence the patterns employed in successive generations, creating a feedback loop.  As organisms evolve in this way, they exhibit increased variety (called differentiation) and increased interconnectedness (called integration).  Unexpected and unpredictable forms emerge from these processes, but they are reflective of their environment and embed the influence of forces just as Lynn described.

Animate Form

Lynn, G. (1999). Animate form. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

In Animate Form, Greg Lynn invites architects to move from a static conception of form and space to one that is characterized by force and motion.  In the past, architects have expressed motion in form through superimposed snapshots in time and through sequences in form and space to which the eye gives life as the space is experienced.  Lynn sets up a framework that moves the discussion to a more abstract understanding of motion where the forces at play in a specific environment give rise to a specific form that embeds or stores the effects of those interacting forces in its shape.  The move from static to dynamic requires that architects embrace a more complex mathematical foundation for the description of form that integrates additional, continuous dimensions such as time and gradient forces.  This calculus allows for the expression of forces as inflections to and deformations of primitive forms resulting in complex topological surfaces.  Lynn argues that with an understanding of these concepts and tools that embed them, an intuition for the use of this approach can be developed and incorporated into a process that leads from abstract, diagrammatic form to concrete implementation.

Responsive Architecture

Architecture that is capable of responding to changing conditions is not a new concept.  Responsive architecture, a term dating back more than 40 years, has its roots in the writings of Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT’s Media Lab.  Beginning with The Architecture Machine (1970), Negroponte proposed “that responsive architecture is the natural product of the integration of computing power into built spaces and structures” (Sterk 2003).  Noting that Negroponte’s work came about long before developments such as robotics and artificial intelligence became mainstream, Sterk develops a model for responsive architecture that investigates how buildings can respond to the needs and wants of related stakeholders to connect “user needs to actual building components and their responsive behaviours” (2003).

The concept of responsive architecture is related to our thesis to the degree that it concerns the relationship of form to time and the forces at forces that are at play in a given context.  Sterk and his firm ORAMBRA (The Office of Robotic Architectural Media & Bureau for Responsive Architecture) seem to be primarily concerned with developing responsive kinetic structures in order to respond to environmental factors with the goal of improving efficiency and reducing carbon footprint.  While this is an important topic, environmental forces are just one class of forces that have an impact on form.  Needs and wants of users, in the programmatic sense, are another.  We hope to consider how form can respond to a multiplicity of forces over time as well as the nature of the impact that such a responsive form has on authorship.

Nevertheless, there are a number of projects that could be labeled responsive architecture that are of interest to us.

Prairie House by ORAMBRA 

Prairie House by ORAMBRA

Prairie House by ORAMBRA

This house in Northfield, IL implements an actuated tensegrity structural system that allows the envelope of the building to expand during hotter seasons and contract during colder seasons in order to reduce cooling and heating loads.  The website for the project highlights the house’s performance.  “That the shape of a building is intimately tied to its performance has been known since people started to build, what has not been known is that we can use this principle to drive a fundamentally different type of architecture.”

The form of this house is shaped primarily by the forms that its type of tensegrity structure can assume.  In other words, contextual forces impacting form are being ordered by the environmental forces that require the implementation of this specific form.  A hierarchy of values results in a prioritization of concerns and responses.

Pneumatic Envelope by RAD

Students at the University of Toronto’s Responsive Architecture at Daniels program have developed a group of projects that were featured in a published volume titled the living, breathing, thinking, responsive buildings of the future (el-Khoury, Marcopoulos and Moukheiber 2012).  One of these, called Pneumatic Envelope, combines a series of translucent plastic membrane cells with differing levels of opacity that can be inflated individually to modulate light and provide varying thermal characteristics.  These can be assembled as a wall or a window or both.

While a focus on environmental responsiveness is no longer a part of our thesis work, this project is interesting in its use of embedded technology to control the individuated responses of the wall/window elements.  With the low cost of such components we will likely be using similar technology in our own investigations over the next few months.

References

Sterk, T. (2003). Building upon negroponte: A hybridized model of control suitable for responsive architecture. Digital Design [21th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9541183-1-6], pp. 407-414

 

Pneumatic Envelope by Responsive Architecture at Daniels (University of Toronto)
Pneumatic Envelope by Responsive Architecture at Daniels (University of Toronto)

Robot City

Isaac Asimov's Robot City; book cover; image from Amazon

Isaac Asimov’s Robot City; book cover; image from Amazon

Much like the futuristic materials being conceived at MIT’s Self Assembly Lab, science fiction has long been speculating about technology of the future.  The novels in Isaac Asimov’s Robot City series (originally published 1987 to 1995) are no exception, following the trend of increasing processing power and miniaturization to its logical conclusion and envisioning the development of a material in which highly advanced robotic intelligence is integrated at the molecular level along with the ability of the material to reconfigure itself on demand.

The result is Robot City, a “built” environment resulting from vast amounts of this intelligent material being instructed to form buildings and every bit of infrastructure required for a functioning city.  This city is by no means static, constantly in flux according to the needs of the city, responding to the demands of development and the city’s inhabitants.  Buildings and streets disappear and reform overnight, with the only constant being a more traditionally constructed “compass tower” that acts as the origin of the city.

The concept of an intelligent, self-re-forming material is particularly relevant to our thesis as it directly addresses the question of how form can respond in an ongoing fashion to continually shifting conditions.  While described as virtually limitless in potential availability, versatility, and strength in the novels, even a very limited version of such a material would have huge consequences for the built environment and the role of the architect.

A technology like this fundamentally questions the definition of authorship, transforming it from an initial development to an ongoing process.  Would the architect in this world be designing in a very generic sense, defining responses to typical scenarios (if this condition or requirement encountered, then build this or that)?  Would it sideline the architect even more so than today’s Revit-based box developers are attempting to do?  Or would it make the architect essential due to the effectively limitless sculptural possibilities that could result in a ridiculous mess otherwise?  Or would it make us all architects, able to sculpt our environment on a daily basis?

The ideas behind this futuristic material will no doubt continue to influence our discussions and explorations.  See the documentation for our initial presentation, formeta 0.9–we developed the final animation with Robot City in the back of our minds.

MIT Self-Assembly Lab

MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab, led by Skylar Tibbits, is on the bleeding edge of smart material research, pioneering efforts in self-assembling materials and components as well as programmable materials. From the Self-Assembly Lab website:

“Self-Assembly is a process by which disordered parts build an ordered structure through only local interaction. In self-assembling systems, individual parts move towards a final state, wheras in self-organizing systems, components move between multiple states, oscillate and may never come to rest in a final configuration.”

“Programmable Matter is the science, engineering and design of physical matter that has the ability to change form and/or function in a programmable fashion. 4D Printing, where the 4th dimension is time, is one recent example of PM that allows objects to be printed and self-transform in shape and material property when submerged in water.“

Both of these concepts are of great interest to us as we explore the relationship of form and time and consider how to design for changing conditions.  In addition, these areas of research bridge the gap between our interests in robotics, composites and non-static form in the built environment.  The Self-Assembly Lab’s section on Programmable Materials states that their “goal is true material robotics or robots without robots.”  To that end they are exploring the following areas, among others, which are particularly relevant to our thesis development.

Programmable Carbon Fiber and Programmable Textiles

Programmable Carbon Fiber; image from Self-Assembly Lab

Programmable Carbon Fiber; image from Self-Assembly Lab

In partnership with Autodesk and carbon fiber supplier and material innovator Carbitex, the lab is researching flexible and self-bending carbon fiber fabrics.  Carbitex already offers flexible fabrics, but the lab is looking at the possibility of programming this material to bend with the application of energy of some kind (for example, electrical current or heat).

A programmable textile would differ from carbon fiber in that it would offer different strength and rigidity characteristics and might not be able to change shape more than once, for example, after being immersed in water.

BioMolecular Self-Assembly

As described in the above quote regarding self-assembly, the lab is considering how parts in a system can come together in a specific fashion of their own accord with the simple application of an outside energy source.  On some level the idea that such a system results in a “final state” is opposed to the concept of dynamic form, especially if parts are only able to come together in a single configuration.  However, if we consider the possibility of a future material that is both self-assembling and programmable, allowing the parts to assume different configurations under different circumstances or stimuli, then the finality of a self-assembling system would simply refer to one of many states that the system can assume.  It is in reference to such a possibility that we developed the final animation presented in the formeta 0.9 project.

 

Programmable Textile; image from Self-Assembly Lab
Programmable Carbon Fiber; image from Self-Assembly Lab
BioMolecular Self-Assembly; image from Self-Assembly Lab