Project 2 - Procedure Manipulation

    I decided to manipulate the final surface (that created the 3D object) that I created for Project 1c.  When this proved to be difficult, I went back to my Project 1c matrix and choose the original surface.  Then I rebuilt it using less control points.  I felt like it would be easier to control the procedural manipulation of my surface if it had less control points, which I believe it was.  I then manipulated it using 4 different methodological procedures, using multiple methods of manipulation in each procedure.
    The first procedural manipulation followed a similar process as Project 1.  I created a matrix of my new and improved surface starting from the bottom left hand corner and moving to the top right hand corner.  My intention was to turn this curvy surface into a flat surface using a repeatable procedure.  First I scaled back the control points at the bottom center of the surface by 0.1" increments as I copied the image up a column.  I stopped the manipulation when I created a visually smooth curve of the surface, without any recollection of what iteration I was on.  Second I scaled down both edges of my surface together in 0.2" increments on the outer control points and 0.1" increments on the inner control points.  I did this as I copied the columns down the rows, one column at a time.  Again, I stopped the manipulation when I created a visually flat surface at the top of the last column without considering the number of iterations I had performed.  Therefore, the termination of both manipulations in this procedure was based on the overall view of the surface, resulting in a final, relatively flat surface.

 
    As I looked at my matrix, I realized some of the surfaces resembled the profile of a bowl.  So I copied the surface that had the most resemblance and began rotating it about its local Y axis at the center of the edge with the depression.  I rotated it in 10 degree intervals but this time decided to terminate the iterations at a preconceived value of 180 degrees, thinking that this would complete my bowl.  While it did resemble a bowl from the side, as I rotated the camera it looked more like a bowl with like a handle, or a "sippy edge".  Further rotation made it look like an interesting entrance into a tunnel (with some imagination of course).  I decided to complete my bowl and carry the original procedural manipulation a full 360 degrees.

    Besides a bowl, my object now reminded me of the roof of a Japanese house (or at least my mental image of a classical Japanese house).  So I inverted the bowl and then looked up some images I could base my next procedure on.

   Using these images from Google, I started my third procedural manipulation.  This procedure started by copying the surface vertically, 6 times to match the image.  Then I scaled down each surface following the bottom one by 10% increments, ending the top surface at 50% the size of the bottom surface.  Then I took the center tip control point of each surface and moved it vertically up by increments of 1".  This iteration stopped when the surfaces stopped; therefore it went from 1" at the bottom surface to a 6" move of the control point at the top surface.  Hence my Japanese house roof that looks more like a Christmas tree.

    I began to contemplate why the roofs were made like this.  I thought that at least one of the reasons might be to try and allow as much sunlight into the house as possible, and if it was not a reason, it was still an interesting concept to me anyway.  So my fourth procedural manipulation followed the idea of trying to maximize sunlight into a building.  I choose to only work with one side of the building's multiple roofs, in elevation view, in order to simplify my model.
    I started this manipulation by going back to my original surface and mirroring half of the surface below the horizontal line at the base of the surface.  The result was an "S" shape.  I then modeled a sun and created rays of light to a vertical line of my surfaces representing the multiple roofs along the side of my building.  I then rotated each "S" about its building side end by multiples of 5 degrees.  I stopped at the top at 25 degrees from horizontal, thinking that at least some slope was still necessary for rain dispersion.  At the bottom of my line I stopped at 55 degrees, thinking too much slope would not allow for light penetration.  Then I moved the control points of the bottom end of each surface by 0.2" increments from top to bottom (but skipping the top surface), in order to create a "lip" that I felt could reflect the light toward the house.  I finished my procedural manipulation by repeating the "lip" process but in the opposite direction to the other edge.  This was thinking that the light would then reflect into the house.  As I looked at my final model, I didn't know if this is how light would actually behave, maybe it would be more realistic for the flow of water, but none-the-less the idea to study how to actually maximize light in a building would be an interesting one.

    I end this blog with a funny but enjoyable image I came across whilst doing the research for this project.  So, I felt like I should share the laugh, and more seriously, the creativity in an architectural design of a house with the rest of the class.

Inter-Dependency Between Professions

    "Nothing as Persistent as Change".  An interesting phrase found in the title of the second article that we got to read this week.  Right at top, one of the first sentences that jumps out to the reader, a phrase that is both thought provoking and intellectually cunning.  As we think about it, we realize the truth in the statement. Change happens in all aspects in life as we evolve as a species and Ingeborg Rocker reminds us of this as she links the phrase back to the changes that are occurring in the architecture profession.
    What's interesting to me though, is that the phrase that I hear much more often is "people resist change".  Whether it is in school, at the work place, at home, or in a social group it seems we as humans are hard-wired to resist change.  You hear of the old employee that has designed a wall the same way for 50 years and exclaims why change what works.  Or of the brother that never did the dishes in middle school and doesn't want to start in high school. Even the family dog resists change.  He likes his yard, his pillow, his daily walk around the block at his house.  When you change any of these things he doesn't understand and rebels, whether that is by barking, ripping up his new bed, or pulling harder on his leash in the new neighborhood you've brought him too.

Image 1: Kemba (my puppy) after ripping up his new bed

    So why do we as people not like change?  Change is unknown, it adds more work for us, or possibly it is just plain scary.  You can Google why people resist change and you will get over 30 million results.  Maybe that is why change has to be this persistent.
    In the article "The Future of Space Toward an Architecture of Invention", Elizabeth Grosz draws parallels between architecture and philosophy and then goes on to describe the two different ideologies behind time.  She explains that "architecture has thought time...through history rather than through duration" and that this ideology about time is being questioned, explored, and is ultimately facing change.  New architecture firms are exploring time in their designs, while older architects are resisting and turning back to the way of the past.  She explains how we can view space as a moment of becoming instead space as a medium, drawing on examples in architecture of our time.  So why is anyone opposing this new thought provoking way of viewing time and space?
   Ingeborg Rocker describes this change in ideology in a little different way but carries a very similar underlining meaning.  Explaining the term "versioning" quite well throughout her article, she talks about how "repetition of the same" is being replaced by "repetition of difference".    She explains how a thing always evolved from the thing before it, how the past brings about the present, but how both must exist in order for either to exist.  Also giving examples of architecture in our time that has adopted, or at least tested, the design methods of versioning, she enlightens the reader about how versioning is leading to new state-of-the-art designs and how certain companies are using versioning to design these interesting structures.  So again, why would anyone be resisting this change in design philosophy if it seems to be producing exceptional results?
    As Ingeborg puts it, the concepts of "standardisation and norms" are one thing that might be hindering the advancement of architectural design.  She describes how new ways of working require old methods to be questioned.  The normal way of architectural design worked in the past, why change it even if it is outdated and has figuratively reached a plateau?  Versioning questions architecture "as a linear progressing design process", leading to more interesting forms that evolve from practically nothing.  There is no preconceived idea about what the design will be, just a starting point that evolves to the next phase and then the next, and with the help of technology a new unique form is developed.

Image 2: Standard Luminaires used on Engineering Interstate Projects

   While reading this article by Ingeborg, specifically this page explaining standardization and  norms along with the two following pages, I came up with a new idea about this situation that I hadn't thought of before.  As you can imagine, architecture, engineering, and the construction profession are very closely interrelated whether they want to be or not.  As the architect comes up with the form of a structure, the engineer designs it, and the construction crew builds it.  These are typically separate entities in the United States, and may cause competition as each entity tries to maximize its profit.  So maybe architects aren't trying to resist change, maybe they are getting resistance (a lot of resistance) from the engineering and construction professions.  After all, whatever is thought up must be structurally designed and then physically built.  Standards and norms in engineering make life easy, for example we know this type of railing works, so why not use it?  Unique forms create additional work and require more thought and time on the design side of the process for engineers, naturally encouraging them to rebel.  Then when it comes to constructing this form, the unique methods that must be thought up in order to build it entice the construction companies about why they aren't just building a square frame.  It seems that anything outside of the norm brings uncertainty with it, making engineering and construction firms start to worry about whether this project will allow them to turn a profit, and if so, how the profit could be larger if the structure was simpler.
    I am not saying that Corporate America has caused what many describe as the plateau of architectural design, I am merely saying that we as humans naturally resist additional work and that pressure from other professions may have helped subdue the creativity in architecture and the change to this new method of design.  This change is persistent though, and I believe all professions will begin to realize its potential.  The perfect example is the one discussed in class regarding SHoP Architects and the construction of the Barclay Center.  This might currently be my favorite modern project I have heard of, how they were able to disguise a preconceived plan of a pre-existing building and make it look totally different even with the same structural frame.  The creativity involved and the advances in construction techniques used seem to be way ahead of the industry.  As I continued to ponder how this project was done, I think one aspect of the situation that helped SHoP Architects in this case was the fact that they had control over the development, design, and construction of this structure.  There wasn't the same competition of maximizing profits between companies, instead the same company (or sister companies) was working together in order to create a unique structure and at the same time, maximize their own profits.  The architects helped their fellow engineers with the structural design as well as their co-worker construction crews with the methodology of construction, every day.  The single company also knows that it can get uncontested recognition for the work and doesn't have to worry about competing for that from other companies as well.  I think this ultimately leads to innovative solutions to problems and interesting structures.  It was a great example to go over in class and I believe with the continuing advancement of technology, as well as how the three professions and the public will start to realize the benefit of this way of working, we will see a lot more of these types of successful projects in our society.

Image 3: Barclays Center by SHoP Architects

Project 1c - Mt Bearmore

After lots of experimentation this week with my object, I believe I finally have a surface that might turn out pretty good from the 3D printer.  The most interesting part of my experience with modeling this week was that by the end, I felt like the simpler surfaces ended up looking better as polysurfaces and ultimately seemed to be a better form when extruded.  Luckily, if I am wrong and my polysurface is too simple, I have the other ones saved and can quickly switch one out.  I just felt like when the surface folded back in on itself, it no longer seemed like a viable option.  Plus, the final surface that resulted not only has some interesting curvature, but also looks like Mt Rushmore if you squint really hard, therefore coining it the name Mt Bearmore.
   Taking you through my experience this week you will see how my surface didn't really want to be a surface most of the time.  I believe this has to do with the large number of control points that I had modeled my surface with, since when I would scale or rotate my surface in different ways throughout the matrix, there would be fairly significant impacts due to the number of control points and the different directions they wanted to go.  So as a learning experience, if I were to do this again I would try to create my surface with less control points.  Now to walk you through the process that I underwent this week.
   I actually first started this week by trying to model my object in Maya.  I wanted to try out Maya since I had been solely working in Rhino these past couple of weeks.  That went poorly so I didn't save pictures of my bear since it looked like a beach ball.  Just as clarification, it had nothing to do with Maya as a program, just my inexperience with it and the fact that it doesn't like Rhino commands.
   So back to Rhino it was.  If you remember from last week I wasn't thrilled about how the head came out in Rhino as my final surface.  Therefore, I decided to try a new method of modeling my object, one that was recommended in class.  Instead of modeling my object using a number of different surfaces for each feature of the bear's face, I modeled profile lines of the bear's head in hopes to create one overall surface.  This is shown in Image 1:

After creating the surface for it the first time I felt like it actually didn't come out that bad.  It kind of looked like a pig, but a lot of the smoother curves to the bear's face were coming through in the surface.  Plus with some tweaking I would be able to indent the eyes and fix the problem I was having last week.

As I continued to morph my surface, I became aware how sensitive the nose of the bear was to to the different number of control points used when creating the surface.  This, coupled with the fact that I wanted to be able to manipulate the area around the eyes, led me to create the surface with a lot of control points.  I also began to manipulate the surface of the bear's head to see what kind of range of motion it had.

It quickly seemed to me that the most interesting parts of my surface were the curves and lines around the bear's eyes.  This led me to project a number of lines onto that part of the surface, essentially creating a new surface.  This new surface would prove to be much easier to manipulate, while at the same time reacting the most to the manipulation.  At first I also tried to see what kind of difference the different number of control lines would have when lofting the curves in Rhino, and ultimately I chose a lofted surface with a relatively large number of control lines (around 20) just because I thought it looked better.

I started making the matrix of my morphing surface next.  In the pictures below, the bottom right hand corner is the original surface and the middle top edge and the top left corner are the most manipulated surfaces.  As I started going up the first column of my matrix, I was rotating the left side of the bear's face in a 2D plain (from the top view) to see if it had any effect on the right side of his face.  It did not but it did have some pull on the nose.  Not being deterred by the fact that the right side of his face was still in tact, I figured this would be a good place to begin the next set of morphings.  Going up column two (from the right), the right side of the bear's face was now being rotated, but not just in a 2D plain but actually in a 3D plain that I tried to keep as constant as possible.

Column three then continues with a rotation of the nose of the bear since it was the only really recognizable part left.  This rotation I did in more of a vertical plain to see what kind of effect it would have on the surface as it started to double back on itself.  It almost led me to my final polysurface, but I decided it was a little bit too distorted.

So I went back and copied column 1 to column 4 to start relatively fresh.  In this column I stretched and rotated both sides of the bear's face using control points.  It wasn't a very exact method but produced relatively interesting results.  In the final column I tried to make the surface double back on itself again, but less extreme this time.

I picked a couple of my favorite surfaces from the matrix and then started seeing if I could refine them and prepare them for extrusion.  What I found was that most of the one's that I had picked were actually too complex, and by having the surface double back on itself, there were very thin local areas created on the surface.  Since they looked like 3D infinity lines I still thought they were interesting but I ultimately chose a surface that didn't double back on itself.

I went ahead and extruded this surface, and after the first time I could still relatively make out some of the bear's features, such as the nose shown in the image below.  I was left with the final product after scaling it down to size, and actually I scaled it even more than necessary in the Y direction (height) because I felt like it produced a better model.

A Common Theme

    The main thing that I got out of three articles that we had to read this week was the fact that they had a common theme.  In their own way, all three articles tried to emphasize the creative process involved with architecture.  It seemed as if they were saying that these creative aspects of architecture were there once, we had lost touch with them, and now they are seeming to make a comeback.
    In the first article, Inchoate by Angelil, two quotes stuck out to me the most, both about the architectural process of design.  The first one occurs on page 7 and reads "architectural design in its most literal sense may be considered a form of making, a form of production, necessitating analytical and material techniques that are put to work".  By describing architectural design as a form of making, as opposed to a process or calculation, it gives the impression that architectural design is deeply interrelated with art, reminding me that one of architecture's roots was painters and their art.  Also note that the second half of the quote brings in the point that both analytical and material techniques must be utilized.  This importance of material in the design of architecture is another reoccurring comment that is slipped into all three articles (as well as one of the main things I remember from Lisa's, our guest speaker, presentation.
   The second description of the architectural design process that stood out to me in the first article was on page 8 when the author reminds us to examine the "domain of creative work".  Artistic creativity is a critical characteristic of great architects, and it is one that is hard to teach, instead it almost has to be self taught, through things like the study of great works and architectural experience itself.  Then the thought of not just disregarding your "gut feeling" but accepting and analyzing it is brought up.  The saying usually goes "go with your gut feeling" and I think that Angelil reminds us about that since gut feelings are typically right, if your gut tells you that something looks better curved, then there is a good chance that other people will feel the same way.
   The second article, Versioning by SHoP, goes about describing the importance of creativity in architecture by explaining that technology has made it possible for us to again be creative in today's society.  Again I got the impression that SHoP was saying that at one point in our past this creativity was lost, and now with the advances in technology we are once again able to push the boundaries of our designs while being able to conform to the different requirements of our profession such as project budgets and construct-ability.  I did like how the authors defined "versioning" in this article as an attitude as opposed to an ideology and how architects can think or practice across multiple disciples, freely borrowing tactics from film, food, finance, fashion, economics, and politics for use in design.  SHoP is basically telling us to go look for inspiration in our society to get our "creative juices" flowing again.
    One additional random but funny thing (at least to me) that I picked up from the SHoP article is that how it seems they keep describing the architectural blob era as a "dot-blob bust".  I believe this is the second or third time this phrase has come up in SHoP articles that we have read in this semester and I think that SHoP is warning us that while yes we want to revitalize creativity in architecture, we must still remember the importance of construct-ability and that renderings that turn out as "all too image" really don't help us as architects.
    The focus of the third article, Versioning... by Tehrani, was mainly on examples of this new found creativity in modern day architecture.  H&dm work was described as "off the shelf planimetric and sectional relationships borrowed from modern architecture" whereas Gehry's work was described as "extraordinary spatial and formal manipulations clad in metal panels".  He then continues to describe a project where "surface and space are organically linked" and then how Le Corbusier "formulated new spacial, structural, and formal possibilities for architecture".  To me Tehrani is pretty much saying take a look, the technology is here and there are already great examples out there, become inspired by the great new works around you, be more creative and push the boundaries of your work.  It is as if he is giving a little pep talk to our architectural profession as a whole.
    The article continues with again bringing up this importance of the use of material in the design.  Another example is provided as Kahn's Exeter Library and on page 9 Tehrani goes on to explain "the precision of material use and its correspondent connection to syntax" by an example of the use of bricks and geometry (brick patterning).  The last page of the article ties back to the guidance that while creativity in architectural design is very important, construct-ability is even more important and must not be ignored.  The article ends with one of my favorite quotes that I have read in the class thus far, "without the surface, there is no space".  This simply worded but complex thought is all about how we as humans define spaces and bring life to our structural world, and reminding us as architects of how big of an impact we can have on that in our society.