Simon Giang

Monday, 29 June 2015

Sunday, 28 June 2015

FINAL SUBMISSION: BRIDGE

TYRANT

School of Computational Architecture

EARLY APOLOGY:

Due to the endless malfunctions of SketchupConverter.exe, Lumion could not be utilized for rendering hence different approaches have been made via submission. Sorry for the inconvenience

MASHUP

The dominant mode of utilizing computers in architecture today is that of computerization; entities or processes that are already conceptualized in the designer’s mind are entered, manipulated, or stored on a computer system. In contrast, computation or computing, as a computer-based design tool is generally limited. The problem with this situation is that designers do not take advantage of the computational power of the computer. We have seen a growing interest in parametric design as it offers a new approach to architecture based on advanced computational design techniques. As parametricism becomes a tool more designers are turning toward, is this method beginning to define the style of our time? In an effort to identify our architectural style to allow it to be recognized, Patrik Schumacher, a partner at Zaha Hadid, has communicated his beliefs in his Parametricist Manifesto. “As a style, parametricism is marked by its aims, ambitions, methodological principles, and evaluative criteria, as well as by its characteristic formal repertoire.” Before a given specific discipline can begin to gain from the use of virtual environments, more than just casting old assumptions into mathematical form is necessary. In many cases the assumptions themselves need to be modified. Urban landscape will be more varied, as the need for homogeneous/repeated structure goes away. So large office buildings with identical stacked meeting spaces and cubicles will get reconstructed into more interesting organic spaces, maybe in some cases leaving the exteriors intact. What is exciting about this new style is that parametricism offers a flexible set of components to manipulate, which leads to an infinite amount of variation.

http://www.archdaily.com/64581/parametricist-manifesto-patrik-schumacher
Menges, A & Ahlquist, S 2011, Computational design thinking, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester & UK
http://au.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2010/december/08/the-real-will-come-to-resemble-the-virtual-philip-rosedale-talks-to-phaidon-com/

18 PERSPECTIVES

36 CUSTOM TEXTURES

MOVING ELEMENTS

DRAFT+DEVELOPMENT

FINAL

RHINO FILE: uploading...

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Final Submission: Marker

TWO CONCEPTS
Architect 1: SOU FUJIMOTO
- To produce an organic and ultimately, an aesthetically pleasing architecture; Fujimoto implements intricacy in the arrangements of similar geometries rather than the complexity of geometries themselves

- His architecture seems extremely delicate and frail hence presumably abandons the traditional concept of tectonics; the art of interrelating architecture and engineering.

- The prominent use of plain white sub assemblies makes his architecture appear to be like a digital model.

- His works possess the notion of being incomplete and underdeveloped to evoke a sense of limitless possibilities and architectural potential.

-Fujimoto intends to design architecture that interacts with the environment so transparency to induce exposure of was extremely important.

Architect 2: FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT

- Wright’s architecture incorporates ornament-free exterior and advocates the traditional idea of tectonics and structural integrity.

- He evokes simple structural organisation with prominent use of horizontal elongated layout.

- The interior plan is extremely spacious as inspired by modern architecture.

- Wright integrates his architecture into the environment to emphasize both the landscape and the aesthetics of his work.

- His architecture can be perceived as dynamic since the whole exteriors appear differently as the climate of the environment change.

MASH-UP STATEMENT
To achieve an organic and complex architectural structure as my marker; I decided to implement complex arrangements of simplistic geometries to arouse the interrelation between these paradoxical notions. These geometries would include both slim, delicate prisms and thick elongated prisms. This is to evoke the aesthetic impact from the combining of such opposing geometries.

18 SKETCH AXONOMETRICS