Nature Has Always Been

This weeks readings (Michael Weinstock's, The Architecture of Emergance) reminded me a lot of my visit to the Grand Canyon. An truly breathtaking moment was viewing the Sun as it rose in the morning, stretching it's light across the canyon walls and casting awe inspiring shadows.

Though scale is a major factor in the Grand Canyon's power the truly natural way in which such a structure was developed is beyond fascinating. There were constraints, factors, variables all of which led to the canyon's exact structure (as it stands today) but most of which are not considered. 

Emergent architecture is all around us but the key is harnessing the process and replicating it in a believable/similar fashion. Currently parametric design is somewhat constrained to a copying of sorts. Parts generate and change but they are systemic. Nature is the true emergent process where the variables and constraints are near infinite, yet the result is a single conclusion. As generative design and computational abilities progress I feel true generative (emergent) design will perhaps come closer to a reality; only time will tell. 

A.04

A.04 may seem simple and straight forward but the implications are immense. The thought and process behind creating the framework for this assignment is something that will carry forward into other parametric processes and projects.

Above is the framework for the part. There are rules which govern it's behavior but more simply, govern one aspect of the part. 

Step two is to create a framework which the part will attach and after form an assembly (a group of parts). What is interesting about the framework is there are a separate set of constraints but these constraints govern the body of assembled parts... or a single entity governs the grouping of a mass. Moving forward this process will be valuable.

Finally the parts assembled together. Two things should be considered in at this point. a) how are the objects joined to each other. b) how are the objects joined to the framework. 

The results are fantastic and have a wide range. This ranged is available via the framework. By establishing a set of constraints for the parts themselves, then creating a separate scaffolding where the parts can be aggregated/constrained a new dynamic is developed. 

How Do Simulations Know

They don't. This weeks reading reminded me of specific chapter of Jason Fried's book Rework; Planning is Guessing. Simulations are practical/artificial accounts for "probable futures". That said simulations by no means future, accident, or unforeseen proof a building and its development.

Software isn't a crutch it's a tool, but weighing heavily on that tool with no real premonition means mistakes can (and will) be made, this is why RFI's exists. For all it's noted and accounted failures software simulations truly deserve a heavy amount of credit. As noted by the reading CCTV would have possibly been impossible without computer simulations. 

Like most things in life I see it as a give and take, computers are not the end all be all omnipotent gods we wish (and program them to be) they were. Instead they are inherently tied to human hands and thus prone to possible failure. Simulations are simply that, a fauxation of the real ma-coy. They are also pretty damn cool considering the progress from a pen to paper to a complete technical read out/ prediction. So yes I will utilize and ravel in simulations, but I will also keep in the back of my mind that what I am seeing is not reality.  

A.03

'Piping' as I'll refer to this assignment was somewhat difficult. Digital Project would not cooperate with me which led to many frustrating hours wrestling with my desired results. The 3 parts which compromised the piping composition were rather simplistic, but the assembly itself had some rather radical/pleasing results.

Part_01 was rather simple. The solid extrusion worked well.

Part_02 gave me some trouble, but I appreciated Digital Projects inherent ability to recognize/union two solids, very cool.

Part_03 was another more narrow solid extrusion (this time it was constructed with the "rib" tool)

The final assembly with a 15 degree parameter between the two 'guidelines

Review of Digital Design And Manufactoring

The basic information covered in the excerpt from Digital Design and Manufacturing was informative but a bit banal. It's great to know the mathematical principals that are governing the systems and tools we (architects) use every day, but ultimately the depth required by those systems is beyond my interests. 

I understand math is a fundamental part of design but design is not holistically governed by arithmetic. The manufacturing and explanation of the different modes of casting, shelling, etc. are tentalating, I enjoy the manufacturing side of parts and components and I often find myself wondering how certain components are pieced together within a building system; typically the answer is not found in the blueprints but rather the shop drawings. 

The precision, accuracy, and rigor poured into shop drawings and their explicit specifications is a beautiful thing. Once again I enjoy this world and peering/wading in a bit, but ultimately it somewhat goes beyond the scope of my interests as an architect. There are a number of variables and systems which compromise the tools and methods which correlate with the architectural field and I am overjoyed that research is expanding those tools capabilities. 

A.02

For the second assignment I started with my base plan from A.01

The goal for A.02 was to create a 3D loft which could respond parametrically based on the parameters and constraints established in plan.

To create the 3D object I first created a spline with 4 equally spaced points. This spline would be used to establish the different plane locales.

Once the spline was created multiple plans were established at the evenly spaced points.

The plan from A.01 was then copied at these different planes

The plans were then lofted.

Finally I experimented with the split/trim command creating 3 voids from the original XY plane.