Frame vs. Object

I decided to look at the relationship between a frame and an object as that of two planets orbitting around one another. (Or of a sun and a planet) One exerts a gravitational pull on the other and therefore has an effect on its path. In this case the frame is the small planet revolving around the model which is the sun. The various undulations and folds on the surface of the model changes the force attraction or the repulsion on the frame.

 

Contemporary Techniques in Architecture

-The future is undecided, is unbound by its past and is accretive-

After reading the article Contemporary Techniques in Architecture – a discussion by Ali Rahim on contemporary architectural techniques, a strong image formed in my mind. A thin aluminum plate is placed on a site. Various forces that are present on the site would bend the aluminum plate in different directions. For example predominant winds on the site would stretch the plate in one direction, while the flow of traffic along the site pulls the plate in a different direction. This would cause the thickness of the plate to vary at certain areas and thus even become transparent.

This seems to be the contemporary technique being described in the article. The final result of this method could vary depending on the initial form of the operand object. Therefore based on the initial input we would be able to generate an infinite number of unique solutions to a design problem.

The flexibility of this process is also fascinating. By carefully choosing the forces that operate on the object, we could generate an architecture that is purely functional or formal.

However I would like to question one aspect of this method. It appears that for the purpose of this process, the past, the present and the future have to be clearly distinct. In fact the future is merely a product of the past and the present and therefore cannot be predicted beforehand. Then is this not a purely linear process? I have always been advised about the importance of recursion in architectural process - situations where the future might actually influence the present. Where does the recursive process come into play in this method?

This article also reminds me of a video I have experienced a few weeks ago... Let me know what you think. 

Nurbz modeling in FormZ

After connecting the dots on sketchUp, I was able to import the lines in to FromZ and drape a thin surface over the lines. I found that depending on the modeling tool I used (ie. nurbz or loft etc.) the final result would vary from one another. Here are some of the models I created.   

This was the final model I picked

Two things that should have been posted in the beginning. 

For people who might not be familiar with the project, I am attempting to track the motion of the person in the video and transform it into a tangible space. The still image shows how the motion was broken down into a series of still frames.  

So I decided to take a different approach to create this model. Let me know what you think. 

The lines were created in sketchup. I know that doesn't sound very sophisticated, but it was the only program that gave me equal manipulative capacity on both lines AND images. 

I stacked the images in their sequential order, and then tracked the motion of the hands head and feet. The next step would be to import the lines to formZ or Maya and to drape a surface over them. 

axonometric

top

front

These were my first attempts at the 3d model representing the human motion captured earlier. But I'm starting to realize that the decontexualization of the human body is leaving me with a purely linear interpretation of the occupied space. I might have to take a step back and create an overlap of the individual frames. Or maybe I could use this to think look at this space in a different way.  

So in the mean time I welcome your comments. What I have done so far is, trace motion of the person's head, navel and foot from both angles. Somehow I need to connect the two axes into three. Stay tuned for updates.

An Intrinsic Architecture

When I first became an architecture student, my understanding of it was very limited. Architecture was simply the convergence of art and science to my naïve mind. Over the years though, I’ve come to learn a thing or two. I learned there is so much more to it than making cool looking objects or designing well proportioned spaces. (Sure it sounds cliché, but that’s how my mind worked)

Even now I occasionally struggle to differentiate good architecture from bad architecture. So I had come up with a way to digest complex solutions by looking at how well they acknowledge or employ the intrinsic qualities of materials. Think of carving something out of wood for example. Through my wood carving experience I know that chiseling along the grain of wood will give me a smooth surface while chiseling against the grain might chip the block of wood. Therefore an experienced sculptor could use this knowledge of the material to create various combinations of textures on the sculpture. Keep in mind though I’m using the term materials very loosely. The material could be the building material, the site plane, the urban texture or even the form of an object. (I’m open to suggestions for alternate terms instead of materials).

Therefore one way for a piece of architecture to be successful -in my mind- is to understand and to utilize the grain of the material in favorable ways. This would lead to something I call an Intrinsic Architecture, because the knowledge needed to create the final product was intrinsic to or embedded in the material.

Now that I have explained my overview of architecture I will try to explain what -if anything- it has to do with the reading. In Animate Form, Gregg Lynn explains that too often architects tend to roam in the three dimensional world and to ignore the fourth architectural dimension of force. (Let’s ignore Einstein for a little bit) But due to the introduction of force we also have to look at time, since it requires a change in time for forces to take have effect. So it is possible to think of force as the grain in architecture. A clear understanding of change due to forces is necessary to create folds, bodies and blobs.

The example Lynn uses in the article by that name, about the symbiosis of the wasps and the orchids made a strong impression on me. Nature was somehow able to calibrate their attraction to join the two entities in a commensal relationship. Could this level of appreciation or understanding be used in architecture?

I can think of several examples, but Richard Meir’s San Jose City Hall might be a good example. The brie soliel that follows the motion of the sun on the entrance dome is what first came to my mind. Much like a sunflower it rotates around the dome providing shade from the sun at all times. Or the west façade of a building with a shading system that utilizes the change in amount of sunlight to constantly change its façade is another example. (More sunlight = more shades in the down position: less sunlight = more shades in the open position)

The concept of time is essential in all these examples, and the ones Gregg Lynn describes in his articles. My goal in ARCH 670 is to utilize the computer and its four dimensional modeling abilities to understand the grain of time as it relates to architecture.