Design
computation and in recent years particularly parametrics and scripting have
opened up a vast array of possibilities for creative minds to approach design
problems in unprecedented ways. Taking advantage of the rule based approach
computational design offers, many architects have done what they do best:
exploring the possibilities of new tools at hand by testing the grounds in a
playful and investigatory manner.
Most
commercially available CAD support prior to the advent of parametrics or
scripting has been mainly deterministic - either focusing on the replication of
manual drafting tasks more efficiently, or assisting with visualisation. Parametric design and scripting on the other
hand has now proven its worth in allowing architects, engineers and others to
explore their concepts in an open-ended manner. They can define dependencies in
a model that then orchestrate the interplay of criteria and constraints that
govern geometrical behaviour and help to assess performative responses.
Since the
early days of parametric design, the constraint based approach to modelling
allowed users to generate multiple highly differentiated and complex-looking
variations for morphological experiments.
The problem with such experiments was that many of those conducting them
seemed to be satisfied with producing seductive topologies that lacked deeper
engagement with the ‘why’ aspect; thereby missing out on the potential of
rule-based design for more substantial and useful applications. This resulted
ever more similar looking and repetitive geometrical outcomes that included
various themes of ‘smooth’ variation and repetition with little regard to
materiality, constructability, or even the purpose of the parametric
exploration. In that sense parametric design became a style rather than a
design approach, which is best exemplified with Patrik Schumacher’s use of ‘Parametricism’.
At the same
time, there are those designers who see the potential for using computational
design for addressing specific design problems as they occur in everyday
practice – being it ‘tame’ (well defined) or ‘wicked’ (more complex, open
ended) ones. The use of parametrics in this context is often less motivated by geometrical
experimentation for formal reasons, but by creating an array of informed design
variations that relate to a specific goal or context. These variations could be
used to optimise the configuration of building components based on clearly
quantifiable constraints, or they could be applied to search for satisficing
geometrical solutions that address physical building performance. An example of the former would be the
versioning of a stair and its railings, whereas an example of the latter would
be the design of a sun-screen that helps to optimise daylight levels while
avoiding sunlight-glare. This ‘humble’ use of parametrics can apply to a
complex topological surface as much as it applies to a ‘standard’ modernist building.
It is not a question of style, but rather a question of adequacy of using a the
right design tool for a specific purpose.
In recent
years software developers have searched to extend the parametric features of
their tools to also allow for more fundamental geometrical configurations to
become rule-based. Autodesk has merged some of the environmental analysis
functions from its ECOTECT tool into a parametric modeling framework based on
REVIT via VASARI, we now also see multiple plugins for McNeel’s
Rhino/Grasshopper environment to link to structural (SALAMANDER/KARAMBA) and
energy analysis (GECO).
The
examples shown in this blog entry stem from an undergraduate class I ran at
SIAL in Melbourne who’s design brief included the implementation of the same
project brief for a client at two climatically diverse locations in Australia.
Students tested their design skills when combining parametric optimisation with
environmental analysis to optimise the configuration of their proposals.
No comments:
Post a Comment