How should architects in the UK prepare themselves for a new future? What are the implications of globalisation upon the practice of architecture? Will BIM allow us adapt to the shifts of capital to exploit new opportunities, as we will suggest here? What technologies and methodologies are required to deal with finite resources and a increasing loss of skilled workforce? What innovations to practice are needed to achieve competencies and sustainable business ventures?

This paper will deal primarily within the realm of innovation and technologies which are due to become necessity in the future at hand, both in terms of the act of construction and the practice of architecture as a profession. Furthermore, we will discuss the implications of the advances in CAD/CAM technologies upon and within the roles of; the architect, the ARB, the RIBA and the client. We will review three key components which look to shift our current paradigms, subverting the current methodologies we employ within the building industry; firstly, we will review the impact of BIM, secondly, explore new forms of construction technologies in the form of ‘additive fabrication’ methods, thirdly, we will discuss the agenda of ‘design-build’, in respect to procurement. Furthermore, we will look to a practice which has implemented all the above technologies within their business model.

In 1946, George Devol and Joseph Engelberger designed “the first programmable robot arm” [Bock 2009, p. 3]. This was a turning point in the automation of industrialisation, via robotics. In 1963, Ivan Sutherland at MIT developed Sketchpad, on the premise that “computer aided design tools were intended to support a design process” [Mark et al. 2008, p. 170]. This was a turning point in the computerisation of technical drawings within the profession. In the 1980s, the Japanese construction industry applied robotics to the construction of buildings, due to a shrinking workforce, the causes of which were; “ lack of skilled labor, dangerous-dirty-dull working conditions, no cheap foreign workforce available, high accident and death rates, poor construction quality, time and cost overrun and poor image of construction and building trades in the public opinion” [Bechthold 2010, p. 119]. This has established a comprehensive set of robotics which haven’t seen full utilisation since the economic downturn of Japan in the late 1980, when these technologies were put on hold. The introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM) looks to present another turning point within the architectural industry. A dramatic development as 3-D modelling is increasingly being coupled with the automated robotic machines developed in the 1980. As research and development into these new technologies continues, new construction technologies present to great opportunities for architects, of which ‘additive fabrication’ methods look the most promising. With the current economic downturn and the implementation of CAD/CAM technologies and other digital fabrication, we may see a paradigm shift in regard to services and delivery of architecture in the future, the agenda of ‘design-build’ may become more intensified.

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate novel methodologies and new organisational cultures within the practice of architecture and propose alternative business methodologies, for the future relevance of the Architect. These alternatives may prove to not only sustain our position, but may also prove to enhance or re-establish our standing within the hierarchy of the construction industry. Certainly the aim is to realign with our clients, who themselves have shifted in demographic.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Practice

David Celento in Innovate or Perish: New Technologies and Architecture’s Future [2010], centers his discussion of how architects may improve architecture’s marketplace success. He explains that a primary cause of the architects diminishing impact, is that we “are among the very few providing custom design services in a product-infatuated society. […] few clients posses an understanding of the efforts necessary to create custom products, and even fewer are willing to adequately finance them.” [Celento 2010, p. 57]. Primarily then the impact of the reliance upon mass-produced goods has conditioned the expectations of clients, and they “lack an understanding of the complexity of creating anything tailor-made.” [Celento 2010, p. 59].
Reflecting further on the current client, Urs Gauchat in The $300,000/Year Architect [2009], goes onto describe a fundamental shift in the typology of client, and therein highlights the differing criteria and values clients use to inform their experiences and workings, in comparison to traditional notions of the clients (that of the aristocrat or of the entrepreneur). The client now is composed of; “private equity firms, hedge funds, real-estate investment trusts (REITs) and other financial institutions” [Gauchat 2009, p. 34]. Within this shift we see the emergence of a new set of values. Values which inform the client behaviour, and how they measure the success of a project. This poises an interesting problem, as Celento explains, we as architects have judged our success in qualitative means, however this set of entities are driven via quantitative measures, the markets and flow of capital are inherent to the fundamental operations of these clients.
Therein as the complexity of building increases, we are seeing client alienation, due to two main factors, both the result of globalisation. Firstly, their exposure to mass-produced goods, and secondly, their quantitative methods of how to rate success. We as architects must address these fundamental factors, if we are to have any future in a global market place. The following section when presents how inventions such as BIM are beginning to address the latter shortfall, by establishing a framework of sophisticated 5-D modelling solutions, and presents further implementations and advances of BIM, and reviews the required changes to the codes of practice.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) fundamentally entails a 3-D modelling infrastructure, furthermore databases maybe integrated within these virtual models. 4-D models integrate aspects of costing and scheduling, were as 5-D models encapsulate phasing and time. BIM, is well established within the USA, with the UK lagging significantly behind. The body which administers BIM in the USA is the General Services Administration (GSA) which is a national program to compile accurate information on projects. Similarly in the UK the Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC) operates parallel responsibilities to that of the GSA. BIM may become particularly relevant as Paul Morell, the Construction Minister, has recently recommended that BIM may become a compulsory condition in the procurement of all public building projects. [Winston 2010].
The official definition of BIM recognised by RIBA & the CPIC, was published by Keith Snook, the RIBA Director of Research & Technology, in 2009. The RIBA has defined BIM, as the following [Snook 2009, p. 01];

“Building Information Modelling is digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility creating a shared knowledge resource for information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle, from earliest conception to demolition.”

A key advantage to BIM is the extent of previsualisation it allows prior to construction, BIM “diminishes ambiguity, reduces errors, and generates savings for clients” [Gauchat 2009, p. 35]. As can be seen from fig.1 and fig.2 the design process is directly effected by the implementation of BIM, creating feedback loops into the process to allow for a more simultaneous input, making the whole process much more non-linear and adaptive to change. For instance, should any constraint within the project change, the model maybe updated, with all changes captured automatically within associated 2-D drawings, schedule and costings, all updated in parallel.

Predominantly though, the abilities of BIM to address key considerations of the financial institutions, imply that it will become further embedded within the construction industry as a standard benchmark. As is elaborated on by Gauchat; “BIM removes uncertainty and therefore reduces risk. Owners, financial institutions and investors alike have a pathological dislike for unknowns and concomitant risks, thus the added value provided by architects using BIM justifies higher fees and even their possible participation in the economics of building development projects.” [Gauchat 2009, p. 35]. BIM, may present a catalyst for redefining collaboration within the design team and with contractors, furthermore BIM entails changes to architects themselves, to better adapt their internal management processes to ensure correct working, efficiency and quality of service. Fig 3, depicts the organisation structure which the practice, Skidmore Owings Merrill (SOM), have developed to enable full integration, of BIM, within their existing architectural design processes. Therein 3-D modelling is linked to various database systems, for costing and scheduling purposes. Such a framework utilises 3-D models at a fundamental level and proves useful for the conception and delivery, or creation and execution, of a project.

The British Standard, which incorporates specifications for BIM is BS1192. BS1192 focuses not only on BIM but expands upon the infrastructure provided by BIM and provides clear guidelines for ‘model data collaboration’ [ScottWilson 2009]. This standard sets out advantages and benefits for modelling techniques as opposed to drawing, however it lays the foundations for addressing large disparities between the sharing, distribution and collaboration of construction information between members of the design team.
BIM, is currently being tested on Europe largest infrastructure project, Crossrail. Which makes use of the BS1192-5:2007 code of practice for managing the production, distribution and quality of construction information [ScottWilson 2009]. The Crossrail project itself is based on it very own Act of Parliament, with a budget of £16 Billion, and effecting 37 existing station, both within London Underground ltd (LUL) and Network Rail (NR). This project has an extremely high level of complexity, both within the design and construction aspects of the project. Here the trial of BS1192, will establish what are known as Integrated Building Information Model (iBIM), or Integrated Product Delivery (IPD), which present the next level of multi-model integration, a infrastructure by which to share data and information.

The criteria and values of the education of young architects will play a particularly important role, if the above code of practice is to be realised. The ARB and the RIBA hold a particularly important role in terms of achieving a competent skill base within the profession of architecture. As Gauchat discusses, the misconception of BIM drives a ‘work as usual’ approach to BIM, however the process requires new skills and more comprehensive training;

“Many view BIM primarily as a software program. This is based on the assumption that ‘CAD jockeys’ would merely be replaced by ‘BIM jockeys’. Instead, the use of BIM to its full potential will require very high levels of skill, experience and judgement. The traditional draughtsman or junior architect of yore is not in a position to simultaneously design and evaluate a myriad interlocking decisions.” [Gauchat 2010, p. 35].

A fully iterate operator of BIM, will however also need to address complex decision making tasks, therefore this role must most likely be played by an architect. As; “[t]he integration of design decisions, cost implications and construction feasibility requires an inordinate ability and a highly elevated level of responsibility.” [Gauchat 2010, p. 35]. Taking this position further the role, importance and responsibilities of architects will increase ten fold. Leading to a general increase in salaries and position within the hierarchy of construction; “The added economic value they [the architect] can provide should elevate their salaries to the equivalents of those of top lawyers and doctors.” [Gauchat 2010, p. 35]. The dominant reasons for the demand of BIM to increase is due, in part, to influences of the flow of capital globally, as is discussed by Gauchat; “they [clients] are driven by sophisticated analyses rather than ego or pride of ownership; they are shrewd and constantly compare real-estate investments with alternative and potentially more productive uses of capital.” [Gauchat 2010, p. 34].

The above considerations all lead to better accountability, predictability and costing etc. They allow for what is termed as ‘cost-to-action’ associated decision making.

Construction Technologies: Additive Fabrication Methods

Previously, we have already discussed two primary effects of globalisation upon clients, our client’s exposure to mass-produced goods and their quantitative methods of rating success. Both may have certainly lead to the increased marginalisation of the Architect. Furthermore, Joshua Prince-Ramus of REX architects, formally the OMA office in NY, has commented on the increased complexity and litigiousness of the construction industry, in tandem within this the liabilities have also increased. As a result “as we have faced liability, we have stepped back […] unfortunately where there is liability there is power. So eventually we have found ourselfs in a totally marginalised position” [Prince-Ramus 2009]. To Prince-Ramus, the architect is primarily to blame, moreover he describes how in the fact we have created a major problem in that; “We actually created an artificial schism between creation and execution, as if you could actually create without knowing how to execute and as if you could actually execute without knowing how to create.” [Prince-Ramus]. Prince-Ramus provides a hint as to how we, as architects, may tackle this issue;
“We need to stitch back creation and execution. And we need to start authoring processes again, instead of authoring objects.” [Prince-Ramus]. The following section then looks to CAD/CAM and digital fabrication technologies which may prove to provide a catalyst to ‘stitch back creation and execution’.

Neil Leach and Behrokh Khoshnevis in Contour Crafting: A revolution in concrete construction [2010], have discussed the advantages and opportunities of additive fabrication methods, via Khoshnevis’s patented Contour Crafting technology. They discuss the issues Contour Crafting may tackle by setting out the following [Khoshnevis and Leach 2009, p. 168];

“[...] the construction industry today is reported as facing the following serious problems:

a) low labor efficiency
b) high rates of accidents on construction sites
c) low quality of workmanship
d) insufficient control of construction
e) reduction of skills within workforce”

For us to discuss the conditions of the construction industry as a complex problem, in parallel to considering our own marginalisation, we must address the current shortfalls facing the industry, primarily safety and cost concerns, whilst looking to novel technologies which provide the Architect the abilities to negotiation the convergence of conception and execution. One technology currently being developed which may prove to provide a framework for such explorations are the ‘additive fabrication’ methods.
The reasons for this technology to become more prevalent in the future is that they directly address those criteria of the financial institutions, our primary client base. There are several advantages of this potential technology, from sustainability to a dramatic reduction of standard raw materials for construction. However, the primary capability and ultimately the reason for any potential full-scale realisation is the framework of this method, which is dependant upon the integration of CAD/CAM technologies with 3-D modelling, such integration provides mechanisms that transform construction into a defined and precise industry. Whilst the increasing complexification of buildings and the finite resources at our disposal, these novel technologies utilise additive fabrication methods, in contrast to traditional or reductive methods in which material is removed and waste produced, additive fabrication operates via precise layering (or addition) of material, therein such a process operates on a ‘as needed’ use of material basis, reducing in some cases the waste material by 1/5 [Leach and Khoshnevis 2010]. Furthermore these processes also hold extreme financial advantages and benefits, even over the savings found in the relatively well established ‘prefabrication industry’, the promise of reductions in cost has been shown to be between 30%-50% [Leach and Khoshnevis 2010, Monolite UK 2010], furthermore the the process allows a relative ability to cost precisely material usage.

The D-shape (see fig 4 and fig 5) fabrication technology is a primary exemplar to the additive fabrication process, the technology has been developed for the possible application of space station creation on the moon, therein has been developed within the strictest criteria used for space craft standard calculations, as such the process must be clearly defined and precise; both in terms of time, cost and material usage. Attaching such parameter to the process enables a novel understanding of knowable quantitative values, enabling the adaptation of this technology within the market-driven decision making of financial institutions.

The future of ‘additive fabrication’ holds the potential for “integrate expensive nuisance items like: mechanical chases, extruded plumbing channels, and conduits complete with electricity slurries.” [Celento 2010, p. 61]. Thereby some of the production line benefits, of reduction in cost and higher quality, seen in volumetric prefabricated technologies, may become more accessible to the capabilities of ‘additive fabrication’ in the near future.

Shifts in delivery: the ‘design-build’ agenda

“Throw away the rulebook” [Chaszar and Glymph 2010, p. 88]

Often the rise of new procurement routes have been the result of dramatic shifts in economic capital, directly or indirectly. The relationship between economic capital and the construction industry in part has been sustained via changes in contracts and procurement, to adapt to changing conditions. In the current condition of globalisation we have witnessed a period of rapid evolution of forms of contract, in an effort to remain competitive and increasingly more sensitive to financial institutions, to whom free-market ecology has required a steadily increased dependants upon sophisticated analysis to limit risk. With the integration of CAD/CAM and BIM we may see a paradigm shift within the business models and delivery of buildings by architects. It is proposed here that the ‘design-build’ agenda will increasing establish itself as the a leading paradigm within architecture.

Chaszar and Glymph, point to the industrial design processes, the aircraft and automotive industries, which “tend to encompass the entire conception and production in-house, with only limited outsourcing.” [Chaszer and Glymph 2010, p. 87]. Within our discussion of CAD/CAM technologies and virtual 3-D modelling, new agendas may come to play within the procurement of building projects. In particular, we have drawn upon the agenda of ‘design-build’ as a polemic which Architects may rapidly adapt in an effort to establish their own abilities of execution as well as create. Furthermore they discuss; “[r]ethinking the procurement process required to fully exploit CAD/CAM’s advantages leads generally to design-build as the preferred paradigm, in which many of the customary defensive obstacles are mitigated or eliminated by sharing financial risk and reward” [Chaszer and Glymph 2010, p. 88].

Case Study: FACIT

The previous chapters discussed two primary technologies and their impact upon the methodologies employed within architectural practice. They established the realm of novel modelling systems, or BIM, which allow for better negotiation of the complexities of both design and construction, and achieve ‘cost-to-action’ decision making. They also explored new CAD/CAM technologies still under development, and discussed the opportunities and impact these construction technologies could have upon the construction industry, both in terms of reducing risk and achieving precision within costing and use of material. They also introduced the ‘design-build’ agenda, exploring the relevance of procurement to achieve competencies within an ever changing economic market place. Drawing upon this basis, this chapter will analyse and evaluate a case study, of a practice which has already implemented all of the above technologies.

FACIT, is a small sized practice located in the Hoxton/Shoreditch area of London, headed by Nick Willson, Bruce Bell and Dominic McCausland. The practices primary aim is to achieve and provide an integrated ‘design-build’ service to clients. As Bruce Bell explains; “we see the major issue in Architecture in general is the fragmentation of design and construction teams. Multiple contracts combined with multiple and differing commercial interests is not in the interests of the client or conducive to realising a good end product.” [Bell 2010, p. 1]. Moreover, Bell argues the models employed by the manufacturing industry, “where one single company is responsible for both the design and manufacture of the product” [Bell 2010, p. 1], results in a superior product/service for both architect and client. Bell, Gauchat and Celento all cite Boeing, as exemplar to full integration of a ‘design-build’ agenda with technologies such as BIM and CAD/CAM being utilised to achieve extreme precision and efficiency (see fig 6).

“A company, product and service in one, we bring together bespoke design, manufacture and fabrication of homes into a single, simple solution.” [Facit UK 2010].

The solution adopted ( see fig 7 and fig 8 ) by FACIT, integrates advanced technologies with a simple criteria to their design process [Facit 2010];

“1)Immerse the client into the 3D design process.
2)Design the project all on computer (every last screw hole) & integrating all the services.
3)Assemble into lightweight blocks that one or two people can pick up un aided by expensive cranes.
4)Assemble rapidly on site like block of lego. ”

Bell also describes how CAD/CAM tools challenges the conventions of architecture, as automation makes it possible for architects to design and fabricate in parallel. Reflecting on the comments of Prince-Ramus, the automation and precision of CAM technologies for designers to make stuff, bridges the gap between creation and execution. This would seem to be supported by Bell, who states; “the nature of our digital tools is forcing this change through – when a designer makes a digital file and sends it away to be fabricated who is responsible for the making? The answer is surely the designer, as no human hand will touch the item and the machine is controlled at a distance by the designer. All of a sudden all these designers are actually making stuff, but we havent quite figured out how to take this on board – if we are making stuff not just designing stuff we need to be paid for it too. Hence the Facit business model.” [Bell 2010, p. 1].

The FACIT business model, integrates the uses of advanced CAD/CAM technologies to manage quality and establish a defined construction process. As a practice, FACIT, engages both with the creation and execution of a project. Therein the Architect is able to provide the client; a full ‘design-build’ service. As Bruce Bell states; “Our initial task at Facit is to develop a business model that allows us as a small company to both design and manufacture our houses directly for the client, and it seems to be working out so far.”

Conclusion: Proposed Reassertion of the Master Builders

This paper has demonstrated some novel technologies emerging within architectural practice. The integration of these technologies may provide several advantages of the current conventions of practice:

The full realisation of the BS1192 code of practice has the potential to revolutionise design coordination (via BIM), more dramatically though this code may also provide the mechanisms for dealing directly with the major issue of collaboration of construction information (via iBIM).

Full utilisation of 3-D modelling techniques will ensure better interpretation, these models will be the new standard by which to communicate, test and realise construction projects. Enabling ‘cost-to-action’ decision making. The further integration of CAD/CAM technologies for automated manufacturing, may prove to completely remove the need for interpretation, as ‘design-build’ agendas bulge.

Overall, we may see practice providing ‘design-build’ services, as well as, others at the larger scale adopt more specialised 5-D modelling techniques and iBIM procedures, to achieve profits via extreme integration of highly efficient processes and previsualisation for collaboration and coordination of project data.

We must remain objective, there are differing scales of practice and business. Certainly the large multi-disciplinary offices are evolving intelligent and specialised systems (such as iBIM) to bridge the gap between the practice of architecture and the financial markets, belaying fears via sophisticated analysis and ‘cost-to-action’ associated decision making. Furthermore, the smaller to medium offices have great opportunities in the rapidly developing technologies within fabrication, embracing existing capabilities in CAD/CAM technologies to realise a ‘design-build’ delivery. Such design-build practices, as FACIT, will be the first to perhaps establish the new form of ‘master-builder’, to “stitch back creation and execution” [Prince-Ramus 2009]. Ultimately, the paradigm shift we will see is the transformation of how architects value their work and business; moving from the qualitative, to the quantitative data with which our new client base will be far more comfortable and in so doing architects will employ tools with which to better manage the complexity of building.

Bibliography

Bechthold, M., (2010) The Return of the Future, A Second Go at Robotic Construction. In: The New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies. Architectural Design, Vol. 80, No. 4. West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons. pp 161-121.

Bock, T., (2009) Turning Points in Construction. In: 26th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. IAARC.

Bell, B., bbell@facit-uk.com, (2010) Comments on FACIT and practice business agenda. [E-mail] Message to P. Drewello (p.drewello@gmail.com). Sent Monday 06 December 2010, 11:06. Available at: Appendix [Accessed 06 December 2010].

Celento, D., (2010) Innovate or Perish: New Technologies and Architecture Future. In: Corser, R. (ed.), Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. pp 56-82.

Chaszar, A., and Glymph, J., (2010) CAD/CAM In the Business of Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. In: Corser, R. (ed.), Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. pp 86-92.

Winston, A., (2010) BIM ot become part of public procurement process. Available from [http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/uk/bim-to-become-part-of-public-procurement-process/] [Accessed 25 November 2010].

Facit, (2010) FACIT. [website] Available at: [http://www.facit-uk.com] [Accessed 19 November 2010].

Gauchat, U., (2009) The $300,000/Year Architect. In: Closing the Gap. Architectural Design, Vol. 79, No. 2. West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons. pp 32-37.

Garber, R., (2009) Optimisation Stories: The Impact of Building Modelling on Contemporary Design Practice. In: Closing the Gap. Architectural Design, Vol. 79, No. 2. West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons. pp 6-13.

Khoshnevis, B., and Leach, N., (2010) Contour Crafting: A revolution in concrete construction. In: Estevez, A., (ed.) Genetic Architectures III: new bio and digital techniques. Sites Books, Barcelona.

Mark, E., and Gross, M., and Goldschmidt, G., (2008) A Perspective on Computer Aided Design after Four Decades. In: eCAADe 26, 04. pp 169-176.

Monolite UK, (2010) D-Shape. [website] Available at: [http://www.d-shape.com] [Accessed 18 November 2010].

PriceWaterHouseCoopers, (2009) The future of UK manufacturing: Report of its death are greatly exaggerated. Available from [http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/the_future_of_manufacturing.html] [Accessed 12 November 2010].

Prince-Ramus, J., (2009) Building a theater that remakes itself. TEDxSMU Talks, Dallas. Available from [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joshua_prince_ramus_building_a_theater_that_remakes_itself.html] [Accessed 09 December 2010].

Snook, K., (2009) Drawing is Dead – Long Live Modelling. [internet]. Available from [http://www.riba-knowledgecommunities.com/pg/file/keiths1/read/1247/drawing-is-dead-long-live-modelling] [Accessed 03 December 2010].

ScottWilson, (2009) Crossrail – Case study BS1192:2007. Available from [http://www.buildoffsite.com/pdf/scott%20wilson%20bim%206%20may.pdf] [Accessed 10 November 2010].

The SLS fabrication technology required the 3D model be converted into a unified polygonal mesh (as an STL format). The conversion into STL proved a difficult process as the model complexity needed to be reduced in order to achieve a printable file. The use of parametric variation again allowed for a reduction in the complexity and enabled a streamlining of the work-flow. Several model files were rejected by the SLS fabrication facility due to tolerances and errors in the STL model file, however these issues were eventually overcome and the final physical model was produced.

The physical model represents a captured frame of the virtual model. Although the production tolerances resulted in delays in the fabrication, the physical model was achieved to minimum tolerances of the SLS technology. The final diameter of the strands measuring approx 1.25 mm.

This project has acted as a test bed to experience the full process inherent in the design-build agenda of an artefact, or object. This process has illustrated the shortcoming and issues with such novel production technologies, however the opportunities and potential of these systems to change the production of buildings remains great. The future of such fabrication technologies may allow for the complete production of structures and buildings, as is evident in the work of projects such as D-shape.

The technologies explored here, and the digital design process as inherent processes which are relevant to the production of complex components within current architectural practice. Therefore the aim within the studio design project is to explore further such technologies and look to integrate them within the thematic driver used for the reprocessing of the landscape.

Generative processes establish the exploration of infinite possibilities. Architectural systems achieve novelty via processes which simulate dynamic flows of energy, within the edge conditions of ‘changes of state’. The artificialisation of logics and intelligences of evolution, material and simultaneous interactivity are the mechanisms by which architects shear their design preconceptions, and engage with the horizontality of mass culture. As a side note, we must be vigilant of the reductionism inherent within academic definition and specificity, to the term ‘generative design’.

The following project then is an attempt to deal directly with complexities within the simultaneous interactions of agency of a system of flows and streams. Fundamentally, the interactions and activities may provide endless sources of digital identities for the purpose of generated novel organisation.

Digital Design Processes

Current platforms lack commonsensical laws of the everyday. The negative tenants of ‘hacking’ are fundamentally the actions which are implementing moralities of performances and intelligence into these dumb infrastructure. Re-branded as ‘scripting’, designers are beginning to achieve resistance to the victimisation and abuse of our generic platforms – interestingly this intersection of virtual and construction logics is the study of proponents such as Gramazio & Kohler. The technological properties of the architectural system define the variability of system parameter – converging on network theory – the system is composed of nodes, links, input and output. In conclusion it is the synaptic adaptability (thereby resulting in the unknown) of these links which makes them generative. For the purpose of creativity the parametric would seem to present our nemesis, leading us astray.

The project establishes notions of systematic linkages at the outset of the processes, additional algorithmic operations are utilised to further construct the initial framework. Applied thereon is the architectural system which is driven via a series of parallel computational processes – in the form a multi-agent system, to which the architectonic properties of the frameworks are sensitive, reactive and adaptive (via feedback). A fundamental parametric process is applied at the process back-end to allow for tolerances for the constraints and limitations of fabrication, a quasi post-generative production process.

Fabrication Constraints

The fabrication of the model, required a high level of precision and detail, thus the Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) processes was selected to fabricate the model. The SLS process implements a computer-directed laser to fuse together layers of powder material. 3D model data is decomposed into layers, layers are sequentially fused, and this process is repeated until completion. For SLS manufacturers please see EOS GmbH [here] and 3DSystems [here]. Further information on this technology can be found [here].

Related Articles

Wiscombe, Tom – Emergent Processes.
[Download PDF]

Mozolewska, Malgorzata – Structural Ornament.
[View Link]

Wendt, Marcus & Glahn Vera-Maria – Design with Generative Processes.
[View Link]

Sims, Karl – Artifical evolution for computer graphics.
Computer Graphics, 1991.

Scheurer, Fabian – Materialising Complexity.
AD New Structuralism, 2010.

Brown, Keith.
[View Link]

Krish, Sivam – Can Architects learn from Generative Music?.
[View Link]

Eno, Brian.
[View Link]

Pollock, Jackson.
[View Link]

–

ArchiBureau research page: [ArchiBureau Research Strand]

Author: Patrick Drewello (c) 2010.

The online album for Landschaftspark & Zollverein can be found [ here ].

Also see the [Re-Map]1812 blog for more info: [ [Re-Map]1812 ].

The processing application uses the [minim library] to visualise the data stream. Processing is an open source OOP application which can be downloaded [here]. Many thanks to John Locke for providing the Processing script to make this work possible, you can find more info of John’s work [here].

Patrick Drewello (c) 2010.

[above] generative concept.

The generative concept for the tower’s construct is a technological inquiry into algorithmic, or rule-driven, design processes. Furthermore this system looks to explore the convergence of algorithm, parameteric linkages and non-linear behaviors. At present the proposed design output (below) provides an interesting bases for discussion in terms, of user-computer dialog, perhaps further end-user GUI maybe integrated to enable direct manipulation of the design process.

[above] draft_ design.

[above] draft_ elevation.

ArchiBureau research page: [ArchiBureau Research Strand]

objectives

* Architectonic Based Morphology (Surfaces).
* Parametric Interface (Beta-Test-Linkages).
* Adaptive Model (Neighbourhood).
* Intelligence & Self-Organisation.
* Local Store; Read Access; Write Access; Response (Feedback-Loop).
* Negative-Feedback v. Positive-Feedback.
* Self-Referential Agents.

design_agenda

* Emergent-Properties.
* Aggregation.
* Spatial organisation via meta-linkages.
* Generative Design Drivers.

research_mission

Archibureau’s Research ‘Strand’, is an initiative which conducts research and explorations of computational, algorithmic and generative design agenda, with the aim to tease out emergent properties of complex interconnectivity and behaviours.

practical_operation

This work involves research into the aggregation and self-organisation of spline curves using scripted environments in MAYA Mel Script & Rhino Grasshopper.

precedence_projects

* Vector Paradise by _Emily White_

* Swarm Algorithms by _Feng Cheng O’Connor_

* Bending Bamboo by _Yikai Lin & Kyung-il Chung_

* Spore by _Image Savant_

* Auxo Tower by _ModeLab_

* Automorphic Strand Tower by _Testa & Weiser_

* Attracted Flows by _Crtl-i_

keywords

patrick drewello, architecture, design research, archibureau, generative design, evolution, computational design, strands, complex curves, complex geometries, self-organisation, meshes, emergence, agent systems, behaviours, feedback

ArchiBureau research page: [ArchiBureau Research Strand]

Author: Patrick Drewello (c) 2010.

Further info @ [http://www.thearamgallery.org/].

Author: Patrick Drewello (c) 2010.

View all

Author: Patrick Drewello (c) 2010.