DR. PASOUD MIRKHAEMKYM EMMUEL NJOR; ABOUH FIDELIES ISJOMKHWO
The world around us is evolving. We live inside evolution. As a practicing architect, I find nothing more natural than to appear around me and implement relevant changes into my very own profession. Taking this seriously means implementing new digital technologies within the very fabric of design methods, from the primary conceptual thought and also the first accurately described design proposal. production is soon to be overhauled by the principles of customization, within the variety of both industrial mass customization and within the sort of distributed small scale household fabrication. Customization, which is that the modern made to live, will change architecture from its very foundations. a totally new esthetic are the natural outcome of the digital parametric design process that connects the file to factory CNC production methods— a brand new quite beauty for a brand new quite building. Complexity supported simple rules characterizes the dramatic paradigm shift from production to customization. The new quite building is complex yet systemic in its design method. The new reasonably building dramatically enhances the potential of today’s architectural expression while keeping strict control over its data, including costs. Truly nonstandard architecture is cost-effective and easily complex.
1. Because the world turns
The world is changing. So is architecture, the art of building. Since the planet is evolving its communication and manufacturing methods drastically and with increasing speed, the architecture will never be the identical. I present during this writing a theory and practice of architecture that’s supported the principles of swarm behavior. It comes all the way down to the provocative assumption that within the end all building components must be designed to move actors. supported 20 years of practice in nonstandard architecture i’ve got concluded that buildings and their constituting components can now not be seen as passive objects. This assumption revolutionizes the way the planning process is organized, the way the manufacturing process is organized, and therefore the way we interact with the built structures. The new reasonably building is predicated on the invasion of digital technologies into the building industry and therefore the design process, like parametric design, generative components, file to the factory production process of mass customization, and embedded intelligent agents. Step by step we are balancing the familiar top-down control with emergent bottom-up behavior. supported simple rules we rethink the fundamental building blocks and that we build bottom-up bidirectional relationships between all constituting building components. I investigate the results the paradigm shift from production to mass customization may wear the designer’s mind. When the designer is hospitable this new reality, the architecture will never be the identical. i’ll give here one example to visualise the results of a really production esthetic. The Cockpit within the Acoustic Barrier project that was finished at the top of 2005 features 40,000 different pieces of steel, and 10,000 different pieces of glass. Not one building component is that the same during this structure. The radicality of this mass customized specimen of nonstandard architecture equals that of the 50+-year-old Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram building, which is that the ultimate esthetic expression of mass-produced architecture (Fig. 1). Mind you, the Seagram building is gorgeous, but i might never fancy striving for such esthetic again, now it’s time to search out the right architectural expression for the reality of commercial mass customization. Within 50 years the paradigm shift toward customization in any form—not necessarily within the sort of double-curved geometry—will be the dominant language of (inter)national architects. If my assumption proves to be false finally efforts i’ve got tired the last 20 years to develop the practice of business customization within the realized works of my architectural office ONL (Oosterhuis_Lénárd) in Rotterdam, and through the last decade the idea of swarm behavior in various educational and research projects with my Hyperbody Research Group at the school of Architecture of the TU Delft, i will be able to be the primary to acknowledge it. But if it proves to be right then i will be able to consume the pleasure of getting been an early mover to style and construct buildings in line with the new rules of commercial customization, and that i will feel satisfied having explored the ability and sweetness of complexity in due time.
Fig. 1. production esthetic, Seagram Building, New York, architect Mies van der Rohe, 1958.
2. Informed point cloud
As the world keeps turning we are going to must redefine the foundations of architecture from time to time. Now quite 20 years have passed since the introduction of the PC, since the emergence of the worldwide Internet, and since embedding miniaturized information technology in our consumer products. Today we’ve got become at home with device, wireless Internet, with intelligent agents active on the web, with intelligent agents embedded in consumer products like printers, cars and computers, but we’ve got not seen much change within the very building blocks of the built environment as of yet. Neither have we seen much change within the way we design and build our surroundings. we’ve indeed developed computer programs to simulate otherwise traditional building materials like concrete, steel, and glass composites in an exceedingly building information model (BIM). Often the BIM is employed to boost known designs, largely because most designers don’t profit of the BIM to develop new design methods, with the aim to comprehend designs that don’t seem to be possible with the standard design techniques. during a BIM the simulated building components are tagged, the tags containing information on their qualitative and quantitative properties. It sure is a chance missed that almost all architects don’t use digital design tools within the early design process. Even at respected universities the scholars are often told to not use the pc to style. it’s my explicit opinion that students in architectural faculties should play within the very design process with all types of recent digital and social media, from day one. it’s very compromising for his or her design skills to postpone designing with new media until they need reached the master program.
While in our practice the parametric design by and enormous specifies the planning of the relational system of the building components, the freehand sketch—whether executed on paper or with the 3D digitizer—specifies the top-down geometrical force imposed on the parametric design system. Both the system representing the bottom-up generation and also the ruling curves from the sketches representing the top-down control must be developed in parallel. The top-down force inserts specific data into the parametric bottom-up system.
Sketching in itself is okay, but do express yourself on your touchscreen tablet, use your smart phone to interact and participate—as I conducted some experiments with interactive lectures at Hyperbody, transpose your design concept immediately into a (Grasshopper) script, such you’ll play with the parameters and open up your design process to others. the particular emphasis on the “drawing” as advocated at the TU Delft by Michiel Riedijk is conspicuously counterproductive during this respect. In my view the drawing and therefore the section are nothing quite a “flattened” derivate from the 3D model. The drawing and also the section should never be the place to begin for any spatial design. Building 3D models must belong to the core skills that students in our era are taught. The 3D model contains all information, while the drawings and also the section yield only a poor restricted view of the spatial conditions. Using new media makes the look process transparent, verifiable and participatory, and allows for a stronger individual expression at the identical time. The new media are nothing but another shell around existing media, expanding your world. New media won’t replace the old media of language, thinking, conceptualizing, and sketching, but what new media do is to facilitate you to figure inside evolution, specified you may participate as a full of life player in our evolving society. i would like to point out a possible way forward, forward to the fundamentals of the profession of architecture (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Mass customization esthetic features 1000 unique windows, Al Nasser Headquarters,
Abu Dhabi, architect ONL (Oosterhuis_Lénárd), 2012.
To take that revolution I imagine the built structure to be represented by a degree cloud of floating reference points that move all the time just like the birds within the swarm. The points of the purpose cloud are continuously informed to behave. The points receive streaming information, process the streaming information, and produce new streaming information, indeed just like the birds within the swarm. Complexity supported simple rules. When the data defining its spatial coordinates that are received isn’t changing, the position of the purpose within the point cloud remains stable with none change. Now suppose some parametric data are changing, then the purpose will act accordingly and alter its position, or change any of the opposite properties the purpose has been tagged with. The crux of the new reasonably building is that each one reference points are going to be informed in an exceedingly streaming fashion both during the look process and through its subsequent life-cycle. whether or not we are commissioned to style for a static environment, we must founded the BIM in such the way that every one constituting components can potentially receive, process and send streaming information. The BIM will understand its deeper meaning as Building In Motion. Imagine a drag that unfolds only if there’s an actual noise source. No noise, no barrier. The noise informs the barrier to unfold and to create a sound insulating shell round the noise source, for instance around a train that passes through the town. A wave of the unfolding shell travels together with the speed of the passing train. When there’s no train, which accounts for many of the time, there’s no need for a barrier. Everyone despises the ugly fences along our highways and along our train tracks. The strong logic of facilitating streaming data to tell built structures makes me confident that this idea of Building In Motion is totally realistic and can become a dominant framework for buildings within 50–100 years. allow us to be prepared for this future, allow us to make designs so on feel its ultimate logic and seductive beauty. this is often the wonder of complexity supported simple rules. and that we will perform further research on the probabilities to embed intelligent IP tags altogether building materials for them to be identified and addressed by wireless senders. Literally, consider pieces of steel, concrete, glass, composites with embedded RFID tags to start with, with microcomputers later, and with a range of actuators to return. With the Hyperbody group at the TU Delft i’ve got designed and built several prototypes during the last decade showing the big potential for a dynamic architecture. With the Barrier In Motion concept we’ve identified a functional application for the speculation of informed point clouds, which is promising to become the fundamental building block for a streaming connectivity between all constituting building components. Informed building blocks become the actors in an ecology of interacting complex adaptive systems within the Internet of individuals and things.
3. Forward to basics
The underlying message could okay be: forward to basics. the fundamentals are the dynamic principles of the prototypical building information model (protoBIM), which can be explained later. The implicit assumption is that the fundamental building blocks of architecture must be redefined. it’s not bricks and mortar, neither is it bits and bytes exclusively. it’s rather the merging of bits and atoms which we are concerned about. it’s the merging of the old organic real and therefore the new real, the virtual real. One merges into the opposite, and the other way around. The new building blocks are informed components, hardware augmented with software, mapped on each individual building block. Each individual building block will communicate in an exceedingly streaming fashion via embedded tags (RFID) with other buildings blocks, anywhere, anytime, anyhow, anyway, thus propagating a radical meaning shift to Eisenmans ANY conferences. The new meaning takes us from a braindead deconstructivism to the colourful era of synthetic architecture. Synthetic architecture wasn’t accidently chosen because the title of my first solo exhibition within the Aedes Gallery in Berlin in 1990. Synthesizing architecture means redefining the very building blocks and increase a brand new language from scratch. Synthetic architecture has ever since been subject to a sequence of evolutionary steps: From liquid architecture (Marcos Novak, 1991) via trans architecture (Marcos Novak, 1995) and Programmable Architecture (Kas Oosterhuis, 1999) to the notion of nonstandard architecture (Frédéric Migayrou/ Zeynep Mennan, 2003). Nowadays it’s known practice among advanced students and young digitally educated professionals to use Generative Components (Robert Aish/Bentley Systems), Grasshopper (Rhino plugin), Digital Project (Gehry Technologies), Processing, or similar parametric scripting software to synthesize the new language of architecture. ONL´s contribution during this field has been to truly repose on a bigger scale of nonstandard benchmark projects as early as 1997 (Waterpavilion), 2002 (WEB of North-Holland) and 2005 (Cockpit in Acoustic Barrier). ONL has effectively built the connection between the bits and therefore the atoms so on prove that the direction taken as early because the beginning of the 1990s was the proper choice. The forward looking approach has led to a replacement reasonably building supported thoroughly redefined genes of architecture—forward to basics (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Parametric CNC produced building blocks, Hyper body, 2010.
Forward since we don’t want to appear back. We don’t look within the back mirror to work out what’s behind us; we simply shop around us and appreciate what we see. Now the deep economic depression is that the perfect time for innovation within the architecture and construction business. it’s the correct time to rethink the premise of our society, due to the web bubble and therefore the mortgage crisis. it’s the right time to implement streaming nonstandard made-to-measure strategies altogether businesses associated with the building industry from designers to manufacturers. Speaking for myself, it’s the proper time to develop the proto BIM innovation supported the principles of swarm behavior to inspire software developers to support the new reasonably dynamic building. Forward to basics doesn’t mean to step back to what we knew already 20 years ago; that will be back to basics. Forward to basics means redefining our core business, redefining architecture, redefining the building industry, redefining the behavior of built structures, and redefining the interface of buildings. Redefining the very essence of our profession.
4. Unique address for every building component
The very essence of the designer software i’m curious about is to work out all constructs (buildings, installations, environments) as in essence dynamic structures, consisting of an outsized set of thousands of programmable components. Programmable components are individuals with a singular identity. they need a singular address, within the same fashion as all computers are assigned unique IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Only thanks to this unique IP address each computer will be connected as an actor and as a receiver to the worldwide Internet. When a building component has an address, it can receive instructions and may accept information either pulled or being pushed from a database. Receiving, processing, and sending data implies that this building component becomes an actor, such it can change its configuration. This has been the idea for the pure invention that’s the ONL project Trans-Ports imagined in 1999 and one’s proposal for the programmable interior of the International space platform (Fig. 4). The invention is to treat buildings as instrumental bodies, which might change their shape and content in real-time. Bodies will be addressed, and every one constituting components which compose the complete body may be addressed individually. The building components are just like the cells within the body, small processors of data, working together while constituting the character of the building body as a full. To be more specific, a programmable building component may be an actuator within the kind of a hydraulic cylinder with embedded sensors, a support that has the capacity to regulate its length by becoming longer or shorter, by adjusting its stroke. within the theoretical yet realizable Trans-Ports project, it’s calculated that only a limited number of roughly 5×6=30 programmable large actuators is required to evoke the behavior of the dynamic body. The skin of the body would must be flexible, which is realized by introducing a folded skin loosely fixed to the dynamic structure with the capacity to stretch and shrink. Skins with thickness will be executed like overlapping hard scales, thus enabling dynamic movements. within the example of the Trans-Ports multi-modal pavilion, the skin loosely follows the structure. Many other possible concepts with other shapes and different behaviors are often thought of. From the instant one starts to consider a building body as a dynamic construct, a wealth of latest possibilities appears at the designers’ horizon, seducing the designers to become pioneers another time. Not superficially modernist, but in-depth modern and especially actual.
Fig. 4. Programmable interior for satellite, architect ONL (Oosterhuis_Lénárd), 2000.
5. Need for non-linear software
For the planning of complex and programmable buildings, a basic condition is to figure with parametric software. The concept of parametric design is in itself nothing new; it’s been breathing for quite 30 years, originated from the industry. Looking more closely into the achievements of the industry, where the planning and building task usually is to create large-scale one-offs, is helpful for understanding the direction where architecture are heading within the coming decades. Customization are the buzz-word, and designers will base their designs on a spread of series of mass customized one-offs instead of hoping on the old style serial approach of mass-produced components. this could be achieved once we build our 3D models only in an exceedingly comprehensive parametric way. Parametric design basically means building bidirectional relations, relationships between each building component, no exceptions allowed, not “dead” isolated objects. But mind you, the present parametric software has its pitfalls. Suppose the designer has built an accurate parametric model, but supported certain vague assumptions. Then it’s very likely that the designer must revise the model drastically when a number of the initial assumptions change. which is what assumptions usually do during the extraordinary evolution of a design concept, which implies that every one assumptions must be translated into a parametric value. Literally, every seemingly soft design decision must be modeled as a tough parametric fact, verifiable by numbers. there’s another pitfall: now suppose the designer switches to a different design rule, and suppose the looker changes the principles while playing the design game. meaning that the parametric model will must be restructured from the start, which is an excellent more drastic circuit within the evolution of the look. to figure with changing rules during the planning process we’d like new species of software, which must be less hierarchical, less linear, more intuitive, and more immediate instead. The relations between the components will must be more flexible and more just like the members of a dynamic swarm indeed. Non-linear parametric software is badly needed for information architects to be ready to work more intuitively.
6. Bidirectional relationships
Let me investigate the implications of parametric logic with an easy phrase: I put a cup of coffee on the table. after we try and describe the parametric relationships between the cup and table, between the I and also the cup, and between the cup and also the coffee, we get very near the character of dynamic parametric design and from there we will leap the essence of behavioral design leading toward a vision of how the new quite building could also be conceived within the early design phase, what it should seem like, and –as we’ll see later–how it should behave. As I known before, we must see all objects, including the I and individual building components, in theory, as actors, as active players during a parametric world. An actor is different from an object since it’s an indoor drive to act. Now, what drives the cup to be a cup and to reside on the table? What drives the I to place the cup on the table? what drives the table to carry the cup? What drives the coffee to remain inside the cup? And once we dive more into the fabric characteristics: What components constitute the coffee to support its labeling as coffee? What happens within the exchange surface between the coffee and also the cup? What forces impose the coffee on the cup? And vice versa: what forces impose the cup on the coffee? What forces are from cup to table, from table to cup? Parametric relationships should always be seen as bidirectional. there’s always a balance between pushing and pulling, between being pushed and being pulled. Furthermore, what’s the relation between the I and also the table, which functions as a kind of destiny location for the cup as seen from the perspective of the I? For a fast understanding of the topic, i would like to stress the importance of understanding the character of the interacting components, I, cup, coffee, and table. There are someone, a fluid, and a few objects involved during this interaction scene, components of various kinds, and yet interacting. All interacting components have a formidable history behind them, making them what they’re.
Now replace the I by the designer, the cup by a vertical component (the component formerly called the wall), and therefore the table by a horizontally stretched component (the component formerly referred to as the floor), and that we are talking architecture again. we want to specialize in their geometry within the first place, scrutinizing their bilateral relationships on the extent of geometry, and on their behavior within the second place, inserting the geometry and every one actors in an exceedingly serious design game, unfolding in real-time evolution.
7. Feeling the force
A parametric relationship must be understood in terms of knowledge exchange. I inform the cup to be placed on the table. The designer informs the underside surface of component 1 to be connected to the highest surface of component 2. To be ready to design software for parametric structures it’s crucial to create an entire functional description — a script, a scenario if you would like — of all commands which are set into action to relate component 1 to component 2. the 2 components must share a degree of reference, separately specified for both components. The points of reference are the active members of the purpose cloud. Once the points are defined properly, one may connect the 2 points to share the identical coordinates in an agreed arrangement. Once connected the 2 components must calculate the realm of contact they share. If the underside a part of components is flat it’ll be the total area of the standing part which is shared. This area are used for structural calculations transferring the hundreds from the standing to the lying element. it’s not my intention to technically describe what algorithms are running within the parametric software to perform these basic calculations. Ultimately, I will be empathic to the force fields between the components, to feel the forces while designing. Feeling the forces in an empathic and sympathetic way is that the prerequisite to be ready to elevate the fundamental technique of parametric design toward the extent of behavioral design. One has to internalize the forces. Information exchange from point to point, from the surface to surface basically has to be seen as streaming information, not even as an instance from a stream. Working with streaming information has an emotional effect on the behavioral designer. Streaming information concerning the time-based instances of 3D modeling is like Spaceland concerning Flatland, as is that the 3D model concerning the flat geometrical instances of the 2D drawing (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Flatland, A Romance of the many Dimensions, author Edwin Abbott Abbott, 1884.
Streaming in both directions, both components must inform one another continuously about their conditions. as an example, when the standing component 1 has varying loads because of changing wind conditions, it must transfer the real-time dynamic data in an exceedingly streaming fashion to the supporting horizontally stretched component 2. consider applying this dynamic concept to a 1-mile high building. Such a high building would sweep several meters to left and right and cause nausea for users of the highest floors. Now assume that we build a series of actuators within the load-bearing steel structure, which actively resists the changing wind forces, thus leveling out the influence of the winds. Then the one-mile high structure will stand perfectly upright with none movement within the top. it’ll stand sort of a human balancing within the wind, stressing muscles to counter the wind. Such a structure would wish to send updates in milliseconds to stay track of the changes, allowing the actuating components to reply and reconfigure accordingly
8. From protoBIM to quantumBIM
BIM is often called the building information model. The 3D geometry defines the wireframe, the surfaces, and also the volumes. the article is labeled with properties and their performance is described. Virtually everything which has geometry is organized within the BIM. the perfect BIM could be a parametric model, meaning that every individual component incorporates a strictly defined relevancy its neighboring components and to its object family. Changing one component means changing the local and global relations between the components involved. Adding one component means creating new relationships. As relations are always bidirectional, both of the components are suffering from the connection. Explained in additional prosaic language, the wall stands on the ground, while the ground holds the wall. As all relations are subject to constraints, and as we’ll show later in many BIM programs unnecessarily discriminative constraints, not all relations are possible. the most explanation for this is often that the BIM supporting programs don’t seem to be written by designers but by technicians. they are doing not know better than to just accept worn-out conventions from the standard design practice. the matter is within the agreed existence of ordinary digital libraries. Once an object is labeled as a wall it can never become a door. Once you’ve got chosen for the family of floors, their members can never become a wall. Once building components are defined as separate species during a building catalog, they’re going to be allowed to own only a limited number of relationships with other species. the same as specification into different species in nature, once a donkey, nevermore a horse; they simply can not crossbreed. it’s obvious when observing the photographs of ONL´s nonstandard architectural practice that these traditional categories became obsolete. A door becomes a specification of the homogeneous structural shell system. The door isn’t taken from a library but an extra local specification of the structural system itself. per this approach, each designer will breed a selected cellular system for a selected project, while the originating cells specify so on embrace specific tasks, i.e., to be a door with hinges. But there’s always a road back, and one can always return to the cellular state where the moving part wasn’t yet specified to maneuver.
In the rummage around for finding the key to unravel the above specification dilemma Hyperbody has developed a program supported the dynamic principles of swarm behavior (Fig. 6). The hrg (Hyperbody Research Group) software organizes the behavior of points in space, while these points are supplied with characteristics like strength, area, volume, color, and shape. Positive strength means attraction; negative strength means repelling the points they’re linked to. The swarming points are typically represented by vaguely outlined dots so on avoid clinging to a selected esthetic preference within the early design phases. Nonstandard information architects are alert to the very fact that platonic geometry can’t be the start line for his or her designs. they have to move deeper into the genes of the planning materials. The relations between the points of the informed point clouds in digital space give structure to the first design concept naturally in weightless space soon be ready to introduce the forces of gravity in a very later stage, so as to avoid the dominance of the bottom level. Hyper body has teamed up with ONL to develop special software for such early design phases. it’s general knowledge that it’s the earliest conceptual design phase that’s the most important drive for the potential of any project. The very first design decision has far bigger impact than all subsequent design decisions. The software that ONL/Hyperbody is within the process of developing is known as protoBIM. ProtoBIM supports the event from a written conceptual statement via a swarming behavioral point cloud toward a BIM that contains all required data for building approval and also the tender process. The importance of clearly describing the conceptual statement shouldn’t be underestimated. an announcement that’s described in vague non-verifiable terms is absolute to compromise the inherent elegance of the planning process. The protoBIM connects all relevant disciplines during this early design phase to every other within the handiest and straightforward fashion. there’ll be no more data exchanged than is strictly necessary. The structural engineers don’t need a whole 3D model from the conceptual designer; they’d rather see a straightforward wireframe which they will import in their specialist calculation software, presumably applying finite element methods. ProtoBIM isn’t yet supporting streaming information, as is that the main feature of a next level Hyperbody software that i’ve got baptized quantumBIM, which basically is protoBIM with additional features supporting streaming data on all data exchange levels supported the identical principles of swarm behavior. ProtoBIM communicates via a dynamic database with other programs, but only in quantumBIM the cells of the database are continuously updated in a very streaming fashion, feeding the actuating building components. QuantumBIM is ready for the foreseen paradigm shift from static to dynamic modeling, which is able to be facilitating truly dynamic structures being addressed in real time and proactively acting in real time. ProtoBIM supports truly nonstandard architecture while quantumBIM facilitates truly dynamic structures.
Fig. 6. Swarm behavior forms the premise for protoBIM and quantumBIM.
9. One building one detail
One building, one detail. i’ve got introduced this challenging phrase in earlier writings (paper for Nonstandard Praxis, MIT conference, 2004). with none reservation I declared: Mies is simply too Much! Radicalizing the minimalist tendency of Mies van der Rohe, I observed that Mies still needed many alternative details to prove his point that less is more. His less remains an excessive amount of. His less is an imposed less in visual appearance, but still a more in number of details. To perform better one single parametric detail must be mapped on all surfaces, which is subject to a variety of parameters rendering the values of the parametric system unique in each local instance, thus creating a visible richness and a spread that’s virtually unmatched by any traditional building technique. Such visual richness was naturally apparent in indigenous architecture, all made by hand, supported simple procedures. Now the new parametric and customization techniques allow such visual richness on the grand scale of huge buildings, which is complexity supported simple rules. Complexity is that the real more, supported the truly less. Please remember of the double meaning: I do respect Mies van der Rohe to the max, which prohibits me from copying or varying the original—it was deliberate violation indeed when Rem Koolhaas forced the Barcelona Pavilion to bend within the period of time of his career. Rather, one should endeavor to radicalize Mies instead; one should take the subsequent breakthrough, rather than looking backward in such incestuous operations. The parametrization of the leading building detail implies an extreme unification; it requires an uncompromising systemic approach, thus with a fashionable visual diversity at the identical time. Les extremes se touchent. The coherence of parts in a very parametric design system doesn’t necessarily cause a harmonic relationship between the parts as suggested by Palladio over 500 years ago, neither as suggested by Vitrivius 2100 years ago. Coherence of parts in a very 3D parametric design system covers a far larger bandwidth of possible variations (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7. Simply complex, iWEB, Delft, architect ONL (Oosterhuis_Lénárd), 2002 (first life as Web of North-Holland), 2007 (second life because the iWEB).
The strategy to induce tension by introducing opposing poles, which is able to be further dwelled upon within the make of that body section, is applicable on the planning attitude toward generative detailing likewise. Not only did I introduce opposing poles in master planning (Manhal Oasis), within the body plan of building bodies (Saltwaterpavilion, Space Xperience Center), but within the generic structure of the essential architectural detail additionally. The parametric detail is generated just by executing a straightforward rule while retrieving local data for every individual node. Simplicity is thus intrinsically tied to multiplicity. Its intelligence is embedded within the swarm behavior of the node, the programmable dot of the informed point cloud. I applied the above one building one detail strategy within the design for the net of North-Holland. the entire construct consists of 1 single but elaborate detail. All details, including the 2 giant doors, are members of 1 big family, as described by one single script (Autolisp routine) mapped on the purposes of the point cloud as distributed on the doubly curved surface of the emotively styled volume.
The one building one details strategy applies to other scales additionally. It applies to product design, to which our architectural approach tends to be very close; it applies to urban design similarly, the urban blocks representing the building blocks. Recently we’ve got seen convincing samples of parametric urban design proposals designed by Patrick Schumacher of Zaha Hadid’s office. As early as 1996 my office ONL developed a totally parametric design strategy for the Reitdiep extension to the town of Groningen, for an populated area hosting 1500 homes. I named the look strategy the Attractor Game. it had been in its base an open design system that might be played both intuitively and intentionally, setting the placement, the strength and therefore the area of influence of the active urban building components.
10. Just there just then just that
I say no to columns, beams, doors and windows from a customary catalog. rather than making a tasteful selection from the building catalog and becoming a elitist connaisseur of high culture, i’m in favor of designing and building project specific building components, for each new building a brand new consistent set of interlocking building components. It requires no further explanation that the large door within the WEB of NH, which is largely a cut-out of the building body, may be a door within the WEB of NH only. It can not be applied in the other design; it belongs there, doesn’t fit anywhere else, it forms the intrinsic a part of that style. Just there, just then, just that. it’s the logical consequence of mass customization that an ending sort of a door from the quality catalog won’t fit anywhere within the body. during this context i have to seriously criticize the buildings of Gehry. From a distance one would be tempted to work out them as sculpture buildings, but at closer investigation they’re not like that in the least. All Gehry´s designs are supported traditional spatial planning, like arranging box-like spaces and wrapping them within the upper floor levels with a decomposed arrangement of loose fragments. Doors, windows, and entrances are as traditional as ever, 100% supported the technology and esthetics of production. there’s nothing nonstandard about it. Gehry as many of his peers has not been willing to loosen the strings to the normal building industry; they always depend upon stylish catalog products for the bulk of their buildings components. They still consider production as beautiful. Even when the exteriors of their designs use the metaphor of the nonstandard, their insides are stuffed with column grids, beams, doors, walls and windows, all straight from the catalog. They mistake the complicated for the complex. Decon designs are complicated indeed; they have a stack of various details while nonstandard architecture is complex, supported one or only some different details, all members of a parametric family. Decon modernist building logic is usually wasting its resources, while nonstandard logic is exploiting resources during a more efficient way. Decon modernist style relies on production, nonstandard on industrial customization. The essence of the nonstandard is that every and each building component is precisely defined within the design stage, CNC produced, and hence in theory unique in its shape and dimensions. Each building component possesses a novel number to be addressed by the planning and engineering scripts. A building component typically is defined as a 3D parametric component that lives during a spatial relationship toward its neighboring Just to remind you, the data that’s contained in an exceedingly 2D drawing can by definition not offer you such information, since the drawing doesn’t talk over with components in the slightest degree, but only to their 2D “flatland” shadows of their 3D genetic information (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. Complicated, not complex, Stata Center, Cambridge (USA), architect Gehry Partners, 2004.
11. Chicken and egg
What came first, the chicken or the egg? My answer to it is simply as simple because it is effective: the chicken and also the egg are two instances of the identical system, meaning that in each stage of development of the chicken–egg system there have been both the chicken and therefore the egg. Naturally, neither the chicken nor the egg was deserve that name in their early development phase because they weren’t that much specified once they were busy developing the earliest versions of the adaptive chicken–egg system. The chicken was more something sort of a worm, and hardly to be distinguished from its eggs. I assume that self-copying and birth were equivalent events before the chicken–egg speciation process took off. just like the chicken-egg problem there’s a causality dilemma between nonstandard designs and computer numerical controlled fabrication the nonstandard design being the chicken, CNC the egg. While the nonstandard design is fully controlled by a parametric logically consistent system describing precise positions, dimensions, and geometry of every unique component, the execution process—in bio-lingo this might be stated because the offspring—must follow the identical logic. Exact parameters drive the look model. the identical values as those extracted from the 3D BIM employing automated procedures (Autolisp routine, scripting) must feed the assembly process. There might not be a fast and dirty translation, or a transforming, which always will prove to be a re-interpretation, and there may absolutely not be any human intervention just like the data, which is guaranteed to be the explanation for many possible inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Nothing is also lost in translation. The chicken can only produce and lay her own egg herself, and also the egg can’t be produced and assembled by another party applying another systemic logic. within the ONL design and build practice, it’s observed from time to time that the occasional mistakes that occurred were always because of erratic human interventions within the file to the factory process. Human interventions are certain to blur the consistency; the sloppy accuracy and emotional logic of human measuring or counting simply don’t match with the machine logic. don’t worry, i’m not trying to exclude people from the method. Humans do play the leading role in establishing the concept, in making intuitive choices from an enormous multitude of possibilities, in declaring what’s beautiful, basically in every aspect of the planning and also the building process where communication with other folks is crucial. But mind you, humans don’t seem to be good at counting, not good at complex calculations, not good within the consistent application of procedures, and not good at working overnight. People are always tempted to rethink a procedure while executing it, to rethink a process while running it, typically changing the principles while playing. Also, their brains are very slow in calculations, such a lot slower than the private number crunchers, the PC mates. To catch up with this societal complexity, which is an ever-expanding evolutionary process, the data architect had to develop machinic extensions, exo-brains, exo-memories, exo-hands, exo-arms, and exo-bodies to style and execute the nonstandard designs. that’s why nonstandard design and file to factories production are two sides of the identical coin. There wouldn’t exist a really nonstandard design without CNC production, and there cannot exist chicken without eggs, or eggs without chicken.
12. New role of the nonstandard architect
Every traditional intervention within the direct link from nonstandard design to CNC manufacturing would compromise the character of the nonstandard design. samples of such compromises are seen within the making of the Water Cube and also the Birds Nest for the Olympic Games 2008 in Beijing, and in my very own practice i’m subject to an identical fate created by the predictable traditional attitude of the project developer of the CET project in Budapest. altogether these cases the most contractor has chosen to weld the steel structure, hence compromising the accuracy of the structure, and thus breaking the logical link from the complex geometry to a possibly advantageous and consistent file to factory production of the skin. Once compromised, once the chain is broken, all future steps from there forward can now not be relinked to the CNC logic of mass customization. the method is killed, the egg isn’t resulting in another organic structure, the fetal membrane is broken prematurely. Needless to mention that every instance where the logical chain is broken is representing a significant threat to the practice of nonstandard architecture since the client might see only the blurred outcome and blame the wrong compromised details on the character of the nonstandard design itself. on the other hand again, can the contractors and therefore the project developers are blamed to depend upon their traditional experience, which is basically supported traditional bricks and mortar buildings? For them, the nonstandard logic might not be logical in the slightest degree, they’re presumably not at home with the benefits of the file to factory process since they need not mastered this process. it’s unknown territory for them. thanks to the fact of this example, the nonstandard designer will have to rethink his contractual position as a consultant only and can have to tackle financial responsibility concerning the manufacturing process. Since nonstandard architects like myself have full control and full confidence that their data are correct and accurate, they need to tackle the responsibility for the engineering of the geometry, and naturally must be paid proportionally for this responsibility. Since nonstandard architects are among the few parties to possess full knowledge of how the CNC production procedures have embedded a part of the logic of the planning itself, they ought to be remunerated to require the responsibility for managing the direct link from design to engineering furthermore. The benefit for the building industry are going to be huge: no more mistakes within the correctness and transfer of the information, no more delays within the exchange and understanding of the concept, remodeling will not be necessary, production are clean and precise, assembly always correct, all steps within the design and building process are going to be just in time, and just what’s needed. No more waste of your time and materials, the lot are going to be clean, while recycling is developed to hide all used materials. there’s one important condition though: all production must be computer numerical controlled, all components must be prefabricated, including all concrete structures and therefore the foundations. Now suppose that I do all that, then i’m sure that I perform twice better; in other words, a 100% increase in efficiency, avoiding syrupy bureaucratic procedures and avoiding an abundance of building mistakes, avoiding the assembly of waste, and accidentally keeping the vacant lot extremely clean. How sustainable are you able to get? it’s obvious that the nonstandard architect, who controls the efficiency of the method, must be the primary to require cash in on that expertise.
Controlling the look process from concept, from the primary sketch all the way all the way down to CNC production and methods of dry assemblage, gives the designer also control over the prices of the full enterprise. Controlling the prices from scratch means having a robust weapon in hand to compete on the market with large contractors and developers. The direct link between parametric 3D model and execution/assemblage allows the designer to require on the role of the contracting party and developing party him/herself. within the ONL projects Cockpit and Acoustic Barrier, for instance, we’ve got began a design and build an organizational model that allowed us to supply the buildings as a product for a hard and fast price, which was very competitive as compared with calculations supported standard procedures and price estimations supported market prices. For us, this has been working example that a very nonstandard architecture featuring complexity supported simple rules is competitive concerning regular modernist boxes of comparable quality. In our times of a significant recession within the traditional building industry, we’ve got found how to accommodate this crisis. Independently from the normal powerhouses within the building industry, we enjoy having proven the affordability and sustainability of the new reasonably building.
The appropriate thanks to effectuate the new role of the architect is to require part within the building process financially. within the present situation, architects leave the financial responsibility to the project developers and therefore the contractors, the architects themselves acting as a consultant only without being liable for over their designer fee. i’m an advocate of a brand new professional attitude of the architect, to become an entrepreneur in their title, to require over the responsible role of the contractor like for all components which are CNC produced. Architects are chicken if they are doing not have the center to say the leading role like a responsible designer–engineer–builder.
DR. PASOUD MIRKHAE