Project 06 - Week 7

Just a brief update this week.

Plans for the structure are WIPs, and I’ve made some adjustments to the LG entrance (namely, pulling it out onto the plaza slightly), which has caused some complications for how to approach the facade… The reasoning behind this move was to allow for greater circulation space on the interior LG, along with provide an explicit reception/security area at the front. The column grids were created in Grasshopper using the script shown on the right. Short version - create grid based upon single line, add options to fine-control position (relative to world axis, not c-plane :/), provide drop-boxes to select parameters based upon floor, which in turn provides boundary domains for the grid curves and grid points. Create circles of r radius, extrude based upon floor height. Simple once you get it working… There are times where I feel that I should be banned from grasshopper. Why did I do this in grasshopper? A) To demonstrate to myself that I can. B) To “reduce time” required to create multiple grids and rearrange them or respawn columns. “Reduce time”… yeh. *ahem*

Left is a script that works on a similar principle to obtain points within the atrium canopy/ceiling, to inform a voronoi cell test. This was done as I’m trying to figure out a “sexy” way to do the glass canopy, taking inspiration from the atrium in the Jewish History Museum, Berlin.

What I am hoping will be the penultimate iteration of the programme is shown on the left, along with a test of a new rendering plugin (Enscape) which was recommended to me by several members of the class. The render plugin is currently worknig at 4K/72PPI. I’m unsure as to whether the PPI can be increased, as if it cannot, then it will be of limited usefulness. The other key limiter of this plugin is that it unfortunately cannot be set to parallel projection, thus it will only be useful for inhabitation shots, or in-situ views. And yes, I’m aware that the entrance to the proposed structure is currently floating in the air - I’m having to rethink the plaza, and, well, *insert crying emote here*. I’m also not convinced by this new protrusion either, and there are far more windows. Again limitations, and I’m effectively rendering a slightly more advanced massing model here.

We were duly warned about spending too much time in Rhino for these last two months - all about LOD, as well as the specific views required. I completely understand where are tutor is coming from. Plan tomorrow is to sketch out how I think the spaces are supposed to look as an Iso or Perspective sketch, so that I can really bang out the plans, and then the 1-200 sections/elevations etc. I already know how the 4th floor is supposed to look to an extent - imagine a bit of the Peres Peace house, but white, and with an entire facade that opens out onto a terrace.

Addendum: below is a quick test of an adjusted mapping test layout, as I really wasn’t happy with how “playdoughie” the version was I had at the crit.

Project 06 - Week 6

‘Reading week’ came at a good time, and whilst I’m not 100% confident that I’ve got everything I need for Monday’s crit/review, I’m planning on doing a lot of scribbling over the next couple of days to hopefully flesh things out. The biggest weaknesses I feel that I have here are two-fold: my mapping is rather anemic at the moment, especially with respect to justifying the particular direction of the project, and I feel like the project lacks a solid premise or premises (socio-technologically) and so the argument is weak. Below are the completed slides for Monday’s presentation.

Where do I see this going right now? I think the project has evolved partly from my obsession with Cyberpunk & TRON; along with my (currently dormant) political activist streak. What does that particular mix seek to achieve? Formation of a type of safe haven; am I at one level creating a hacktavist collective? I don’t believe so, as it currently is far too formal. It is about hunkering down, laying groundwork and evolving stratagems in a view to then alter the landscape via deployment of said stratagems, inevitably through an asymmetric approach. The architecture that I seek to achieve is itself a stratagem. Then there are the backers, or instigators of this clandestine (or is it clandestine? They are in plain view after all, their work and approach able to be monitored in real-time) operation. What happens if you hold a mirror up to society? Does it become incessantly narcissistic, or revolted by it’s own reflection? Or does it make light of the entire situation and turn even more vile and virulent? I do not wish to create the spectacle that was ‘Big Brother’, nor do wish to continue the fiction that the other began as either… do I? What does this simultaneously virtual/actual inhabitation with corresponding action truly accomplish? Where did this all begin?

Evolution and creation of a seed, an idea, a series of stratagems, leveraging the virtual not just for telepresence but to allow for hiding in plain sight, active camoflague if you will; and storing of vast amounts of data for analysis and leveraging; along with the allowing of formulation of tests, or the testing of systems prior to application. A virtual/physical laboratory.

The single, largest problem to all of this? The problem is Binary - Humans are not logical, the Virtual is.

Project 06 - Week 5

This past week was simply a continuation of the week before, that is mapping & massing.

Last weekend, and at the beginning of last week, I attempted to start learning Revit for use with this project. Whilst I can see the appeal, the greatest thing that infuriated me the most was the lack of control over the simple process of massing. Lines and points snapping to bits and pieces they were not supposed to etc. Granted I’m still a novice at Revit, but for now that was enough to put me off and send me back into Rhino. However, I realised that one of the best ways to have learnt Revit would have been to use it for last year’s archive project, as it was simple, grid-based. Perhaps a post-graduation project?

From Revit problems to Rhino problems. Previously in the week I was not having any issues with using Rhino’s _Print command to print to PDF. However, today when I went to use it in either my laptop or desktop, Rhino would simply CTD without so much of an error message. To say this is aggravating is an understatement, as I was working on a series of mappings in Rhino, and hoping to skip the Illustrator step, streamlining my workflow, as I had set up a rather pretty new view within the software. [As it turns out, the issue lay with my graphics card running out of VRAM - 8GB is not enough for 300DPI at A2 for some things now apparently :/. Workarounds will have to be found.]

However, now this means I’ll have to go through the process of Make2D again, and manually render, which means less time to put everything else together (of which there is still an awful lot - the only slide that is vaguely useful is shown below). The intention is to then use the below composition as an underlay for the 1st (far left) exploded axo.

I am going through one of those really rather frightening/depressing, and rather genuine moments of “am I actually capable of becoming an architect/should I be/why am I working so poorly?” Yay.

Despite that, I have managed to find a couple of other useful bits of research regarding the whole “scanning” part of the proposal - large-scale digital projection & Dennis Gabor, a Hungarian-British physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1971 for inventing and developing holography. That little tidbit of information came about during research into current projection methods; and whilst there has been a resurgence of interest in ‘Pepper’s Ghost’ type tricks, true, large-scale real-time holography is still a long way off.

Project 06 - Week 4

As expected, the first idea (the charitable Foundation) wasn’t suitable. I’ve spent the week working on developing a suitable concept for the project to ultimately inform a programme, whilst working concurrently through massing iterations based upon lines of sight, solar access and current block patterns.

The new concept which I finally settled on derives in part from some of the thinking behind the Foundation idea - that is preemptive defense against a “brain-drain” along with providing the means to improve Budapest from a technological and architectural (in the broadest sense - not just structures, but infrastructure, municipal systems etc.) using local and international knowledge. Central to this concept is the proposal for a “ScanLAB & Traklab” v2.0 - taking the work, methods and technology behind ScanLAB, supersizing them to that of a municipality and then marrying that with both a dedicated Architectural & Urban Design studio, and educational facilities. The concept behind Traklab (our own school’s VR room) would also be augmented and repurposed including near-field LIDAR and motion-capture technologies for incorporation into design method and performance. The concept still has to be fleshed out and consolidated (for instance, I need to figure out what nature of client would incorporate these three disciplines under a single roof, and which existing school/university is the Art & Design school an extension of), but I’m more confident in it, and more confident that it will ultimately be useful for the project itself.

To that end, the existing projects and programmes which I’ve looked at to help formulate my own have been numerous. Possibly too many, or perhaps even too few, can’t really know for certain until the final arrangement manifests and feels satisfactory.

The EYE, Amsterdam
CEU, Budapest
Columbia College Media Production Centre, Chicago
Skanska HQ, Budapest
Learning Centre, Toronto
Exhibition Road Entrance, V&AM, London
Jarmers Plads, Copenhagen
Wilkins Terrace Courtyard, UCL, London
Landhausplatz Redevelopment, Innsbruck
Research Institute in Nieuwegein
Holland Park Office Conversion, London
TAOA Studio, Chaoyang, Beijing
Calfordseaden, Orpington (own knowledge of office layout)

This led me to developing spatial adjacency diagrams which were introduced to us in Thursday’s workshop (not a completely unknown working method, but a good memory jog). Already I’ve realised I completely forgot to include space for a loading bay/recycling point, as well as explicitly mentioning a reception/security checkpoint, but that should be a quickish fix. The next step will be to analyse the diagrams alongside the plans pulled from the massing iterations, and see how everything may fit together (or not) and where adjustments will need to be made.

Some key problematic aspects of design have already become apparent. The massing iterations have significant swathes open to direct sunlight from the South, which whilst desirable in winter, will be wholly irritating in summer. I’ve already started to think of multiple ways to accommodate this - stationary louvres (vertical or horizontal), exterior solar screens (aesthetic considerations), automated adjustable louvres built into the windows themselves to be controlled by a BMS, interior curtains set back from the windows to diffuse light and denote changes in spatial usages. Regarding ventilation - predominant winds are westerlies (main direction is WNW), however I am unsure how the surrounding buildings and streets will create turbulence and tunneling effects, which may will affect the natural ventilation capabilities of the structure. In addition, some form of mechanical ventilation system will have to be included due to both the size of the structure as well as the prevalence of dark space, including electronic infrastructure that service studios such as mocap, photography, VR & haptics laboratories, and the sheer volume of computer desktops in use in the structure. I don’t want to create a Central Saint Martins effect, where the photography studios have absolutely no ventilation. Additionally, kitchenettes and a canteen will require ample ventilation for comfort & hygiene. Then there are the different audio levels and periodic usages - canteen, exhibition hall, classrooms/studios, office spaces, workshops and print rooms to name a few.

On another note, we have our first Revit tutorial next week, and I think I’m going to run through the basics of it tomorrow.

Project 06 - Week 3

This week saw the completion of our group’s 1:1000 site model, which was a job thoroughly well done by all involved. There are perhaps two additional items that remain up for debate - how to show, or whether to physically show the Danube (the typography is present, but the indication absent); along with the question of casting the church & basilica or leaving them as 3D prints. However, it is time to move on and put that phase behind.

Combined GISMO & Proximity mapping script (from Projects 5A) WIP.

Mapping has paused and moved to the background for now whilst I continue to figure out precisely what it is this project is to conceptually achieve; for it has been a struggle to dream up an engaging brief (really bad timing for a lull!). Per my tutor’s advice, for now I’m looking into what Foundations are, how they operate, along with local law governing them - which especially pertinent considering recent changes to their permitted operation (International funding, migration restriction, changes to public benefit) - Acts LXXVI/2017, XLI/2018 & update to Public Benefit Organisations through Act CLXXV/2011. Additionally, I’ve looked into specific Foundations themselves - and any buildings associated with them. So far I’ve looked into the Rothschild Foundation (and the associated Archive at Windmill Hill by Stephen Marshall), Obama Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation; along with Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre (Renzo Piano) & Langen Foundation (Tadao Ando).

Preliminary ideas have circles around the 3 stages of “Assemble, Anchor, Renew”, in addition, the following phrase came to mind which may or may not prove helpful “The seed, that which remakes the world.” After reading through the various strategic planning documents written by the Budapest Municipal Government (most of which felt like reading bull* to be frank - a lot of fancy words but little concrete knowledge or goals), I am wondering whether to approach this by creating a consultancy-based foundation that can help enact a lot of these nebulous goals and bring Budapest into the 21st Century. There is also an element of hope to be created - for another item that kept cropping up in these documents is the fear of a “brain drain” effect; what is one of the best ways to get problem-solvers to stay? Give them a complex problem(s) to solve, the means with which to solve it(them), and the environment in which to be comfortable solving it(them). From a marketing bull* speak point of view “a ray of light of international co-operation in an otherwise desolate and dark environment devoid of any empathy for the plight of the urban environment during even stranger times”.

As a result, I feel like I have developed at least an inkling of what my fictional Foundation’s mission may entail; and thus in true marketing speak style -

The continuation of the necessity for a civic society & civic engagement, encouraging the continued engagement of the populace with public works.

Namely the researching of the current state of the Municipality of Budapest, looking into infrastructural, social, cultural, financial, technological and environmental issues to aid in the re-envisioning and implementation of a better future; drawing initial inspiration from the Budapest Smart Cities and 2030 strategic planning documents.

Politically neutral, the Foundation would strive to achieve recognition through it’s mission statement, implementation and voluntary works to achieve Public Benefit Organisation status, whilst capitalising on Foreign Investment to foster continued positive relations with Hungary’s neighbours, both near and far.

Impossible task eh? Jumping through the legal hoops necessary to ensure compliance with PBO status, doing the local municipality’s bidding, along with national government, whilst obtaining significant Foreign Investment from sources who are not afraid of potential public badgering; and coping with the arduous level of bureauracy that LXXVI/2017 entails.

Programme-wise, I believe that the following will need to be included (non-exhaustive currently, and I suspect there may be either overlap, or extraneous items):

  • Offices split between different Foundation functions

  • Technical Workshop & ‘Laboratory’ (A large studio space with significant IT infrastructure)

  • Conference Rooms - both digital & physical

  • Dedicated IT support for both back & front of house

  • Security Office

  • Small Archive for storage of physical papers, with a dedicated Library and Reading Room

  • Auditorium, Exhibition Space, Lobby, Cloakroom, Toilets, Cafeteria

  • Private & Public exterior green space; e.g. plazas, courtyards, balconies

Due to the fictional location of the Foundation, it would need to have a significant & well-sculpted public space, for the location is right next to the Town Hall, in the middle of several luxury developments, high-end hotels and a newly-minted fashion district. The Foundation would also need to be designed such that it could be operated in a “dormant” state, or easily repurposed should political or economic winds change again.

After I speak with my tutor tomorrow, we may decide that this is all bull* and I’ll have to go back to the drawing board. Critically, I am no-where near convinced that the programme is either complete or correct; and I’m not happy about the concept either right now. We’ll see.

Project 06 - Week 1

A quick progress update at the end of Week 1.

The WIP site model shown in Rhino, partially generated using the GISMO plugin for Grasshopper, along with grabs from CADMapper, Sketchup Warehouse & manual building height investigation.

The WIP site model shown in Rhino, partially generated using the GISMO plugin for Grasshopper, along with grabs from CADMapper, Sketchup Warehouse & manual building height investigation.

As mentioned in the previous post - our tasks are to create an A2 poster, film, site models, and site elevations. My group’s focus was the SE elevation opposite our site, along with a 1:1000 model, which will be a 1x1km square of Budapest, centred around Szervita Tér.

Primarily, we’re planning on creating the model out of plaster-cast sections, mounted upon a timber board for integrity. The structures themselves will be timber massing, placed atop the topography. Infrastructure will be represented using coloured wire to denote specific bus, or tram lines.

Initial poster sketches using markers

Initial poster sketches using markers

Additionally, progress is being made on the poster, although I’m still not 100% sure which direction to take with it. A friend suggested I investigate screen printing - and I’m set up a session with the tutor for Monday to investigate this.

Finally, the site elevations are coming along, and currently the only tricky bit is ensuring the all the lineweights are in fact printable (some issues with the 0.05mm lineweight in AutoCAD, along with I believe some overlapping lines. ‘OVERKILL’ to the rescue?).