Abstract v_0.5

The field of responsive architecture has explored many avenues of response such as media screens, light sensitive facades and reactive wall systems, but has not directly addressed the tectonics of our built environment.  These tectonics will face a harsh change in a future where material efficiency, capability, and performance will increase, while the availability of materials will decrease.   This thesis will address issues of response through the exploration of delicate, branching, aggregate structures that inherently embody notions of “Liveliness”

Using Wood for its embedded tensile properties, models will be developed that explore varying “precarious” branching typologies that are conducive to responsive environments.  These investigations will be used to inform digital simulations, and these simulations will then be used to study the material capabilities and possible structure aggregations.  Light, shadow, overlap of materials, and opacity will also be explored for its potential to register a visual liveliness and alter our perception of space.

Using the gained knowledge from the model studies and simulations, a full scale immersive installation will be built that embodies liveliness through its branching tectonics that explore part to whole relationships as well as the use of light and density to affect visual perception.

The goal of the research is to question typical notions of response through the development of a new lively tectonic that blurs the boundary between materiality and space, thus allowing use to design more immersive spaces and open a different dialogue on constructing for response.

The field of responsive architecture has explored many avenues of response, but has not directly addressed the tectonics of our built environment.  These tectonics will face a harsh change in a future where material efficiency, capability, and performance will increase, while the availability of materials will decrease.   This thesis will address issues of response through the exploration of delicate, branching, aggregate structures that inherently embody notions of “Liveliness”.

Using Wood for its embedded tensile properties, models will be developed that explore varying “precarious” branching typologies that are conducive to responsive environments.  These investigations will be used to inform digital simulations, and these simulations will then be used to study the material capabilities and possible structure aggregations.  Color will also be explored for its potential to register a visual liveliness and alter our perception of space.

Using the gained knowledge from the model studies and simulations, a full scale immersive installation will be built that embodies liveliness through its branching tectonics that explore part to whole relationships as well as the use of color to affect visual perception.

The goal of the research is to question typical notions of response through the development of a new lively tectonic that blurs the boundary between materiality and space, thus allowing use to design more immersive spaces and open a different dialogue on constructing for response.

Single Sentence:

This thesis seeks to alter notions of response through the exploration of a new “lively” tectonic that will allow us to blur the lines between materiality, performance, and space.

Reading 1 : Steadman

Q1_ The idea of Spacemate seems interesting, but is something like this actually used in practice?

Q2_ Why did Jones and Alexander distance themselves from their original research?  Did they eventually come to a conclusion that their ideas were not as useful as proposed?

Q3_ In the reading it was talked about how early CAD was supposed to be a generator of design then switched to a representational tool for design.  What has caused us to revisit that idea now?

Reading 2 : Coyne

Q1_ “Architectural research has a relatively small audience, producing modest metrics.  In so far as numbers have any kind of influence, then architectural researchers may start to skew their outputs to appeal to an even wider audience.”  I think this is a very dangerous issue.  We have seen what relying on these metrics has done to journalism, where small newspapers have shut down and can no longer report on local politics and have been replaced with clickbait pseudo news outlets such as buzzfeed, slate, etc.  Here depth and analysis have been replaced with breadth and emotionally charged words used simply to rattle the cages of readers rather than offer any legitimate insite.  Furthermore, these outlets hardly ever produce their own content and instead summarize summaries from other sources.  Is this the direction we want architectural research to head in?

Q2_ Should the benefit of research even be measured in typical media metrics?  The general public sometimes does not make the connection of the benefits of research and thus a valuable research topic could be shut down by simply not producing enough twitter followers.

Q3_ The idea that much research needs to be funded makes plenty of sense, but it is not important to understand who is funding research?  There can always be ulterior motives that can possibly skew research results.

Reading 1 – Fraser

Q1_  In general the other is always pushing design research in a social, economical or environmental way.  Why is this being celebrated over other research areas.

Q2_ Foucault is response to Corbusier’s work, “I think that it can never be inherent in the structure of things to guarantee the exercise of freedom.  The guarantee of freedom is freedom.”  Here, what I understand is that is it very difficult for a static object to fully affect people’s social problems or issues.  Does this mean that Patrick Schumacher’s philosophy that architecture is not the profession to solve huge social problems has validity?

Q3_ “Design research in architecture has to form its operations around a dialectical engagement between ideas and practice.  Nothing can be prefigure.  All has to be questioned.”  Is this why we haven’t seen architecture manifestos published in our lifetimes?

Reading 2: Rendell

Q1_ In reference to multidisciplinary research, “…increasingly such knowledge may not be valued if it is not seen to be of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing trend across education in general.  Should this not be addressed by the oppressed research groups and responded to in a way that shows the importance of research outside of economical value?

Q2_”…instead showing how design is a research led process, while research can also be thought of as a form of design”  I am having a little trouble wrapping my head around this idea.  Does this mean they are “designing” knowledge.

Q3_”Although muf have never referred to themselves as feminists, their work has had a huge influence on the development of feminist architectural design.”  If you are not labeling yourself as a feminist, and your work is not driven with that in mind, how are you contributing to the idea other than practicing architecture like normal.

This thesis aims to explore the relationships between a responsive system and its inhabitants.  Using wood for its embedded responsive potential and combining that with active-bending structural logic, a system will be designed that is able to respond and adapt to changing conditions, and to engage in active conversations and mutual exchanges with its occupants.  The system will have the following characteristics:

• The system will be composed of sensitive aggregates that exist in a constant state of precariousness, lending an almost “lively” nature to subtle movements.

• This system will create a tactile, immersive environment in which localized changes effect the system’s homeostatic performance.

• This complex weaving of delicate aggregates will be a distributed system that can facilitate the circulation and gathering of people, an environment that is responsive to forces acting within and around it, but also eliciting response from its inhabitants.

The characteristics will be explored through extensive model making and material experimentation.  These experiments will then be used to inform digital simulations and these simulations will be used to inform the aggregation of structures and explore material capabilities.  Wood is being chosen for several reasons: It is a fibrous material that inherently holds tensile performance, it has the embedded ability to react to humidity, it holds a rich variety of tactile characteristics, it is a sustainable building material, and it has a strong olfactory presence.

Architecture is not simply a static object, but a system that embodies internal and external energies and mediates these energies with their environment.  These energies include, but are not limited to: wind, heat, humidity, light, circulation, densities of inhabitants etc.  The architectural theorist, Ed van Hinte stated, “Architects should see themselves as programmers of a process of spatial change…thus our principal task is creating a field of change and modification that would generate possibilities instead of fixed conditions”.   If we view ourselves as programmers of a system that is constantly changing, and view each component inside and outside of a space as an energy force; we can begin to construct systems that holistically engage with all of these energies simultaneously. We can view each element of a space as having a dynamic function and not as an individual piece.

Recent developments of “smart” materials offers an opportunity to design material behaviors as opposed to choosing materials based on their static properties.  These smart materials behave in response to the active energy fields existing within and around the “systems” we program.  However, the introduction of these smart materials calls for careful consideration of all of the building elements we use.  These materials exist in a variable environment and therefore we should explore the embodied potential each of these materials has to respond to its environment if we are to design with material behaviors in mind.  This idea of performative materials change our notion of materials as a static element to one in which the material acts as a mediator.  This allows us to view the interface between materials, people, and their environment all as actors within a system.

The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between a responsive system and its inhabitants.  Using wood for its embedded responsive potential and combining that with active-bending structural logic, I am seeking to design a system able to respond and adapt to changing conditions, and to engage in active conversations and mutual exchanges with its occupants.  The system will have the following characteristics:

• The system will be composed of sensitive aggregates that exist in a constant state of precariousness, lending an almost “lively” nature to subtle movements.

• This system will create a tactile, immersive environment in which localized changes effect the system’s homeostatic performance.

• This complex weaving of delicate aggregates will be a distributed system that can facilitate the circulation and gathering of people, an environment that is responsive to forces acting within and around it, but also eliciting response from its inhabitants.

The characteristics will be explored through extensive model making and material experimentation.  These experiments will then be used to inform digital simulations and these simulations will be used to inform aggregate structures and explore material capabilities.  Wood is being chosen for several reasons: It is a fibrous material that inherently holds tensile performance, it has the embedded ability to react to humidity, it holds a rich variety of tactile characteristics, wood is a sustainable building material, and it has a strong olfactory presence.

Reading 1: Designerly Ways of Knowing

Q1_ “These design teachers tend to be firstly designers, and only secondly and incidentally teachers.  This model may be defensible for specialist education, but in general education all teachers are (0r should be) firstly teachers, and only secondly, if at all specialists in any field.”  Design is a profession where you learn and gain experience by doing.  If this method is so ingrained in us as designers, shouldn’t we want the people teaching design, to have actually designed?

Q2_ “We have to be able to identify that which is intrinsically valuable in the field of design, such that it is justifiably a part of everyone’s education and contributes to the development of an ‘educated’ person.” I think design is a field where you learn by making, but only after you have begun this process do you learn the questions you are really wanting to answer.  This leads to a method of inquiry that not only engages you on a technical level of how things work and how you can build them, but also on a larger contextual level of how to learn to ask questions of yourself. This sort of learning is unique in design and promotes a different way of thinking, is this not valuable to learn in general education?

Q3_ In the reading, the author states that many times designers are trained and not educated, I think in recent modes of education, it is becoming more prevalent to ask, “Why are we designing?”

Reading 2: This is Research by Design

Q1_ If a Ph.D is meant to contribute knowledge to the “field” and we are already recognizing the difference in knowledge from science to design, then why is there a stress to research in a multidisciplinary setting?  Why is a design Ph.D presented and  scrutinized the same as a humanities or science Ph.D?

Q2_ “However, linking theory and practice should be the basis of any serious academic education and research…More in general it should be observed that a fruitful relationship between theory and practice seems to work better if initiated by practitioners, not by theoreticians.” While I think it is good to create valuable links through research and practice,   it is a bit dangerous to only value the work carried out by practitioners.  The separation between a theoretician and the practice can allow for him to question or think about things outside of the current mode of thought.  Is this not something that can inform practice later on?

Q3_  “Architecture researchers should try and establish research ‘in the medium’ of architecture: this means to investigate architecture through architecture and not through history, theory, social science or environmental science” If history, theory etc. many times informs our designs, then why should we not use them to research design as well along with using architecture as a medium?