The following analysis of Helsinki Guggenheim interests were made by Federico Reyneri associated with RAP associates architects , and his research team.
Architects have always pushed to the limit, often experimenting with shapes and technologies not available in their time. Over the past 20 years, we have experienced a revolution in thinking about the spaces and embrace complexity, computers began to show their real power. Since Guggenheim Gehry came to life in the mid-nineties, nothing has been the same: free forms emerge around the dream to reality (often becoming the nightmare of someone else) . Before this computer technology, except the modeling domain of spirit and clay, real control over complexity with technical drawings was too hard a game for us mortals, but finally in the last 10 years or so computers more powerful and cheaper and even cheaper software capable of amazing parametric design elements generated, was released. Since then, new generations of designers have begun to free incredible ideas, showing the world incredible computer generated pictures. Some architects have even begun to build.
But how widespread is parametric design technology? How does it influence the architecture in the world? We started to analyze the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition, the largest design competition in the world's history.
Thanks to the Finnish desire for transparency, for the first time, you can see all entries (even if it's just two pictures and a few words for abstract concept). It is a unique chance to get a glimpse of many ideas on the same memory.
With much patience and dedication, we examined the huge number of applications, and got several expected confirmations and some surprises. Did anyone find the two that are the same? GH-GH-103959685 and 86115389 are actually identical. Thus, the total number of unique proposition is 1714 and not 1715 as has been said.
MAKE QUALITY / IMAGE
First we inspected all make them and gave each a brand for its quality. Although the evaluation of a project with two images is not possible (and we're not the jury!) For the most senior levels of our judgment was also affected by the design. . Since the aim was to get a "visionary design", already seen design and ordinary conception inevitably scored lower
We have four categories: "very poor", " poor "," good "and" very good ", saying that" good "and" very good "should at least meet the minimum standards for an international architectural competition, while" poor "and" very poor "do the not
- Very poor: image is clear and it does not show the design process. The arrangement of spaces are not understandable and it is difficult to read the design documents. The choice of views is meaningless and lighting of the scene is unreal.
- Poor: The image can be interpreted easily. It shows a possible image of the interior outdoors. The lighting is simple and it is related to shadows. Representation of materials lack of control over the basic parameters (reflection, refraction, transparency).
- Good The picture is clear and highlights several features of the building. From the image, we can infer the surrounding space beyond the displayed image. Lighting is totally linked to the environment and there is a good affinity between the exterior and interior spaces.
- Very well: The representation clearly raises the quality of the design. The material is properly represented and is in relation to the perfect structure. The composition of the image involves a large amount of elements that enhance the space. It is possible to fully understand the investment volumes, even out of the picture. Some visual effects are added to make the project more attractive.
Our research confirmed the observations of several critical: a spectacular 73% not even barely passed the quality test, almost equally divided into "very poor" and "poor."
pARAMETRIC EFFECT
how architects used parametric design to achieve their so-called "visionary design"? Not that much. We found evidence of parametric design in 10% of total entries.
Parametric design (also called generated design) is essentially represented in two ways, which can sometimes be combined together :. object geometry-based population (also called spread) and parameter generated by the geometry
first is easier and it starts from a given form, using software to perform the desired geometry on the surface of this form. We called it " parametric model ". This creates forms following constraints and parameters. It is more difficult to learn and manage, but it is a more powerful tool. Forms generated with this process are often part of the design concept. We called it " parametric form ".
As shown in the graph above, the parametrically designed proposals are included in each category. However, if we take a look at the percentage ratio, we can see that almost 30% of very good projects have been designed with the parametric software, while the very poor they had a rate of only 4% of use. Us have the good and poor , the former is almost 20% and the latter just over 10%. In conclusion, we see a growing use of parametric design that image quality is discussed going up.
of all the proposals with signs of a generative software, a total of 65% used the generated parameter geometry, using the parametric design in a deep way to make shapes. A good number of them have also used for various design elements such as surface models. Therefore, it appears that the majority of teams using a parametric approach makes the most interesting way.
But when we take a look at the percentage ratio we realize that the use of parametric design is deeper among the same good projects, showing 70% utilization in two (shape and pattern), 10% use under form , while only 20% of them used model alone. These values are inverted when we analyze very poor projects, which have essentially adopted the generative approach to a superficial approach: 50% of them used exclusively model , 30% used form and only 20% used two . Poor and good projects have comparable values, each with 45% two , 20% form and 35% model . Therefore, the most interesting use of parametric technology (both form and model ) shows an upward trend with the quality of projects, as in the previous charts.
again, the parametric software is used in a more precise way to very good projects, unlike very poor those being decisive the appearance of the architecture.
In the following projects, each belongs to a different quality levels given by us. we understand here how the parametric software can apply the same algorithm, but get different results, some more complex than others.
In the first image, belonging to the very poor projects, something like the triangulation algorithm was used as a simple surface pattern, and has almost no impact on architectural design.
The following projects poor and good , the show again 'triangulation algorithm is used to define the shape itself, and becomes a deeper part of the design process. The building does not look the same once we imagine without it. However the overall shape of the building is still organized traditionally.
While previous projects have a superficial approach parametric software, the last a " very well " project shows the use of parametric tools to a much higher level here the algorithm is an essential part of the design process, the definition of the shape and structure of the building.: a spiral made by triangles that gently embrace the inner courtyard. It would have been difficult to conceive without Grasshopper or similar software.
CONCLUSIONS
When the parametric software was used in very good projects, the project had a better result, showing a more interesting shape and a better quality of representation. On the other hand, in the worst projects, although the parametric software had probably been used, it has no meaning, or at least not effectively.
But is better connected to a parametric software? Or best teams are able to handle the toughest tools? And parametric are a must-form designs to achieve the "wow-effect" supposedly, better known as "visionary design"?
Search continues...
POSTSCRIPT
After this research project has been completed, the six finalists for the Guggenheim Helsinki were announced, answering the question: "How does account generative design"
Apparently not all, as the finalists show no obvious signs of generative design. Maybe this is the beginning of a new stage in the architectural design, more mature, in which the design tools serve the idea and not the opposite. If this competition is an indication of design trends, it appears that the parametric intoxication is finally over.
Federico Reyneri is an architect and partner at RAP associated architects (Italy). This article was written with the collaboration of Maria Aldea Alessio Grancini and Gabriele Pranzo-Zaccaria .
Posting Komentar