Stephan_Dober_Final_Board

NathanielHammitt_FinalBoard

David Justin Hoffman_Final Board Layout

Final Board

Final Board Layout

Final Presentation_Liu Liu

An art center always has to play a dual role both as an art piece itself and a canvas for the art works it contains. The latter is particularly important for the design of Pendleton art center due to the location of the site: it is close enough to downtown Cincinnati to enjoy the undulant skyline, while its visual connection with downtown Cincinnati is interrupted by the parking structure of the neighbouring casino. Given its prominent height and close proximity to the site, the parking structure is visible nearly anywhere in the site. To make the situation even more challenging, the parking structure is to the south of the site, thus blocking the undesired view by closing up the south facade will also block the sunlight. My main design focus, therefore, has become to control the view from the building to provide a pure aesthetic experience and to negotiate with solar performance of the builidng.

With a series of mesh shadow study in grasshopper I was able to locate the optimal zone within which the desired view towards downtown Cincinnati will be unobstructed. To further cope with the undesired view of the parking garage, another grasshopper script was written to generate a series of view control walls that are at minimum height & width required to block the garage façade based on an initial exterior view path. This initial view path is a simple bezel curve controlled by the two major site force lines: the mirror of 13th Street and the parallel of Gilbert Ave. Again, the initial path was subject to modification as the building form being shaped by other factors such as function zoning (which could potentially be obtained through script components, for example Galapagos, based on the interrelationship between functional connection and square footage requirements). Ideally, several rounds of calculations should occur to finalize the height and width of the view control walls base on the refined view path, which will again fine tone the building form in detail until equilibrium is obtained.

To control the view from the building and provide a pure aesthetic experience while negotiating with solar performance, the view control walls are intended to be translucent based on view derived patterns.

The wall pattern is generated through the analysis of view conditions along both the exterior and the interior path by evenly collecting sample points along the paths and finding out the corresponding projection of the garage facade on specific view control walls. The resulting pattern reflects the efficiency of different portions of the wall surface in blocking the undesired view by its varying density due to overlaying. The top portion of the pattern is produced by the exterior path, along which negotiation between view control and solar/daylight intake is unnecessary, because the wall can be fully opaque to achieve maximum view control effect, whereas the lower portion would need to be translucent to allow southern light to pass through. Subdividing the interior path into 4 zones to group with the nearest two of the 5 view control walls has simplified the sampling process while also contributing to the complexity of the pattern. The vertical coordinate of the sample points has also affected the form of the wall. Notice that the fifth wall is significantly lower in height and further from the array of other 4 walls. The rationale behind this is that the fifth wall is specifically responding to the path within zone 4, which is located only at level B2. Lower vertical coordinates allow the view control walls to be lower in height and further away from the view path. The space between the fifth wall and the building facade can be then turned into an outdoor plaza in which view at the parking garage will still be well controlled.

David Burwinkel _ Final Board

Final Presentation_Nicholas Schoeppner

The Pendleton Art Center aims to revive passions of experienced artisans and sprout interest from the youthfully spirited community by creating a center where visions become realized. Shared spaces and an enlightened environment provide the backdrop for the 21st Century art center, designed for the user and the artist cooperatively. The Pendleton Art Center aims to revive passions of experienced artisans and sprout interest from the youthfully spirited community by creating a center where visions become realized. Shared spaces and an enlightened environment provide the backdrop for the 21st Century art center, designed for the user and the artist cooperatively.
When designing an art center for a community with artistic traditions, we must look deeper into what an art center has the potential to become with regards to the user, not just the artist. For this reason, I focused mainly on the circulation and interaction of spaces throughout the center; marrying areas together that would otherwise be distant in a traditional layout. For instance, the workroom is normally a private area for artists to create their works before public display. In “Animus,” the creation of art is celebrated, not hidden behind private walls and curtains. The visitor to this art center has the opportunity to look in on the process of the artist through windows facing the public plaza. Multiple entrances into the site allow for ease of access from anywhere in Cincinnati one chooses to arrive.
Final Presentation:

AdnaneFadadi_FinalPresentation

My final project focuses on independent variables that adapt to local conditions.  The project ‘s concept is to use the existing forces and energy to create a harmonic and self-sustained system. My inspiration came from nature where different elements are balanced and create optimal condition for human survival. As I was investigation this concept, I came across the art of Aikido.
The topography has been a major driver for the location of the buildings.  The location of the building is complementing program. The site landscape has been  introducing with seating’s areas and gathering spaces that were generated from shadow analysis image. The values of that image have been translated into zones which define comfortable zones for public events, fairs and festivals.
Another element that has been introduced is use of flowing water underneath the building for cooling the space and for aesthetic. The idea is to create falling water from the building to the landscape for visual purposes.
The facade of the buildings has been integrataded with an interwoven structure to further extend the capabilities of creating generative surface components housing various forms of information and functionality resulting in a responsive building skin. My ultimate goal was to improve the light conditions and creating different micro climate areas inside the facility. Those structures will be also are engineered for water collection during heavy rain storm.

Parametricism

The term “Parametricism”, as defined by one of the most influential parametricist Patrick Schumacher, “implies that all elements of architecture are becoming parametrically malleable and thus adaptive to each other and to the context.” With “parametrically malleable” interrelationship of architecture elements as the central theme, Schumacher claims Parametricism as the new prominent architectural style after modernism.
To explore and practice this new “style” with the design of Pendleton Art Center, I started with attempting to treat the design as an output of processing the comprehensive collection of data. This attempt was immediately challenged as I realized that a primitive architecture form would be necessary to initiate many parametric analyses, such as solar/wind performance of the skin. In other words, only certain types of data could be potentially utilized as input data to generate initial architecture form, others react to the initial form and further modify it at smaller scale. In this case of designing an art center, while it is possible to parameterize all possible types of input data and to prioritize them based on their interrelationship, I skipped the calculating process and subjectively chose the view condition of the site as the generative force to prioritize the visual experience of the design based on my general judgments and subjective intentions.
With a series of mesh shadow study in grasshopper I was able to locate the optimal zone within which the desired view towards downtown Cincinnati will be unobstructed. To further cope with the undesired view of the parking garage, another grasshopper script was written to generate a series of view control walls that are at minimum height & width required to block the garage façade based on an initial exterior view path. This initial view path is a simple bezel curve controlled by the two major site force lines: the mirror of 13th Street and the parallel of Gilbert Ave. Again, the initial path would subject to modification as the building form being shaped by other factors such as function zoning (which could potentially be obtained through script components, for example Galapagos, based on the interrelationship between functional connection and square footage requirements). Ideally, several rounds of calculations should occur to finalize the height and width of the view control walls base on the refined view path, which will again fine tone the building form in detail until equilibrium is obtained. Yet again, the decisions of constructing walls as view control method and picking site forces as basis of initial view path are all out of my own design intent rather than site parameters.
To control the view from the building and provide a pure aesthetic experience while negotiating with solar performance, the view control walls are intended to be translucent based on view derived patterns. The wall pattern is generated through the analysis of view conditions along both the exterior and the interior path by evenly collecting sample points along the paths and finding out the corresponding projection of the garage facade on specific view control walls. The resulting pattern reflects the efficiency of different portions of the wall surface in blocking the undesired view by its varying density due to overlaying. The top portion of the pattern is produced by the exterior path, along which negotiation between view control and solar/daylight intake is unnecessary, because the wall can be fully opaque to achieve maximum view control effect, whereas the lower portion would need to be translucent to allow southern light to pass through. The skin design rationale still heavily involves subjective manipulations.
Proven from my design process, parametric thinking could be actively integrated in all design levels and aspects, from zoning to form making to skin articulation. Nonetheless, fundamental design decisions, in my case the decision of adopting view control as driven factor, achieving the view control goal by building view blocking walls and utilizing translucency to negotiate between view control and solar efficiency, might still prefer over, if not rely on subjective judgments, as subjectivity involves individual decision making that characterizes the design. Parametricism is not, at least to my belief should not be, the decision making agent in the design process. If an equation were to weight the priorities of all architectural factors, to compare all available problem solving methods and thus to determine the design (rather than the designer utilizing knowledge and subjective judgments to prioritize and decide), there would be a “perfect” answer to every given scenario. One would always get what he has expected, but never anything more. This rationale is ironically similar to modernism architecture ideology, as one of its most influential quotes goes: form follows function. In the case of parametricism, form follows the combined impact of all parameterized architectural factors. Utilitarianism is not what differentiates modernism and parametricism; the computation technique only enables parametricism to expand the architectural definition of utilitarianism from pure functionality (efficiency in zoning, sheltering, etc.) to more contextual realms like urban context response, and to add to the parametric accuracy in achieving both the traditional and expanded sense of utility.
Regarding architecture as a concept in general however, the expansion by parametricism is hardly in content (as most parametric considerations are not new born ideas) but rather in methodology. Parametric methodologies to my understanding operate on existing architectural correlations at two levels: It parameterizes the traditionally non-parameterizable correlations; and it allows the correlation to be spontaneous and intensified. With the first level parametricism aims at full parameterization of all architectural factors while with the second level parametricism aims at utmost accuracy of all architectural correlations. Both aims are questionable in their necessity, while the first one is also challenged in its possibility. This challenge is indeed not a hard one to see, as many cognitive architectural subjects are ultimately non-quantifiable. What value should one assign to represent the expected sacred quality in designing a church? And what kind of algorithm can be applied to interpret this quantity of sacredness into a drastic contrast of light and shade, volume and void? Even in situation where architectural factors are parameterizable, it remains questionable whether the accuracy brought by parameterization is necessary at all aspects. It might be easy to argue for maximizing the solar/wind performance (disregarding the current high investment in achieving the maximized efficiency); it would be much harder however to argue for parametrically optimizing urban correlation between building form and built environment, as this architectural correlation deals primarily with human perception, which in itself is only precise to cognitive proximity, and any additional accuracy beyond human perception will be indeed redundant.
With all said, it is possible to minimize subjectivity in design process to fulfill radical parametricism, though the result might resemble panacea; the necessity of the two parametric aims is fairly questionable. What parametricism possesses to justify itself would be its increasing the efficiency in achieving traditional utility, which would classify parametricism as a methodology and a tool rather than an ideology and a style. The foundation of parametricism has hence been left fairly fragmentary.

The term “Parametricism”, as defined by one of the most influential parametricist Patrick Schumacher, “implies that all elements of architecture are becoming parametrically malleable and thus adaptive to each other and to the context.” With “parametrically malleable” interrelationship of architecture elements as the central theme, Schumacher claims Parametricism as the new prominent architectural style after modernism.To explore and practice this new “style” with the design of Pendleton Art Center, I started with attempting to treat the design as an output of processing the comprehensive collection of data. This attempt was immediately challenged as I realized that a primitive architecture form would be necessary to initiate many parametric analyses, such as solar/wind performance of the skin. In other words, only certain types of data could be potentially utilized as input data to generate initial architecture form, others react to the initial form and further modify it at smaller scale. In this case of designing an art center, while it is possible to parameterize all possible types of input data and to prioritize them based on their interrelationship, I skipped the calculating process and subjectively chose the view condition of the site as the generative force to prioritize the visual experience of the design based on my general judgments and subjective intentions.With a series of mesh shadow study in grasshopper I was able to locate the optimal zone within which the desired view towards downtown Cincinnati will be unobstructed. To further cope with the undesired view of the parking garage, another grasshopper script was written to generate a series of view control walls that are at minimum height & width required to block the garage façade based on an initial exterior view path. This initial view path is a simple bezel curve controlled by the two major site force lines: the mirror of 13th Street and the parallel of Gilbert Ave. Again, the initial path would subject to modification as the building form being shaped by other factors such as function zoning (which could potentially be obtained through script components, for example Galapagos, based on the interrelationship between functional connection and square footage requirements). Ideally, several rounds of calculations should occur to finalize the height and width of the view control walls base on the refined view path, which will again fine tone the building form in detail until equilibrium is obtained. Yet again, the decisions of constructing walls as view control method and picking site forces as basis of initial view path are all out of my own design intent rather than site parameters.To control the view from the building and provide a pure aesthetic experience while negotiating with solar performance, the view control walls are intended to be translucent based on view derived patterns. The wall pattern is generated through the analysis of view conditions along both the exterior and the interior path by evenly collecting sample points along the paths and finding out the corresponding projection of the garage facade on specific view control walls. The resulting pattern reflects the efficiency of different portions of the wall surface in blocking the undesired view by its varying density due to overlaying. The top portion of the pattern is produced by the exterior path, along which negotiation between view control and solar/daylight intake is unnecessary, because the wall can be fully opaque to achieve maximum view control effect, whereas the lower portion would need to be translucent to allow southern light to pass through. The skin design rationale still heavily involves subjective manipulations. Proven from my design process, parametric thinking could be actively integrated in all design levels and aspects, from zoning to form making to skin articulation. Nonetheless, fundamental design decisions, in my case the decision of adopting view control as driven factor, achieving the view control goal by building view blocking walls and utilizing translucency to negotiate between view control and solar efficiency, might still prefer over, if not rely on subjective judgments, as subjectivity involves individual decision making that characterizes the design. Parametricism is not, at least to my belief should not be, the decision making agent in the design process. If an equation were to weight the priorities of all architectural factors, to compare all available problem solving methods and thus to determine the design (rather than the designer utilizing knowledge and subjective judgments to prioritize and decide), there would be a “perfect” answer to every given scenario. One would always get what he has expected, but never anything more. This rationale is ironically similar to modernism architecture ideology, as one of its most influential quotes goes: form follows function. In the case of parametricism, form follows the combined impact of all parameterized architectural factors. Utilitarianism is not what differentiates modernism and parametricism; the computation technique only enables parametricism to expand the architectural definition of utilitarianism from pure functionality (efficiency in zoning, sheltering, etc.) to more contextual realms like urban context response, and to add to the parametric accuracy in achieving both the traditional and expanded sense of utility.  Regarding architecture as a concept in general however, the expansion by parametricism is hardly in content (as most parametric considerations are not new born ideas) but rather in methodology. Parametric methodologies to my understanding operate on existing architectural correlations at two levels: It parameterizes the traditionally non-parameterizable correlations; and it allows the correlation to be spontaneous and intensified. With the first level parametricism aims at full parameterization of all architectural factors while with the second level parametricism aims at utmost accuracy of all architectural correlations. Both aims are questionable in their necessity, while the first one is also challenged in its possibility. This challenge is indeed not a hard one to see, as many cognitive architectural subjects are ultimately non-quantifiable. What value should one assign to represent the expected sacred quality in designing a church? And what kind of algorithm can be applied to interpret this quantity of sacredness into a drastic contrast of light and shade, volume and void? Even in situation where architectural factors are parameterizable, it remains questionable whether the accuracy brought by parameterization is necessary at all aspects. It might be easy to argue for maximizing the solar/wind performance (disregarding the current high investment in achieving the maximized efficiency); it would be much harder however to argue for parametrically optimizing urban correlation between building form and built environment, as this architectural correlation deals primarily with human perception, which in itself is only precise to cognitive proximity, and any additional accuracy beyond human perception will be indeed redundant. With all said, it is possible to minimize subjectivity in design process to fulfill radical parametricism, though the result might resemble panacea; the necessity of the two parametric aims is fairly questionable. What parametricism possesses to justify itself would be its increasing the efficiency in achieving traditional utility, which would classify parametricism as a methodology and a tool rather than an ideology and a style. The foundation of parametricism has hence been left fairly fragmentary.

Final_Presentation_Paul Thong

Within the discourse of Parametricism, Mannuel DeLanda has raised a great question with his philosophy of emergent behavior or random unexplained phenomena within a city system. In response to this, the butterfly effect attempts to explain what is perceived as random emergent behavior as a set of scripted  actions and reactions that is in fact not random, but the result of an incredibly complex network of interactions beyond the limits of our comprehension. Rooted in the chaos theory, the butterfly effect has a sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where a small change on one end of a nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later outcome. It is at this point that the architectural intervention is initiated in programing and prioritization of design factors in an attempt to create a structure that mitigates the plane between art, artist, and the community.

This idea of a complex network of life’s interactions is embedded in methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is the idea that all scientific endeavors (hypotheses and events) are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events in an attempt to explain what nature is. Using the natural universe as a driver, Biomimicry (innovation inspired by nature) and its 3.8 billion years of research and development offer imaginative solutions to many of the problems that we are dealing with as designers. Animals, plants, and the rest of the natural world are the consummate engineers that have found what works in our environment.

This project intends to solve the parametric criteria of our studio using morphogenesis and FEA (finite element analysis) to evolve primitive geometries into complex nature based structure. Using a bone growth algorithm, this process adds information to matter as a new typology of structural rationalism.

Final Presentation_Brittney Denning


The building was based on deriving site lines from the surrounding neighborhood of Pendleton and the nearby casino and highway. After combining the two grids into one cohesive grid, the general form of the building was realized.

The program was separated into three sections in order to deal with the large change in topography found on the site. The public section was located near the street front of Reading Road in order to draw people into the site from the Pendleton area. The semi-public program was placed further down the site and connected with an outdoor stair/site feature. The most private programming of the site (the workshop) was placed closer to the highway and casino.

The facade took the lines derived from the site forces and transferred to the exterior of the building. The parametric thinking for the project was applied to the facade as well. In order to determine the sizing for the apertures for the facade, the program of the interior space was considered.