Skip navigation

Perhaps way of wrapping up the project is to do a reshoot of this same shot with me and him getting wet and “sediment”full at Abbots??

Had a very productive and insightful day visiting Wallasea Island, his latest project and reviewing the portfolio with him: massive detail discussion on TS and mapping sediment, but undoubtedly the quote of the day is this one:

“By the time you reach 18 you think you know it all: you spend the rest of your life realizing that you were right in the first place.”

Back to black…

Each component has 666 “Y”s… very, very auspicious number…, and in this field, twice the size of the previous one, I have over 60 components: Grand Total of 39,960 wishbones… Im bringing the number down to 20,000 maximum and even then… I am not sure of this is already blowing up the scale in terms of manufacture. From the TS tutorial it cant be that many and if it is, there has to be an alternative to the sheer number of components and assembly required.

As reference… my TS precedent: Accropodes, Ecopodes, Cor-Locs, polders and soft-engineering techniques.

This grid is the water flow from breach B as it floods the site. the now double the size components (4m maximum length for biggest component).

The color (blue, red, green) relate not to the components themselves and their types (1,2,3,4,5,6 rotation, etc.) but to the performance: blue = sediment polder (0m to 2m in section of sea level), red = wavebreaker (2m to 4m in section of sea level) and green = infrastructure (4m to 6m in section of sea level). The crucial importance of this is that the wave does not behave the same throughout its section and the component acknoweldges this. The component direction for the 0m to 2m (blues) addresses heavy sediment and medium sediment that is transported at the bottom of the current. Incoming waves cannot face a grid of components at this heights as it will create clogging in the breach, so, the direction is modified so it allows the water to flow through. The component direction at 2m to 4m (reds) are the wavebreakers, responsible in reducing the speed of the wave as the wave is at its most fast towards the middle of the section. The component is rotated so it faces towards the beginning of the brech in order to recude the speed as it reaches further into the site. The component direction for 4m to 6m (greens) relate to infrastrcuture and to the park circulation. From 4m to 6m, a height that is only reached twice a day for a period of a couple of hours it serves more as the area where the component becomes the park. I am now rotating them in place in order to get a flow of water to the top areas of the site and to reduce some wave speed by positioning the reds facing the breach. The greens are then positioned to face each other and start creating connecting paths. I am fixing still to the original component layout, meanign that I wont be rotating the components at its various section heights, but, to when rotating the whole component it fulfils these criteria.

This field is for sediment. Im taking the breach as the reference point where the water floods in and using that where I position the 5 main rows of components that come from that point. The size of “Y”s for those, whch are the biggest, is 2m. This might be too small comparing the fact that I end up with so many, specially when I start filling the gaps the main rows leave with smaller components, none of them larger than thos of the main rows. Im also going to reduce the areas of sediment influence of each component because when I checked with my test result, it wasnt that great of a scattering across and I also want to keep them as close as permissibly possible.

The selection of components when proliferated: the 10 degree rotation is located seaward wheras the 0 and 1s are towards the land. This is due to the fact that the water should decrease speed and sediment should not be clogged in the breach, whereas towards the land, the sediment should be trapped and let to build up. Height is kept at 6m constant throughout. Anything less than 6m will be covered by the high tide. Later differentiation of heights will be inputed.

So for v. 1.1: smaller sediment radius, double the size, to a 4m biggest component, hence less components on site but with the same variation between the main rows that come from the breach. Height variation in a later version, I still want to tweak the relationship of the components using same heights throughout the site.

Eco-Machines provide a structure for the organization and manipulation of local flows of information, matter and energy. Processes of catalytic co-action are triggered among single components and with local ecosystems, defining the potential emergence of larger infrastructures, or artificial ecologies.[1] This can be interpreted as a tool for dynamic pavilions, new ecologically sensitive market stalls or new park landscapes tapping directly into the environmental context. The latter is where my project resides[2]. The wider context of this new brief at the AA is what has drawn me into assessing the debate around architecture and nature and to the extent to which this brief contributes to this ongoing topic of discussion. Putting aside the idea of natural as environmental process, to what extent can these prototypes contribute to the development of what has been a widely discussed topic among architectural discourse: Nature and its relationship with architecture?

What is Nature for Inter 10 is it related to what it was for Adrian Forty, Kate Soper, the Environmentalists, Ebenezer Howard and the discipline of Landscape Urbanism? Nature has undergone a series of transformations when correlated to architecture but nowadays it is valued as an inevitable consideration, greatly contrasting from the Modernist indifference to its context. From Vitruvius, Samper, Corbusier, Green Politics and Landscape Urbanism, nature’s position in architecture is always in conflict and friction with each other even though it has been extensively theorized and now we can see examples of buildings attempting in bridging the gap. The Eco-Machines is another chapter of this attempt in reconciling the two parts. It is this gap where the debate exists.

The scale and degree of intervention of the Eco-Machine is determined by the designer and the initial number of processes is also tailored. The word initial is deliberate since the prototype acknowledges that situating itself under a given environmental context more than one process will in fact be triggered, beneficial or not to the planned outcome. The prototype becomes a platform required for a series of reactions to emerge. During the Unit Trip at La Paz[3], we built a market stall using local material that is built for artisan boatbuilding and included an adaptable built system that could respond to the sun positions during the day. The sun light and the market function defined the form, yet the sensitivity of the material to the rain, the heat radiation capacity the zinc panels had triggered more reactions that the initial design premise. The machine updates when tested for a second iteration until the materials and environmental responses are finely tuned to deliver the typology. The idea of evolution of the design, tapping the environmental context and using ecological materials are taken as the “natural” elements, yet, within architectural and non-architectural discourse the concept goes beyond.

Contemporary understanding of Nature, outside an architectural context, comes as one bordering romantic nostalgia and conscious guilt as being responsible to its endangerment. The plastic bag ban campaign[4] is the latest instalment in what has become a mediatised way of addressing the relationship between us and Nature by trying to save it from our consumerist appetite. The idea that using alternative resources other than those portrayed as contributors to the global debacle, one is participant to the betterment of the “Natural” crisis that we are responsible as consumers.

One other aspect of Nature which has been pervasive recently is that of a force to be reckoned. The destructive power of nature has numerous examples of what happens when man coexists with what is an untameable energy. The eruption of Vesuvius[5] and Hurricane Katrina are just two examples of nature overcoming the built environment and yet human settlements continue to renew themselves catastrophe after catastrophe. With the warning of ever more unstable climatic conditions and rise in extreme environmental disasters, this trend is set to be on the rise. The responds to this will be of course one of conflict and friction. The preservation or coexistence becomes one of a trend of overcoming after being overcome oneself.

Whether it Nature is seen as endangered by our consumerist appetite or as an untameable one it is inextricably embedded in our context, hence, the unanimity in taking Nature as a resource to be preserved. The various attitudes to this has been categorised by Kate Soper in her chapter “Ecology, Nature and Responsibility”[6]: aesthetic, intrinsic, preservation and conservation. Nature should be preserved for much the same reasons we would want to presser a work of art: because of the delight and inspiration it provides.[7] due to aesthetic. Intrinsic reason: Nature should be preserved not as a means to any human end, whether aesthetic or utilitarian, but because it is inherently valuable as nature.[8] Preservation (for the maintenance of wilderness, wildlife and unspoilt countryside)[9] differs from the utilitarian focus of conservation (for the maintenance of the resources)[10] but both are linked in schemes like nature reserves, where conservation leads to scientific research becoming utilitarian. These definitions overlap in certain occasions, but Nature operates inherently in relation to the urbanite were we seem to have more of an effect on it rather than the other way round. Nature is seen as a fragile resource. In architecture, “Nature” was seen as a highly adaptable concept when it came to legitimizing the epistemology of design and has nowadays eventually become a design requirement. Our current understanding of Nature is the progression of the original debate linking man made artifice and natural context.

Initially, however, the gap between both concepts was unbridgeable as it was the general viewpoint of one replacing the other or becoming a continuation, an improvement of another. Leon Battista Alberti in “De Re Aedeficatoria” states that rarely is it granted, even to Nature herself, to produce anything that is entirely complete and perfect in every respect.[11] Human development would seek to bridge the gap between our ideal of beauty and our surrounding “Nature”. Aristotle in “Physics” considers generally art competes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and partly imitates her[12] giving way to what would become the gear of definition of architecture through art, at a time where architecture was seen under the veil of art and the liberal arts. During the late seventeenth century, the tradition of mimesis was encouraged among the liberal arts, where nature is seen as the inspirational source: it became conventional to construct arguments for the present or ideal condition of all human creations out of hypothetical origins in natural conditions in which the first humans found themselves.[13] At this stage, the comparison of Nature, architecture and art was an intellectual relation, unrelated to the physical daily interactions. Filaretes treatise (1460 – 1464) makes the direct connection of natural objects like trees and the origin of the column. This determines the starting point for the theory of the development of architecture as imitation of nature. Within this premise, the discourse develops with people like Quatremiere de Quincy and D’Almbert: Nature includes the domain of physical beings, and the realm of moral or intellectual things… To imitate does not necessarily mean to make a resemblance of a thing, for one could, without imitating the work. Imitate nature thus, in making not what she makes, but as she makes it, that is, one can imitate nature in her action.[14] Deane and Woodward’s Oxford Museum is an example of taking this premise, combining it with industrial novelties and creating hybrids of mimesis and technological innovation: Ruskinian principles at their best: A step, but not a final step, has been made towards an harmonious union of the ironwork of the 19th century with refined architecture of the Middle Ages.[15]

The link of nature and architecture went a drastic change with Semper: For him, the whole art of architecture rested in the ability to translate idea or themes from one material to another; whereas for Quatremere, transmutations had been a way to maintain the old proposition that architecture was an art of natural imitation, Semper with his German background, saw it as the main cause of architecture meaning, a meaning from it being the work of man, and in no way dependent upon references to nature.[16] It is at this point where the gap becomes all too apparent: where one has detached from another yet recognises its inevitable coexistence. The further development of the rationalization of nature an architecture lead eventually to the perceived idea of architecture overtaking nature and replacing it.

The Futurists stated: Just as the ancients drew the inspiration for their art from the elements of nature, so we… must finds this inspiration in the elements of the immensely new mechanical world which we have created[17] Frank Lloyd Wright, however, was influenced by the American philosophers Ralph Waldo Emerson and maintained nature as co-protagonist in much of his most famous work. Today’s perspective is one of resourcefulness, where the advantage of nature’s environmental dynamics is used in enhancing the architecture. Beyond the effect of the ornate, the effect of the sustainable ornament is currently the practice of “Nature” and architecture. Nottingham’s Jubilee Campus and the Commerzbank[18] are one of the many examples that fall within this new category. This however, is one relationship based on interest and functions, whereas the Vitruvian discourse was one of sense of origin and being in relation to our natural context. It is at this exact moment where the discourse should gain new momentum, especially with the contemporary generalised view of Environmental crisis and Climate Change.

At this point I would like to come back to Soper and her essay “Ecology, Nature and Responsibility” where the melange of conservationist and green politics ideals are highlighted as an impractical mix. This in light of what Green Architecture promotes: conservation of resources and sustainability leading to preservation of our natural environment. By assessing Green Politics, it quickly becomes the case that the zeal of future projection for conservation neglects the necessities of the present users that are not in any way participants of the current resources excess that leads to its rationing when it is perceived as endangered.

Soper points out: We should still note the extensive difference of moral bias between all those arguments that stress the “intrinsic” and non-instrumental value of nature, and all upon us to preserve it as an end in itself and those that emphasized the value of nature as an essential means of the preservation and enhancement of human life, and thus the duty we have to conserve its resources for future generations. Neither theoretically nor practically are these two positions easy to reconcile, and we should not suppose that they are. Nor should we make the anthropocentric mistake of simply assuming that the argument from utility is more obviously coherent and morally compelling than the arguments from intrinsic merit of nature.[19] This sets the context in which the view of Green Architecture as a pre-emptive response to environmental crisis or as a missionary zeal to safeguard the future is easily questioned within a more meaningful context in relation to the present, hence, debating the existing architectural response to the subject.

The assumption of preserving Nature for the future ignores the present generation’s non-realization of the privileges which are meant to be safely kept. The existing preservationist attitude to green architecture is one of maintaining of resources, whereas the actual crisis is one of lack of availability of nature for the majority currently living. The green architecture should be one of dissemination rather than Ivory towers of preservation. In short, there can be no justifiable grounds for arguing that there is a commonly shared “species” responsibility to ensure ecological sustainability, which does not also at the present time provide grounds for insisting that this is a responsibility that has to fall essentially on those sectors of the global community that have hitherto been most selfishly irresponsible and profligate in their use of global resources.[20]

Soper concludes that the religious attitude to Green politics is one that neglects the potential development of cultural awareness: At any rate one can certainly argue that the calls for a new religion of nature are confused and quixotic if they are based on the assumption that by re-inspiring a certain “awe” of nature we shall protect it against its further exploitation.[21] The sensation we are left with our attitudes to Nature could be one of frustration due to the complexity and scale of what initially started as an epistemological problem and has evolved into a global issue. The answer to existing mechanisms to counter the impasse of Nature and Architecture can be found in the existing practice and in developments in the field of architecture that directly engages Nature and Man-made within our own perimeters: landscape and urbanism.

The Dutch landscape is a prime example of historical rivalry between natural context and the will to overcome it and adapt. The gardens at Versailles[22] are examples of the tradition of landscape architecture in reorganizing Nature in relation to aesthetic values at the time. Both are examples of landscape as utility for the goal to survive and the goal to beautify. The premise is now to disseminate examples of landscape for the awareness of its value as means to actively encourage its preservation and conservation. The inclusion of landscape into our daily attitude, beyond the guilt when throwing away a plastic carrying bag, would be the next step in ensuring the closing of the gap between the two concepts.

A first attempt at this inclusion of Nature and architecture in the daily routine was made by Ebenenzer Howard’s Garden City in the nineteenth century. By strategically deploying satellite towns, London’s overpopulation would be curbed, as well as providing the new citizens an environment both urban and extensively landscaped. Even though the conservationist position was not one of safeguarding for the resources, it was made with the sensitivity of the benefits that Nature added to every day life.

Ebenezer Howard’s “Garden City” is an attempt in bringing a definition of nature as a solution to urban development at the time. The passive approach of nature as requisite for a new suburbia idyll understates the potential relationship of nature and urban setting. Howard’s acknowledgement of nature outside the layout of the plan was one more of intercalated green spaces, trimmed with geometric precision, with concrete corridors. This direction in planning was geared towards the conception of a new prototype city and living and it paved the way to an understanding of planning as a tool to bridge urban and landscape, man-made and nature into a coexistent context.

By the beginning of the twenty first century, urbanism and landscape had undergone a transformation of homogeneity and stripped from a sense of locality. The dissemination of a global culture and the Modernist experiments lead to a point where landscape and the urban fabric where indistinguishable. Kelly Shannon’s essay “From Theory to Resistance: Landscape Urbanism in Europe” describes how the globalization phenomenon has stripped parts of the world of a sense of identity and, known as critical regionalism[23].

Peter Rowe’s picks up where Soper left but relates it to an alternative practice, not so much an open question: Priority should now be accorded to landscape, rather than to freestanding built form, and second, that there is a pressing need to transform certain megalopolitan types such as shopping malls, parking lots and office parks into landscape built forms…. The dystopia of the megalopolis is already an irreversible historical fact: it has long since installed a new way of life, not to say a new nature…. I would submit that instead we need to conceive of a remedial landscape that is capable of playing a critical and compensatory role in relation to the ongoing, destructive commodification of our man-made world.[24] The crisis at the urban level and the increasing protagonism of relations with Nature at the prospect of dramatic changes in her impact on us has lead to a new point where once again the discourse of Nature and architecture can gain new momentum.

Landscape Urbanism can be considered as another chapter in the development of the discourse of architecture and nature that tackles contemporary issue of identity displacement. Paradoxically, the modernist attempt in replacing nature by our own artificial environmental construct lead to an identity crisis that now has become apparent. A tabula rasa perception of architecture is no longer advocated, but a tabula rasa of culture is quickly assimilated by Western cultural export replacing the host culture and leaving little trace for identification: To “(…) challenge the internationally imposed generic models of modernization and urbanization and to resist the homogenizing effects of late capitalism.”[25] [26]

The practical nature of Landscape Urbanism in generating infrastructural landscapes such as Dutch polder landscape or even tracing back to potato terracing in the Andes Mountains devised by the Incas is an example of negotiating both concepts more akin to the “utilitarian” idea of Soper, but, with a wider appeal in promoting the advantages of Nature and Man-made balance. Contemporarily, this practice has considerable potential as James Corner points out in “Terra Fluxus”: the ability to shift scales, to locate urban fabrics in their regional and biotic contexts, and to design relationships between dynamic environmental processes and urban form.[27]

The challenge I perceive is one of redefinition of modus praxis where nature is engaged as resource in the present and not as resource to preserve for the future. The benefits of it are widely acknowledged but also the benefits of it becoming co-protagonist in design should be widely promoted: (…) The obligation to future generations will be the most universally and compellingly felt, the more justice comes to prevail in the distribution of global resources in the present.[28] The early examples of such an attempt could be traced back to the Versailles gardens and early landscape architects, but the current practise of landscape architecture actively engages the developers of a project into a sensitive solution to a land crisis. Whether a regeneration brief or one in an undeveloped area, this discipline gives hints of how to tackle the relationship of architecture and nature in the present through active negotiation leading to a public appreciation of the landscape, but also highly sensitive to its preservation responsibility by maintaining the sense of continuity which is essential for long-term sustenance. The promotion of landscape as the new urbanism is one that bridges the real gap between nature and architecture since it brings the issues of the Nature/Architecture debate into a design condition subject to the managing of these two concepts into a proposal that affects both parts.

At this point I would like to return to the Eco-Machines. The context in which this brief operates is one where the idea of Nature cannot be underestimated into what could initially be seen as an architectural showcase of environmental processes under the controlled format of a prototype. The capacity of this brief to insert itself into this greater discourse lies in the ability to relate to what in my opinion is greater environmental dynamics where the real impact can be assessed. Perhaps this can be through a Landscape Urbanistic approach like my project, the Marsh Condenser, purports to do so, but it should be essential regardless of any scope of actualization and scale that as soon as Nature is brought into the design equation, there is a baggage of meaning and debate that situates the project into a problematic position that has to be solved In order for the legitimacy of the project to quickly become apparent. Is the eco-Machine interested in preservation, conservation, bridging the gap of Nature and Architecture, aesthetic commodity or is it an innate object tapping on environmental processes? Surely as any brief the issue can be missed out altogether, but the premise lies there in the core: Nature and Architecture regardless is a subject matter that is still under a great need of treatment and definition and redefinition. Contributions to the discourse only help to contribute to the settlement of Nature and Architecture and the position of the architect in relation to these two conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BUDER, Stanley “Visionaries & Planners: The Garden City Movement and the Modern Community”, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990

CORNER, James, “Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture”, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1999

FORTY, Adrian, “Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture”, Thames and Hudson, London, 2000

GARNHAM, Trevor, “Oxford Museum: Deane and Woodward”, Phaidon, London, UK, 1992

MOSTAFAVI, Mohsen, NAJLE, Ciro, “Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape”, Architectural Association Publications, London, 2003

PARSONS C. Kermit, SCHUYLER, David, “From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard”, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2002

SOPLER, KATE “What is Nature? Culture, Politics and the non-Human”, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1995

WALDHEIM, Charles, “The Landscape Urbanism Reader”, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2006

LINKS

Intermediate Unit 10 Brief

http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/downloads/prospectus/2007/briefs/2007_brief_int10.pdf

Marsh Condenser Eco-Machine

http://www.aainter10fabrizio.wordpress.com


[3] See Figure A.

[4] See Figure B.

[5] See Figure C.

[6] SOPER, Kate, “What is Nature? Culture, Politics and the non-Human”, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1995,

p.249 – 282.

[7] Ibid., p. 252.

[8] Loc. Cit.

[9] Ibid., p. 253.

[10] Loc. Cit.

[11] FORTY, Adrian, “Words and Building: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture”, Thames and Hudson, London,

UK, 200.

[12] Ibid. 221.

[13] Loc. Cit.

[14] Ibid., p. 224.

[15] GARNHAM, Trevor, “Oxford Museum: Deane and Woodward”, Phaidon, London, UK, 1992, p. 29.

[16] FORTY, Adrian, Op. Cit., p. 233.

[17] Ibid., p. 237.

[18] See Figure D.

[19] SOPER, Kate, Op. Cit., p. 259.

[20] Ibid., p. 262.

[21] Ibid., p. 273.

[22] See Figure E.

[23] See figure F.

[24] SHANNON, Kelly, “From Theory to Resistance: Landscape Urbanism in Europe” in WALDHEIM, Charles, “The

Landscape Urbanism Reader”, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, USA, 2006, p. 114.

[25] SOPER, Kate, Op. Cit., p. 259.

[26] See Figure F

[27] CORNER, James, “Terra Fluxus”, in WALDHEIM, Charles, Op. Cit., p. 24.

[28] Ibid., p. 262 – 264.

From my long overdue essay, my Manifesto on Nature and Architecture for my Eco-Machine Manual Book. It would be a sweet introduction to the topic. Feel free to quote it for next year’s brief… I love how Word consistently likes to point out how my name is a spelling mistake.

IT STANDS!! And the sediment floooowwws and settles. I cant wait to see the beach result. I added some “stilts” in each branch so it would stand, but now there are Y aggregates towards the 20th generation that are starting to fall, meaning that I have to add a second row of stilts to those branches exceeding 20 generations of Ys. Also, there is the joint issue between the components overlapping, specially at the 2 and 3rd generations where, regardless of what angle is it, it always overlap. I should diagram the points of overlapping to inform a lock system for the components when they assemble.

Ripples…. mucho ripples…

Im more than satisfied with the beach result 😀

I havent setup the 3 other directions of the wave submerssion, but the first setup, and the only one that is pictured (copied three times to give an idea of the layout) was pretty good.

Still… the prototype looks depressingly rigid. This is 0 degree increment, hence, closed. The next tests have to do 3,5,7 and 10 increments.

Now that I have evidence of how the sediment FINALLY responds to my prototype I can start plotting it on my site. For actual plotting Ill have to vary, not only the incrementation rotation but also the flexibility of the component itself in relation to topographt. Thats the forgotten logic: PIVOTING of the material system.

I would hope to have some rigid material systems actualised by tuesday and with a proto park setup. Then I can loosen them up with the pivoting variation and with further sedimentation performance testing responding to topography (friction) and the new angles.

Im officially obsessed with black…

By some divine intervention Ive managed to finish up EVERYTHING up to Actualisation to give this term a hardcore Actualisation. A bit too late, since, now that I layout my table of contents, there is this horrible black hole in the Actualisation section… do I have a very dense environment, super ms, digital and physical testing and no actualisation (architecture)?? Hardcore actualisation pending this weekend.

Things in red are pending. I know… cybernetic diagram is still missing… and coastal relignment has some seriosu socioeconomis I cannot miss out to present: fish farms, sea shell farms, agriculutral potential, sailing, conservation park. These are key to define program.

Contrary to popular belief, we do make physical tests!

These are the list of consultants to Marsh Condenser: their invaluable information and willing to share it with me was pivotal in getting me to a stage where I am confident in explaining what at the beginning of the year looked like a daunting brief. My thanks to all of them.

Now that moon calendar and tide calendar have been morphed into twin diagrams, which are pretty systematic, since, rotation of the diagrams correspond to cotinous months being simulated with relative precision giving the corresponding values for that new month. I can keep on rotating to simulate passing of time and get good estimates of moon positions and tidal levels for any month, for any year, until 2354, where the Abbots Hall Farm is expected to reach maturity, according to the Pethick Asymptotic Curve theorem for marsh development. HA! And Im no expert, trust me 😀


TIME DRAWING!

As part of the Time Diagrams that convey the ecoMachine behaviour through time, moon cycles from 2008 and future years determine spring tide and neap tide levels that determine beyond average low tide and high tide levels that the site will face.

Using ink as a tracer for the wave action occuring in my testing model, the prototype becomes to fully react to actual physical conditions, with my movement of the box simulating waves: waves flowing landward, accreting seaward. I have to refine it by making it bigger to allow for a full wave cycle to occur and also widening of the box so as not to add more turbulence when the water collides with the bounding box.

So, to help organize the presentation for the 22nd Ive drafted an index following my categories and how the Manual will start to take shape. Ive focused on Environments and Machines which are the parts which I have almost completed.

So.. this blog is getting a bit dusty and with a stench of mothballs: Easter update 01

Im laying out everything to work as manual that can be sent to a printshop and binded. Ive left the 1cm in the middle with the new layout and put everything by chapter of the Manual.

Since the material system is what i have mature enough, ive started with that, also to get every bit of work ive done on it included, from the branching studies to how i got to the final component. Im still working on the coherence, but hopefully itll make some sense or at least, be marginally understandable.

I even got the BIG FAT CATALOGUE from 1st term out from Rhino… after 5 crashes and risking a RAM meltdown, but its out in a harmless .ai format. 🙂

Next upda,te when the layout is done, the revamped environmental section with the water persistancy diagram, marshland formation diagram and marshland ecology and sediment deposition diagram. Stay tuned.

pdf01.jpg

black_logic_branching.pdf

pdf05.jpg

black_logic_scaling.pdf

pdf04.jpg

black_logic_rotation.pdf

pdf02.jpg

black_logic_grid_descriptions.pdf

pdf03.jpg

black_logic_grid.pdf

pdf06.jpg

black_logic_stacking_renders.pdf

0deg.jpg

deg02.jpg

deg02fixed.jpg

pdf010.jpg

pdf011.jpg

voronoicells_middle.jpg

portfoliocover.jpg

and yes… I am aware of the spelling mistake….

variation-in-angle-catalogue.jpg

sitewithmodels.jpg

sitewithmodels_viewpersp.jpg

While Im inputting my MS guys I am leaving a lot of indicators, angle lines, points and contour lines so that all the work ive put into 3d-fying my MS can be also be seen when deployed on site (also good material that can be used for a very sexy diagram). The landscape is populated by the logic of the MS, but then, eventually, starts to deform the original logic into something that works with it. How to verifiy this? Putting these critters into a water tank and let the sediment flow!

actualisation_2.jpg

I am doing the catalogue variations of the rotations the components have to go through when they stack. The resulting terrace effect and the gaps, or lack of, is what Im diagramming now, then, BRUTALLY deployed in my voronoi cells.

1deg_rotation.jpg