Second half of semester

Session 7.
March 9
Each group will present the following research.
1 Basic type of spatial organization of tower: height, number of floors, orientation, and location (site).
This must be clearly diagramed with the basic boundary conditions of the overall geometry.
2 A specific case study from furniture or architecture that identifies the conceptual genesis of the project. This case study (or series of case studies) must satisfy the following conditions: it addresses structure as a network rather than a rational grid, it introduces a concept of a fabrication or assembly process that produces a new structural effect (adding one member to another doesn’t produce a new structural effect – but, say, letting something dry, as in concrete, or tensioning, as with cables does). The case study identifies the way in which the form is a result of the structural system as well as the process of fabrication or assembly. For this part you must provide diagrams and explanatory text.
3 Your initial proposal should identify one, and only one of the following structural concepts: a) the structural system is monolithic – that is it pertains to the entire form and all at once, b) it is a component or modular system and works by aggregation. This needs to be diagrammed as an initial concept and must identify what kind of material logic and assembly logic you initially intend (this can change and probably should, but you need a starting point)
4 You need to identify in what way, and through diagrams, how the structural interest and emphasis will change the nature of the “tall building” as an urban and as a spatial condition.
5 For this first week, you need to generate one initial structural study of the system as described above using morphogenesis. You will isolate one spatial aspect of the design (e.g., one floor, one component, one global form) and develop – for each person on the team - an analysis using morphogenesis. So, if there are three people on the team, each person will do a full test on one full concept and each member of the team needs to have a clearly different way of initiating the investigation.
For Example:
I want to do a tower, but I want the structure to operate as a combined double lattice on the perimeter. So with one floor in mind, I develop geometrical form in the modeling program of my choice and figure out a way to produce a geometry that will be read in morphogenesis to produce an initial analysis. Once that analysis is done, I now need to examine its results, identify whether or not it meets my spatial or design criteria and if not, continue generating studies until I have successfully established an interesting organization.
Here, “interesting organization” should only mean that it creates a situation in which the architectural result is compelling and self-evident.
If I am on a team of three, we should all meet and the other two members should develop a similar study but with an originally different geometrical starting point. Let’s say my form is symmetrical, then the next person’s might be asymmetrical, and the third person’s might be symmetrical in plan, but asymmetrical in elevation or section.
On some level, you have to determine as a group what will be a useful and interesting investigation.
This is more or less your midterm.

Session 8 Local analysis
March 16
Progression of design: solving locally, solving globally.
Part A) Each of the different analyses in step 5 needs to be rationalized and materially hypothesized for an analysis in csfem. So, if we’re a team of 3, each of us needs to take the final result of the morphogenesis, identify a specific material and structural rationalization (grid or member?) – that means diagram it and redesign it eventually as a polygon and develop an analysis in CSFEM. As a group, we need to run the tests with the following in mind: same loads over the same square footage. This way, you can develop a structural overview of how the three different systems you’ve generated behave structurally.


Part B)
Based on the feedback from the review on march 9, you will, for every member of the group, refine the investigation in the following manner: take the initial study and generate three larger scale global studies. Here the point is how the local analysis from the previous week will generate (in the case of a team of three) three different global results. Note: the global results should be dramatically different in at least one of the following ways: 1) structurally – the structure shifts in its organization from one area of the tower to the next, 2) spatially – the spatial implications of the design change, 3) site – the urban condition of the tower changes.

Session 9 Global system defined.
Presentation and discussion with Buro Happold
March 23
Part A) For each of the global systems you will need to develop a similar CSFEM study as the first example with the local condition and generate and compare the different stress behaviors.
Part B)
Based on the reviews of March 16 and your results in Part A of March 23 you will take one global system for your project and refine it in the following way: identify, at the scale of an actual architectural project, what your materials are, a process for fabrication and assembly and an initial rough digital model. The digital model should include the following, appropriate floor to ceiling heights, thicknesses, and a “generic” membrane condition.

Session 10 Rationalization for fabrication
March 30
For this week you will need to develop a small scale mockup of the tower using whatever material you need as an initial study. Here the critical feature is to elaborate the previous week’s study by materializaing it first at a small scale. This process will force you to develop the appropriate questions and insights for generating he larger and final project which will also be defined. So, you will be presenting a sufficiently clear and accomplished small scale study and from there an articulate strategy for the next two and a half weeks for fabrication and documentation. This strategy must include the following: the scope kind and amount of material, the machines or processes to be used, the assembly system. Once this has been reviewed you will begin the process this week for the final fabrication. This fabrication must include a site model made of mdf for the project and potentially (depending on your interests and level of enthusiasm) a plaza or base condition for the building.

Session 11
April 6
Fabrication continued. You will be fabricating this week and have most if not all the components generated and have completed one aspect of construction. Depending on the project this might be the form as such, one section of the structure, a couple of floors. You will also need to generate a rough elevation and section drawing for review which will lead eventually to a final set of drawings for the project. Your initial rough digital model should begin to take shape for a final rendering.

Session 12
April 13
This week you should be compiling your research into a presentation board (To be defined) that includes the research for the concept, the structural analysis, documentation for fabrication, plans, sections, elevations. This will be a rough draft presentation board. Your primary structure and form should be ready by this point.

Session 13
April 20
As this is the last week and will be intense with reviews you will be responsible for final details of presentation and finish with regard to the model, as well as final document preparation.

The final project in all its details must be ready by Thursday the day before the exhibition.

The following week we will hold a review of the projects with engineers and other designers.