ISM wonder wall process

Drape

Vapor

Carapace

Breakthrough!!!

After a morning of frustrations, the corner transition is resolved. The issue keeping me from realizing the potential of the system to resolve the corner was my lack of belief in the rules I established for the system's structure. The same tectonic system is used for the flat portions of the triangular grid, but for some reason I assumed that the corner would have to be resolved by breaking the rules at some point. Wrong! Only by following the tectonic rules of the system at every moment was the system's inherent flexibility harnessed. I won't attempt to describe the system's connection rules here (you can try to figure them out from the pics), but they remain unbroken! Oh happy day!

Clarifying Theme

This prototype represents 1/4 of the planned model.  It shows top, side, front and corner conditions.  It does not include the redesigned straps that now change relative to their span.   I'm also going to add rough white bristol to the inside surface, which should highlight the oscillation of overlapping edges on the outer surface.  

I updated the wall of pins with my new theme, "a dynamic interaction of opposites," but I'm not totally satisfied with that yet.  For me the opposites are expansion and contraction represented by the circles and straps.  The system uses one connection type throughout.  The expansion of the circle puts tension on the strap.  This is repeated with variation in size and degree of folding.  Each module (consisting of both systems) is connected to four other modules and because of this the enclosure becomes structurally redundant.  So the system is about cooperation, interdependance, and being comfortable operating in larger system of difference.  This is how I would characterize my future as a 'digital craftsperson.'  I expect opposition, I will however continue to act as a collaborator with change in exploring my ideas.

progress update

In my next iteration, I'll be combining the curves from the gray study model with some of the linear elements from the cream model. It's an attempt to steer away from a module-based design and think about this as a continuous enclosure.

This is the current state of things. The concept driving the model is the idea of the world as a framework for exploration. The images show the progression from ground level to birds eye to overview, revealing and concealing the different elements to be explored and engaged. Also, it looks like a spaceship.

Paul

This is a rather crude study of corner conditions. After working with these fairly simple conditions without much success, I realized that the problem was simplicity.
I added more horizontal layers and created a double gable condition. This seems to be working out.
However, I will be creating some components with a triangulated base to make things work. Good thing this puppy is mass customized.

These components seem to work well. I will need to make some adjustments to the tabs and folds but the concept should work.

the latest heading into spring "break"

These are some of the latest iterations of my enclosure system. The next goal is to work on the connection between the more static/structural webbing and the softer-changing-white parachutes. The connection shown here is a crude overlapping and will have to be remedied and toyed with. It's a key spot in that this is one spot where the two conditions of change and stasis are colliding.

This model was a big step forward recently. It starts to address the idea of interdependence as the geometry of the frame interacts with that of the components; one restricts/informs the other; the behavior of one is influenced by the material nature of the other.
From here I started to investigate the further refinement of component parts and edge/corner conditions.

one from many: closer to realization

The newest prototype. The things lacking in the first, have been somewhat resolved in this iteration. The back tying makes it solid, structural, inter dependent and has the latent property of a rhythmic spacing which allows a void between, surprisingly, every element.

The string, I have had the critique, is almost too familiar to the wooden pieces, making the coming together somewhat uncomfortable. This seems counterintuitive, but I see the point. If this is a balance of individuals coming together in a balanced and calm way, should they be less familiar so that the coming together is highlighted in the difference? Or could this critique be more a statement of aesthetics and materiality. The twine, being run through the small apertures becomes somewhat frayed and worked. Is this good? or no? Would more holes and making the connections out of something more thin, perfect and ephemeral like fishing line be better?

In my next iteration I hope to exaggerate and dramatize the "overlapping" of the wooden pieces which create such interesting skin features in their adjacencies (as seen in the first image here). The bending of the twine into the "back wall" will also become more elegant and seamlessly part of the curvature of the wood.

Comments welcomed on the innards.

thanks, have a nice day.

Project 3 - Study Model

On Change vs Stasis (Evolution of Stasis)...
Chipboard "Ribs" represent status quo(stasis)- has a "forward" propulsion, however, only in terms of time (not necessarily in terms of progress). Wooden "Spines" represent an event(change) that disrupts/informs stasis. Physical layers form in the model because of shifts in stasis, resulting in an overall form respresentational of evolution in stasis.

The major difficulty I've been having with this system is finding a locking mechanism that is both functional and complimentary to the movable scales in the second photo. Shown here, the individual scales are the same size but the interactions between them are always different. This forces the mechanism that lock the complete structure together to constantly adapt.

Current Prototype

Here are some quick shots of my latest prototype. The above represents 1/3 of what I laser cut today (overall it is 1/27 of my digital model). I am really happy with the results, especially the quality of the museum board, it almost has a wooden look to it. For those of you I haven't spoken with lately, the basic concept of my project is exploiting the fact that each triangle in my surface has three sides to it. So what I have done is leave one edge of each triangle physically connected to another triangle. There are then three levels to the system with each level containing only connections in one direction. Each level individually is unable to form a surface, but together, the three levels become interconnected and achieve stability.

The problem that I am seeing is that it is very difficult for me to explain this. And the images above don't necessarily illustrate this either--even when holding the model it is not immediately apparent. The wood dowels I have used are not helping. They appear as if they are responsible for attaching the adjacent triangles together. However, they are only being used to attach the triangular panels to the vertical elements (and thus to the panel below or above it), they don't actually span between any adjacent panels. So although I am very pleased with the current results, I think a change to the wooden dowels could be a needed step.

Any suggestions? Currently I've been toying with a few ideas. Differentiating between when there is a connection between the panels and not. Using a material quite different from the wooden feel of the dowels and museum board (rubber bands, thread, ...). Possibly replacing the dowels with something that actually does make a connection between adjacent panels (although I think this might undermine my original thinking...).

                                                                                I am searching for meaning with my own project - and struggling a bit.  A thread of meaning has been flowing through my early projects this semester, but distilling it has been tricky.  I started with the choatic, but very purposeful, way that connections form in the brain; then moved to a sectional reinterpretation of that idea in order to explore its layering and spatial implications.  

As I move into serious development for project_03,  I keep coming back to this idea that space is also found within, not just around, built elements (much like the internal structure of the biological precedents we have found).  This idea is important to me because many of the most influential buildings I have inhabited in my life were those where I could climb on walls, see to the floor below, or view into another space through a "mistake" in the construction.  These spaces create a rich experience, and instill memory of the experience - a wall that can be walked on or sat in, a floor that offers a view, a ceiling that reaches down and invites you to go up and dwell.  

These images are examples of such places.  In Berlin, a memorial to the nazi book-burning offers a view below the street into the world of the "purity" the nazi party was attempting to achieve - an empty library, a place devoid of people, books, and therefore meaning.  

In Manitowoc, a view up the silo of my grandparents' old dairy farm reveals a view of imagination and exploration.  I could always imagine myself traversing the "corridor" that led to the top.  

Now that I've rambled on long enough, I ask for anyone's response.  What way(s) can you summarize my disparate thoughts on this subject?  Is there a larger, yet more concise, principle driving this project?

Architecture as:

built exploration playground?

facilitator of memory?

tectonics of imagination? 

I will post pics of my project shortly.

 

cornfield not crop circle

Assembly of reiterated parts in the idea of fordism and assembly of mass-customized parts in the emerging paradigm (while the latter is undeniably less about consumption and sameness), are, to me, two sides of the same coin. I appreciate the importance of detail and connection in architecture and its primary role in this exercise, but I fear that designing connections and propagating systems for their own sake will result in a wall; a somewhat flat, continuous and boring bubble (a highly sophisticated one, but lacking in human understanding none the less). No matter how much it is differentiated or customized, it is still a field. I prefer to walk through the cornfield, not occupy the crop circle.



Gasometer, Oberhausen. This adaptive reuse project of a museum and concert space in a giant gas container has an interesting connection to my project. The huge truss work pictured here is an inhabited space-- a hallway. You have to walk in, under, through, over and under the truss work to get to the center of the massive space. The structure, which is just an early modern industrial set of parts is truly experienced and open to interaction-- they even wrap some beams in padding so you don't hit your head in the near-pitch blackness.














I am propagating two systems, and their connection is crucial, but I cannot allow myself to forget the whole or stop myself from being seduced by ideas of scale, however changing. I can neither bring myself to separate experience and part. In the images above, the "failing" iteration quickly became a point of immense clarity for me. While I set out to have a changing frame with a sinuous skin following the same lines, the way in which I constructed it did not allow for such things. Instead it has become two interdependent systems, in which the second system (the tensile system) begins to create its own emerging form. By changing the points of connection (the holes of the rigid system), the sectional qaulity created by the position of the tensile system changes drastically, allowing (in my imagination of different scales) a path that changes in experience through the mass-customization of hole positions. diagrams to follow soon.

And this experiential take on structure, for me, is not without thematic understanding. The underlying emotion is about balance, not in one system to the other (however this may be apparent) but in part to whole, tectonic to experience. In the realm of change vs. Stasis, it argues both and neither at once. In quietude, they exist together, without quarrel.

Thematic Update

Thanks to the following folks for posting theme-related comments. (If I'm mis-stating your theme, please correct me.) A nice diversity of perspectives is emerging. I love it when things emerge.

Jasenko: Interdependence
Ted: Calm, steady change
Kelly: Change as dynamic and chaotic

blah-g01