How did design methodology change after the advent of the

computer?

2015

GIRISHA SETHI
4th Year, B.Arch.
A/2475/2012

Coordinator: Dr. Shweta Manchanda

Guide: Mr. Pashim Tiwari

1
 DECLARATION

The research work embodied in this dissertation titled METHODOLOGY IN

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN has been carried out by the undersigned as part of the

undergraduate Dissertation programme in the Department of Architecture,

School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, under the supervision of Mr.

Pashim Tiwari.

The undersigned hereby declares that this is his/her original work and has not

been plagiarized in part or full form from any source.

(Signature)

Name: GIRISHA SETHI

Roll No.: A/2475/2012
Date: 16th Nov. 2015

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my institute, School of Planning
and Architecture, New Delhi, for providing me with this enriching opportunity to
undertake a research of this nature.

This dissertation would not have reached this stage if not for the help and
insightful input of my guide, Mr. Pashim Tiwari and my teacher, Mr. Rajiv Bhakat.
That gratitude extends to my coordinators Dr. Jaya Kumar, Dr. Leon Morenas and
Dr. Shweta Manchanda for their guidance and encouragement and for helping me
understand the process of research better.

Further thanks go to my classmates Milind Goel and Shravan Kumar for long
sessions of informal discussions and their unbiased perspectives on my work. I
would also like to thank my friend Vikram Bengani for sharing with me notes and
his experience on undertaking a scholarly research which helped me hugely in
carrying out this research process.

I must not fail to express my sincere gratitude to the library staff of my institute
for their generous help in acquiring literature.

I am lucky and grateful for the support and encouragement from my family and
friends, which was invaluable in this research finding its completion.

3
ABSTRACT
The act of design is a complex process, empirically intuitive and seemingly ill-
structured, channelized by various tangible and intangible influences. Over the
centuries, different tools and methodologies have been adopted to undertake this
mystical looking process.

This research is an attempt to understand the structure of the design process and
to deconstruct its drivers and components. It is an analytical study of the impact
of changing design tools on the nature of the design process.

The research looks at how contemporary design procedures stand compared to

the traditional design tools from before the advent of the computer. It does the
same through inductive reasoning of the evolution of the design process over the
timeline, a qualitative analysis of existing literature and secondary case studies
subjected to deductive reasoning. It looks at the works of architects like Antonio
Gaudi and Frank Gehry to study the period when the computer had begun to
participate in the design process and to appreciate the nature of the major
changes that then occurred.

This paper looks at the radical shift in design thinking and the nature of
association between design and construction in the digital design era. Finally, it
attempts to enumerate future challenges in the domain of design methodologies.

* DESIGN PROCESS * DESIGN METHODOLOGY * TRADITIONAL DESIGN TOOLS*

* DIGITAL DESIGN * PARAMETRIC DESIGN *

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
- Declaration 2
- Acknowledgement 3
- Abstract 4

i) Introduction 7
ii) Research Question 8
iii) Aim and Objectives 9
iv) Scope and Limitations 10
v) Research Methodology 11

CHAPTER 1: Design and The Design Process 12

1.1 Drivers of the process
1.2 Components of the design process

CHAPTER 2: How it started 19

2.1 Architecture before Architects
2.2 The coming of the Architect: Emergence of the design process

CHAPTER 3: Traditional Design methodologies 23

3.1 How traditional tools affected design thinking and design
methodologies

CHAPTER 4: On the advent of the computer 28

4.1 History of CAD
4.2 Initial aids of the computer in retrospect
4.3 Prophesies of the Optimists and the Pessimists

CHAPTER 5: Parametric Design 35

5.1 The Digital Domain
5.2 How contemporary design tools affect design thinking and design
methodologies

5
CHAPTER 6: Case Studies 41
6.1 Antonio Gaudi and Sagrada Familia
6.2 Frank Gehry and Walk Disney Concert Hall

CHAPTER 7: Drawing a comparison: Before and After computers 58

7.1 Impact on design thinking and design methodology
7.2 Driving forces of the process
7.3 Relationship between different parts of the design process
7.4 Form and geometric exploration
7.5 Analysis and metamorphosis
7.6 Design information
7.7 Role of the architect

CHAPTER 8: Conclusions and Challenges ahead 68

- Bibliography 71
- List of Figures 72

6
i) INTRODUCTION:

Design in architecture is a process of creating environments for people to

inhabit, environments that mould lifestyles. It is the process of manipulation of
space, either in real space-time or conceptually, virtually, to create functions and
experiences.

The design process is one of exploration and discovery, of synthesis and discipline.
It involves far more than just playing with volumes and geometry. It's a journey
that the architect undertakes where he lets his spirit become one with the spirit
of the problem to be able to infuse life in space; neither just a viable functional
solution for the problem, nor just a piece of art, but something that's both. And
more. It's a process of creating objects in space that add value to the otherwise
devoid-of-meaning, open space on/around the earth.

The act of designing thus is a complex process and the nature of the method
adopted to accomplish the process becomes crucial in determining the nature of
the final outcome. Knowing how the final outcome, the environment, affects the
lives that inhabit it in big ways, it becomes relevant to understand the forces
acting during the design process.

The tools and methodologies used to design have changed significantly over time.
Before architects, there was architecture but no architectural design as we know
it. It was a hands-on exercise where ideation, conception and modeling/building
happened unknowingly, seamlessly at the same time.

Over time man started to employ the use of drawings and models to explore
geometric relationships. It was here that the birth of architectural design took
place. Different tools were employed and evolved over the years to achieve
drawings and models. At this stage the process of modeling and building cut off
from the process of ideation and conception. The architect ideated and
conceptualized his design, creating elaborate virtual manipulations of space,
without really needing to build it.

With the advent of the digital age, the computer was first used to aid with the
drudgeries of the design process, to help the architect undertake his design
7
process more effectively. The paradigm shift happened with the coming of
algorithms and using it to generate design by the machine. It was here that an
attempt to externalize the design process took place and the structure of the
design methodology changed entirely. The process of ideating and laying the
objective (creating the algorithm) disconnected from the process of
conceptualization of the idea (undertaken by the computer) and the process of
modeling and building.

This evolution in the design methodologies and tools have significant effect on
the kind of architecture they produce. Understanding the design methodology
hence becomes crucial to understand the forces behind our architecture. Also, a
lot has changed in the way architects around the globe deal with design
problems. As the machine started to play an important role in the design process,
previously undertaken entirely by the architect, the nature of the process and the
role of the architect started to alter. The intervention of the machine received
criticism from some while others looked at it with high aspirations. As the
technology started to develop, the machine become an integral part of the design
process; how has this affected the nature of the process and the nature of the
buildings and environments we create today? Is the computer capable of the
creative leaps architects take? Can the intangible aspects of the design process:
intuition and self learning, experience and creative imagination be computed?
Can the human related aspects of the process be undertaken by the machine? Or
do we really need the computer to do all of this? What role do we want the
machine to play: do we want the machine to be able to design better than
humans or to help humans design better? Do we want the machine to replace the
architect or become a collaborative interactive partner in design?
This research aims to answer questions of such nature.

ii) RESEARCH QUESTION:

How did design methodology change after the advent of the computer?

8
iii) AIM:

The research aims to understand the essence of the design process for an
architect and how the methodology for the same has changed and evolved over
time. The research centers around examining the role of the computer and
computation in channelizing design thinking and design methodologies in a
different direction and trying to understand its impact on the nature of the final
design and the role of the architect.

OBJECTIVES:
In pursuit of the above stated aim, the research objectives can be structured as
follows:

i. To recognize the structure and nature of the design process and design
methodology
ii. To look at the early practices and examine the nature of the traditional
design methodologies
iii. To retrospect how the coming of the computer affected design thinking and
the design process
iv. To comprehend the scope and limitations of the machine
v. To be able to draw a comparison between the traditional and the
contemporary design methodologies on various identified grounds.

9
iv)SCOPE:

The scope of the research is the process of the subset Architecture design. The
research would look at the nature of the design process and would lay the
comparative between the traditional and the contemporary design
methodologies on the grounds of absence and presence of the machine. The
research does not intend to enumerate the history of evolution of tools in the
design process but focuses on the nature of the methodologies adopted. The
research focuses particularly on design methodologies(and not the design itself)
just before and after the advent of the machine narrowing itself to the time
period between 1920 and 2008.

LIMITATIONS:

 Inability of first-hand examination of the design methodologies of the past

is one of the limitations of this research.
 Whatever understanding of the nature of methodology is reached is made
on the basis of reverse analysis of the process through the nature of the
end design and translational errors cannot be ruled out in that case
 The case studies have been picked to contribute best to the objective on
the basis of their nature and not geographical proximity and hence the
analysis stands on only secondary data.

10
v) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

INDUCTIVE REASONING

The research stands on the grounds of inference from enumeration of the

evolution of the design process as seen through history and aims to understand
the nature of the methodology through inductive reasoning.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND REVERSE ENGINEERING

The research follows a qualitative analysis of the design process and relies on
reverse engineering from the nature of the final design to understand the nature
of the design methodology employed.

SECONDARY CASE STUDIES AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING

The research involves the examination of the nature of design methodologies

employed through secondary case studies of designs before the digital revolution
and after to deduce the impact of the computer on the design process.

11
Chapter 1

12
 Design in architecture is a process of creating objects in space to create
environments for people to inhabit, environments that not only serve a utilitarian
purpose but also mould lifestyles. It's a process of problem solving and adding
value. That is how design is more than art; Art inspires, adds value but art does
not solve problems. That is how design is more than just finding a practical
functional solution; it also adds meaning and creates experiences.

Architecture that only inspires but does not serve a function ends up becoming a
piece of art. Likewise, architecture that only serves a function and adds no value
to the lives of people occupying it becomes a dead object in space.

Fig 1.1: Understanding nature of architecture design. (Source: Author)

Fig 1.2: Ways in which architecture can add value for people. (Source: Author)

13
1.1 Drivers of the process

The design process starts with the encounter with an architectural problem. The
problem has no direction, it's formless. Moreover, it's subject to individual
perceptions and prejudices. What is constant in the design process, irrespective of
the methodology adopted, is the family of driving forces at the genesis of the
design process.

i) Functions

Functions comprise of the list of elements and their organization- the structure of
life within the building. These elements do not exist independently but in a subtle
crystalline functional relationship that is both practical and psychological, both
quantitative and qualitative. It's not enough to just see the facts and create a
pattern out of them. Architecture that has life within emanates from a "mood".

ii) Site and Environment

Too often, the building is simply imposed on the site. In true essence, the site is
not something disconnected but an integrated part of the problem. The technical
components of the site are easy to deal with: drainage, orientation, climate,
access roads, etc. What is more crucial is the temper of the topography of the
land the building sits on- a flat plain, a narrow plot between two tall buildings,
gradual slope on a hillside, the temper and the visual texture of the site.
For example if we look at Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright, it is the blending of
the natural and the man-made, the unification of architecture and environment,
that creates the perfect synthesis.

14
 Fig 1.3: Fallingwater or Kaufmann Residence (1935) by Frank Lloyd Wright in Pennsylvania, United
States. (Source: www.wright-house.com)

iii) Structure

The above mentioned drivers together have structural implications. The structure
is sensed in the spaces as well as the texture of the building. The structure is not
equivalent to exhibitionism of technologies; it is not something injected into the
design at the end of the process, it's a part of the design, it sets the mood of the
design.

For example the structure of The Ronchamp Chapel by Le Corbusier, asymmetric

and complex unlike traditional symmetric and ordered churches, is only an
extension of an endless spatial concept that pervades the design, leaving space
unconfined and feeling infinite. It emphasize love and mystery in place of power
and authority. (E. L. Barnes, 1959)

Fig 1.4: Ronchamp Chapel (1954) by Le Corbusier in Ronchamp, France. (Source:

www.archdaily.com.br)
15
Function, site and the structure together become the main drivers of the design
process. They are the main contributing factors that give direction to the process
of design in any architecture problem. These are the constant ingredient forces
along the process of designing and these undergo various stages of the process to
give face to the final form.

1.2 Components of the design process

The design process stands on the grounds of the design world of the architect. All
designers approach design tasks through their design worlds that form a
collaboration of the following two:

i) Substantive Knowledge (what he or she knows)

It is the store house of the designer's design memory. His skills, abilities,
perceptions, outlooks, prejudices and experience together form content-ground
before the design process. Peter Rowe, in his book Design Thinking, enumerates 5
classes of heuristics used in the design process:

a) Typologies
b) Anthropometric analogies
c) Literal analogies
d) Environment relations
e) Formal language

A designers recognition, understanding and application of these heuristics falls

under the domain of his substantive knowledge. Moreover, the references the
architect makes knowingly or unknowingly, experiential archetypes and design
canons and design icons (Broadbent, 1973) that he follows also fall under his
substantive knowledge.

ii) Process Skills (what he or she does)

Process skills are the skills that allow the designer to apply his substantive
knowledge and undertake in the design process. It involves a dialogue between
16
the designer and the problem at hand where a process of 'seeing-moving-seeing'
is employed. The design process thus involves a gradual unfolding of information
which informs and is informed by the design. (G E. Wiggins, 1989)

Substantive knowledge and the process skills of the designer together form the
prelude, very significant one at that, to the design process. With a given design
task in hand, the process involves the following stages:

i) Objectives and Ideation

The first stage involves laying down the major objective of the design and the
broader idea behind it.

ii) Conception and Formulation

The second stage is the development of the initial objectives and idea into a more
concrete structure and formulating the same via various iterations, in play with
the drivers of the process.

iii) Synthesis

The materialization of the final design with all its information, either on paper or
on the computer and then finally in real space-time , forms the last stage of the
process.

These stages of the process vary as per the methodology of design adopted by the
designer. In the following sections, it shall be examined how the nature of and the
relationship between these stages change with the change in design tools and
methods.

17
Fig 1.5: Deconstructing the design process (Source: Author)

18
Chapter 2

19
2.1 Architecture before Architects

Fig 2.1: Dwellings below, fields upstairs, China

(Source: Architecture without Architects, Bernard Rudofsky, 1964)

For the first fifty centuries, before the coming of "formal" architecture, existed
the indigenous non-pedigreed architecture (B. Rudofsky, 1964). The earliest
civilizations had architecture resulting from communal coorporation, without the
need of a designated "architect". Architecture emerged out of basic needs- need
for shelter and protection, to channelize water and mark territories. The process
of designing was not cut off from the process of construction. The entire task was
a hands-on exercise, without the need for intermediate documents. There is little
evidence though if these civilizations made small scale iteration models of what
they wanted. What is understood is that the ideation happened alongwith the
construction of what they wanted. Some archeological finds show the existence
of drawing on land or clay tablets on site to communicate ideas. Even then, the
entire process was an integrated one, with ideation, conception, synthesis and
construction happening in a continuum at an intuitive level, unlike what we are
familiar with today: conscious design and thought processes.

20
 Fig2.2: Earliest known architectural drawing, depicting the ground plan of the palace of Nur Adad in
Larsa. Clay tablet engraving; 1865-1850 BC (Source: www.payette.com)

Fig2.3: The nature of the process before Architects (Source: Author)

2.2 The coming of the Architect: Emergence of the design process

Over time, architecture evolved from serving basic human needs to becoming a
way of building and creating, to serving a range of human needs, to representing
cultural values for societies. As architecture evolved, so did the thinking of
architecture. The process of design became more deliberate and disconnected
from the process of construction. There came into play the role of architectural
drawings and models as tools for exploration, expression and communication.

Architecture drawings date as long back as the ancient Mesopotamian and

Egyptian era. They were intuitive drawings, not created with the purpose of
21
solving complex design but for orientation and communication. The Greeks drew
little and expressed more with words and communicated architectural ideas with
models instead, which date back to as early as 725 B.C. at Perachora. By the fifth
century B.C., "architects" like Ictinusand Kalli-Crates used several means of giving
builders accurate information to guide them in the construction of temples. (M.
Hewitt, 1985). Medieval master masons also relied on full-scale models which
were laid geometrically and not arithmetically. Drawings were rare and played
little role in design and construction. The very notion of scale was absent. Until
the Renaissance, there was no employment of drawing to scale. After the
Renaissance, as architects started to explore and intellectual patterns of problem
solving changed, the design process became more complex. Conception and
discovery started to happen on paper and detailed drawings to scale were
produced.

With the employment of models and drawings, the gap between the design
process and the process of building increased over centuries and the architect
started to become increasingly more distant in the construction process.

Fig2.4: A terracotta model of a temple, found at the site at Perachora | Mid-8th Century BC | National
Archeological Museum, Athens. (Source: www.pinterest.com)

22
Chapter 3

23
For centuries after the Renaissance, drawings and models were an integral part of
the design process. Architects sketched on paper to ideate and explore, made
hand-made models as iterations to understand their own designs and drafted
plans, sections and elevations to communicate with the builders. Drawings and
models remained the major tools of design for the longest time until the surge of
the digital wave.

Most early practitioners of engineering/architecture drawings – such as Leonardo

were also artists. Over time, the realization was absorbed that architecture
drawings needed to stand out on their own merit and required a higher degree of
precision. One early advocate of this belief was Leon Battista Alberti who, in 1435
and 1436, wrote two works that explored the need to incorporate more Euclidian
geometry in drawings (Wolfgang Lefèvre, 2004). He also proposed drawings with
multiple views rather than the single view then common.

Fig 3.1: Leon Battista Alberti, Della Pictura drawing showing a horizon line and vanishing point, 1435
(Source: www.classicalert.org)

24
3.1 How traditional tools affected design thinking and design methodologies

With the cultural drift that occurred during Renaissance, along with the
advancements of the time, a new way of going about the process of design
emerged. As the process of design disassociated from the process of construction,
it became more complex in itself. Essential beauty or ideal shape was achieved
through reductive logic. Architects followed strong form rules and used types as
heuristics in the design process. Peter Rowe, in his book Design Thinking (1987)
talks about 3 subclasses of types that traditional architects looked at as
exemplars:

i) Building types as models

ii) Organizational Typology
iii) Elemental types

As the process of design become more elaborate, with architects referring to

typologies as archetypes and conceptualizing their ideas of form on paper and
models, over time the idea of a "style" emerged- Expressionism, Beaux Arts, Art
Deco and so on. Architects followed simple processes to create the effects of their
style. Each style was a collaboration of values and ideas beyond form, expressed
through a set of processes belonging to that style. Their experience and intuition
often played a more dominant role than understanding in how they responded to
functions. The final form was a resultant of functional considerations, form rules
and style heuristics. (H. Rorick, 1975)

In a design process like this, where architects sketched on paper to concretize

their ideas and drafted their iterations, the act of analysis happened in an "after-
the-fact" fashion(B. Kolarevic, 2003) after the building model had been
articulated. This created a disassociation between the process of formulisation
and analysis. Not just that, design, analysis, representation and fabrication- all
became disconnected. Another important factor was the time consumed at each
stage. Doing iterations, analyzing them, going back to revise- these multiple
iterative cycles required the architect to make repeated back and forth loops. A
change in a later parameter would bear an impact on the result of the previous
one and the disassociation in the carrying out of each parameter required the
25
architect to make multiple cycles in the process, at the same time providing a
time constraint over the number of such cycles possible.

This disassociation also affected the role of the architect. The architect who was
always the master builder started to lose his control and influence on the final
construction as his information started to get externalized and complex and it
wasn't possible for him anymore to dictate to thousands of mason on site.

During conception there was always a geometric constraint due to the limitations
of the tools of representation. Architects employed only Euclidian geometry of
discrete volumes represented in the Cartesian plane. This resulted in a design
process that restricted the imagination of the designer. Also, even if an architect
narrowed his scope for imagination and simplified his design, representation
would nonetheless take long durations of patient drafting. Though what may
seem as drudgeries of hours of mindless hand-drafting often had bearing upon
design thinking and design decisions. But the fallout of this hierarchy of
intermediation in terms of drawings between the design end and the construction
end was the occurrence of unavoidable errors in communication.

Fig 3.2: Section of Brunelleschi's dome drawn by the architect Cigoli, c. 1600.
(Source:www.wikipedia.org)

26
When architects explored ideas in sketches and physical model, the intuitive
aspect of the process fueled emergence and creative leaps. Though the entire
process was more deterministic, as the designer determined the form bit by bit
over multiple iterations, such moments of creative leaps gave the process an
emergent behavior.

What is noteworthy is the fact that the process of design was in a lot of ways
conjunctive to the journey of an artist, as the architect communicated with his
hands in intuitive ways, expressing himself in his design. The entire paradigm of
design thinking made the architect unite his spirit with the spirit of the problem.

Fig 3.3: The nature of the process with traditional design tools (Source: Author)

27
Chapter 4

28
4.1 History of CAD

CAD(Computer Aided Design) drafting has its origins in the work of Dr. Partrick
Hanratty who in 1957 developed PRONTO, the first commercial numerical control
programming language and first commercial CAM software system. Consequently,
Ivan Sutherland created SKETCHPAD IN 1960 which became the world's first CAD
software and demonstrated the basic principles and viability of computerized
technical drawing.

Fig 4.1: Ivan Sutherland demonstrating Sketchpad (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

Fig 4.2: “utherla d’s diagra of 6 of the 17atomic constraints in Sketchpad, 1963 (Source:
www.danieldavis.com)
29
The initial range of CAD systems were merely substitutes for the drawing board.
The designer still worked in 2D to create architecture drawings consisting of 2D
wireframe primitives like lines, arcs, spline etc. This increased the productivity of
design but only marginally because now the designer had an addition skill to learn
and master- to use the computer and the software. Nevertheless, employment of
CAD made modifications and revisions in drawings easier. Over time CAD
software and hardware became more affordable for designers and became more
user friendly.

3D wireframe features can be traced back to the beginning of the sixties. It was in
1969 that Syntha VIsion by MAGI was released becoming the first commercial
solid modeling program. Solid modeling further enhanced the 3D capabilities of
CAD systems. In 1989, NURBS, Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline, was released. It
was a mathematical representation for generating and representing freeform
surfaces. 1993 CAS Berlin developed the first interactive NURBS modeler for PCs,
called NöRBS. Today most professional computer graphics softwares available for
PCs offer NURBS technology.

Fig 4.3: A NURBS curve (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

In 1989 T-FLEX and later Pro/ENGINEER introduced CADs based on parametric

engines. Parametric modeling meant that the model was now defined by
parameters and their relations. A change of dimension values in one place
changed other dimensions to keep constant the relations between the various
elements of design. This was a major breakthrough in the history of the design
process.

MCAD systems introduced the concept of constraints that enable one to define
relations between parts in assembly. Designers started to use a bottom-up
30
approach when parts were first created and then assembled together. (D.E.
Weisberg, 2008)

Fig 4.4: First version of Explicit History, later known as Grasshopper (Source: www.grasshopper3d.com)

4.2 Initial aids of the computer in retrospect

The participation of the computer in the design process created a significant shift
in design thinking and gave birth to a new design methodology. The computer
started to become an important part of the process and assisted the architect at
various stages. The process of creating a computer program, which could in turn
help in the process, required a better understanding of the procedure, its nature
and its parts. It helped the designer understand his own actions and try to find the
influences behind his intangible decisions.

The design process could now be understood as consisting of three major stages
(Murray Milne, 1975) :

i)Beginning
The beginning was the most chaotic. It was about ideating and finding direction
using the drivers of the process and the architect's objectives. It had more

31
variables than constraints. Decisions were hard to make and easy to change. This
made it difficult to translate in the systematic procedural agenda of computation.

ii)Middle
The middle was more about automated floor plan layouts, interactive computer
graphics, large scale data manipulation programs for building components.

iii)End
The last stage was easy to computerize as it revolved around integrated
information and its representation and communication.

This understanding of the process and its relationship to computational feasibility

served as an underlay for the development of computer aids to the various parts
of the process.

Over the years, the computer started to get involved in the process of design to
relieve the designer of the banal activities of his daily practice. The fallout of this
was the assumption that these banal activities were not a part of his design
thinking. Also the design process now started to get disintegrated further into
activities undertaken by the architect and activities undertaken by the computer
and this disassociation of well partitioned, well specified tasks created a less
efficient partnership between man and machine.

Fig 4.5: The nature of the process after the advent of the computer until 1989 (Source: Author)

32
4.2 Prophesies of the Optimists and the Pessimists

In the early years, when the computer had just begun to get involved in the
process of design, the then theorists and practitioners had their own
understanding and prophesies of how the computer would affect the design
process. The major question in light was if the machine could deal with issues
critical to people, issues underlined by sensitivity to a specific place, culture and
time (Negroponte, 1975). The counterpart to the same was questions raised on
our ability to deconstruct explicit tangibles behind such intangibles. Some pointed
out that issues concerning people had more variables than constraints and hence
were difficult to compute. Also, experienced architects had a better sense of such
issues and could respond better intuitively than long and expensive
computational procedures. Something like intuition and experience cannot be
formalized and modeled into the computer. The computer has the ability to store
more information than a human, but how a designer interprets and employs his
information bank is more significant and bears a greater impact that the
objectiveness of the information.

The disintegration of the design process was also a point of concern. Vladamir
Bajnac explains that one cannot extract formal models from the design process
and separate their operation and utilization from other activities of design as their
boundaries cannot be established statically. Also, this division of labor between
man and machine reduces the designer's chances and ability to use his own
judgment during and post the computer generated answer. This hampers his
ability to critique that answer or expand on it to gain additional insight into the
original problem. (V. Bazjanac, 1975)

On the other hand, Steve Coons saw the potentiality of the computer in becoming
a symbiotic partner with man in the process of design. He realized that man and
machine had complimentary powers and by achieving intimate machine-
environment interaction where the creative and imaginary powers of man and
the analytical and computational powers of the machine, one could create an
intimate corporation complex. He foresaw the ability of the computer to become
self-learning and show a self-induced adaptive behavior.
33
With the extensive use of programming to lay out plans, designers started to look
at what one can call "heuristic programming" and tried to understand relations
between style and function. On looking at the way an architect went about
designing without the machine, producing his own style, it was realized that more
often than not the architect did not know the principles behind the effects of his
style. It was his experience and the intuitive decisions he made along the process
that created the effects of his style. It was here that the question was raised as to
what extent is aesthetics or style an intangible parameter than cannot be
described explicitly for computation. Is it our own analysis paralysis that hinders
that leap? (Huck Rorick, 1975)

34
Chapter 5

35
5.1 The Digital Domain

In the last decade of the 20th century, digital technologies changed the way
designers thought and went about design. Technological advances like
computation, digital architecture of topological, non-Euclidian geometric space,
kinetic and dynamic systems and genetic algorithms- together supplanted digital
architecture of today.

Fig 5.1: Comparison of Major Two-Dimensional Geometries.

(Source: "The Nature of Mathematics", p 501, Karl Smith, 1984)

These changes gave way to an integrated design process with CAD, solid
modeling, range of analysis tools and rapid prototyping creating a wholesome
process in continuum with manufacturing and production.

36
Form finding became an entirely different journey. Instead of defining elements
of shape, parameters of a particular design are declared in an associative
geometry ie. a mutually linked environment. Thus the process of form finding
becomes a procedural description of geometry. New forms are created by
generative processes based on concepts such as topological space and digital
morphogenesis, isomorphic polysurfaces, dynamic systems, parametric design,
performative architecture, datascapes and genetic algorithm.

Fig 5.2:Isomorphic Polysurfaces. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", p 21, B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Greg Lynn was one of the first designers to adopt animation software and hence
motion dynamics for form generation and not just a medium of representation.
The form becomes a manifestation of the relational logic of internal parameters
and engages and responds to dynamic often variable influences from its
environment and socio-economic context. The form thus generated has a more
fluid logic of connectivity (Greg Lynn, 1998)

The employment of isomorphic polysurfaces, mutually inflicting parametric

objects existing in a dynamic geography, gave way to a departure from platonic
solids and Cartesian planes giving the architect geometric freedom compared to
the traditional compositions based on basic Euclidian geometric rules. This
broadened the horizons of imagination for the architect and helped bring back
"forgotten geometries lost to us because of the difficulties of their
representation" (Rafael Moneo, 2001)

37
5.2 How contemporary design tools affect design thinking and design
methodologies

The collaborative partnership between man and machine challenged the

pervasive linear causality of traditional design thinking (B. Kolarevic, 2003). The
design process, previous undertaken in a linear fashion, requiring the architect to
make back and forth trips to fine-tune his design and carry out analysis, was now
a branched chain of interconnected nodes, allowing the architect to make
changes to any part of the process at any instance and the changes would
automatically be inherited by all other elements keeping the relations between
parameters constant.

Fig 5.3: The Grasshopper canvas with some nodes. (Source: www.grasshopper3d.com)

The computer and the geometric freedom it provided liberated the architect's
imagination with regards to form finding as the digital domain allowed
exploration of infinitely variable possibilities. The architect was no longer
restricted to Euclidean geometries. Shapes and forms, previous difficult to draw
and communicate, could now be easily articulated with NURBS. Also, the architect
was no longer confined to a singular manifestation of his ideas. He could explore a
wide range of possibilities for his given set of ideas and defined relations between
design drivers and design elements.

38
 Fig 5.4: Paramorph by Mark Burry (Source: www.mcburry.net)

The significant shift in the process of exploring form was the fact that the
architect no more made the form, but found it through a procedural, algorithmic
description of design. This required understanding the relationships between
different parameters and creating a structure of these relations. These relations
could be restructured and revised at any point and that would affect the resulting
design accordingly. The designer now had the freedom of rapid prototyping and
investing a design through multiple iterations. The design could be manipulated in
a dynamic environment of forces influencing it and be subjected to performative
modeling where the performance of the design would dictate its synthesis.

Fig 5.5: Structure of the Parametric design process (Source: Author)

39
This new paradigmatic shift in the design process helped the designer explore
more in little time. The designer now had new visions and his design, new
aesthetics. The computer not only lent itself to artificial creativity but also
enhanced the designer's creativity and triggered creative leaps.

The entire design process became integrated and analysis and design synthesis
happened together. Computation allowed a digitally catalyzed convergence of
representation and production process. The design information and the
manufacturing information became congruent, erasing the gap between the
design world and the construction process. The design formulation in its
representation carried all the information regarding the design and extraction and
exchange of this information became more efficient with no errors, unlike with
the traditional chain of intermediate documents.

Fig 5.6: The nature of the process in the contemporary digital age (Source: Author)

40
Chapter 6

41
6.1 ANTONIO GAUDI AND SAGRADA FAMILIA

6.1.1 ANTONIO GAUDI

Fig 6.1: Antonio Gaudi: Portrait and Signature (Source www.sagradafamilia.org)

Antonio Gaudi, born in 1852, was a son of a coppersmith and learnt about crafts
f=is his father's workshop as a little boy. He attended the Escoles Pies school and
received a traditional and humanist education where he was proficient in
geometry and Arithmetic. In 1873 he joined the School of Architecture in
Barcelona where he stood out in the subjects of drawing, design and
mathematical calculus. As a student, he attended workshops and learned about a
wide range of techniques relating of architecture, including sculpture, carpentry,
ironwork, ceramics, stained glasswork, plaster modeling etc. he perceived
architecture as a multifunctional design in which all elements were in harmony
and mutual proportion.

He would thoroughly study the anatomy of his sculptures with special emphasis of
gestures. Before sculpting human figures he would create dummies (prototyping)
made of wire to modulate the exact posture of the figure to sculpt. He would then
photograph his models using a mirror system to provide for multiple perspectives.
Consequently he would make plaster casts of the figures and modify their
proportions to obtain the desired appearance. Finally he would sculpt the figure.

Antonio's expertise in drawing and craftsmanship contributed to his substantive

knowledge and formed the drivers of his design process.

42
Fig 6.2: Original drawing by Antonio Gaudí, Casa Botines, 1891. (Source: www.commons.wikimedia.org)

Gaudi's works are infused with imagination and hold their inspiration in nature.
He thoroughly studies organic and anarchic geometric forms of nature which
translated into his use of ruled geometric forms like hyperbolic paraboloid, the
hyperboloid, the helicoid, the ellipsoid and the conoid. He discovered how to
adapt the expression of nature to the structural language of architecture. He
progressed from plane geometry to spatial geometry to ruled geometry. Gaudi
was the first to use the catenary curve in common architecture which helped him
add an element of tremendous strength to his buildings.

Gaudi conceived his designs in three dimensions and for this spatial vision, he
preferred to work with casts and scale models. He would even improvise on site
as work progressed. He drew plans rarely, only when absolutely necessary. Gaudi
made a 1.10 scale model for the church of the Colònia Güell having strings, with
small bags of birdshot hanging from them, suspended from the ceiling which had
the floor plan of the church drawn on it. These weights produced catenary curves
as arches and vaults. Gaudi photographed this model and inverted the image to
show the desired structure of columns and arches. He then worked on this image
and further defined architectural, decorative and stylistic details. (Bassegoda,
1989)
43
 Fig 6.3: An upside down force model of the Colònia Güell, Sagrada Família Museum
(Source: www.christopherwhitelaw.us)

6.1.2 GAUDI AND ANALOGUE PARAMETRICS

Gaudi's architecture is underlined by his deep understanding of mathematics and

consists of mathematical ruled surfaces, associated together in a parametric
fashion with Boolean ratios, ruled lines and catenary arches. (J. Burry and M.
Burry 2010)

The employment of parametric equations can be seen in many facets of Gaudi's

architecture. In his suspended string model, the strings under the influence of
gravity always settle into a shape that on inverting would stand in pure
compression (Hooke's principle). This model of suspended strings is in all ways
equivalent to a parametric equation. It has a set of independent parameters
(anchor point location, length of the string, birdshot weight) and a set of
outcomes (the various locations of the end points of the strings) which result from
the parameters based on explicit functions( Newton's Gravitational Law and Laws
of motion). Gaudi modified the independent parameters to generate multiple

44
variable versions of the structure and could be assured that the resultant would
satisfy his initial intend i.e. stand in pure compression.

Gaudi's model was a step ahead from the traditional systems of using catenary
curve's parametric formula to manually calculate outputs as he could
automatically compute the shape of the curves with the aid of the force of gravity
on the strings and the weights.

6.1.3 SAGRADA FAMILIA

In his masterpiece, the Sagrada Familia, the structure Gaudi gave the last 43 years
of his life to, Gaudi formulated a set of double-turn helicoid shape tree-like
columns to support a structure of intertwined hyperboloid vaults. He achieved a
perfectly rational structural solution alongwith a new architecture language was
original and aesthetically appealing.

The structure is composed of 3-dimentional forms arising from ruled surfaces like
hyperbolic paraboloids, hyperboloids, helicoids, ellipsoids and conoids. Gaudi
used plaster models to formulate the design which include a 1:10 scale model
(measuring 5m by 5m by 2m) of the main nave. he used his system of suspended
strings and weights to derive the angles of the columns, arches and vaults.

Fig 6.4: Gaudi's atelier in the Sagrada Familia, 1917 (Source: www.gaudidesigner.com)

45
 Fig 6.5: i) Original Gaudi model for the Glory's façade, ii) Original model of the intern naves,
Photos in Gaudi's studio in the Sagrada Familia, published in 1929 (Source: www.gaudidesigner.com)

I) GEOMETRY

Gaudi's observation of the nature provided for his conceptual and methodological
framework. He did not slavishly imitate nature but analyzed natural elements to
articulate structural and formal designs which he then incorporated into his
structure. He would work relentlessly with models in his workshop to refine
constructional solutions.

Fig 6.6: Tracing Gaudi's inspirations from nature (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

46
The main geometric forms underpinned by parametric equations employed by
Gaudi in Sagrada Familia can be enumerated as follows:
i) Hyperboloids: Found in the openings of the windows and junctions between the
columns and the vault

Fig 6.7: Hyperboloid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

i) Paraboloids: Found in the linking surfaces between columns and vaults/roofing,

as well as in towers and the sacristies.

Fig 6.8: Paraboloid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

47
i) Helicoids: Seen in the spiral staircase.

Fig 6.9: Helicoid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

i) Ellipsoids: Found in the rounded capitals of columns where the lower columns
branches into slender members

Fig 6.10: Ellipsoid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

48
i) Double twisted columns: Seen in the branching columns made up of two
helicoidal columns. The base of each columns transforms from a polygon to a
circle as it moves higher up.

Fig 6.11: Double twisted columns, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

II) PROPORTIONS

Gaudi developed a system of proportions to lay down relationships between

different parts of the Sagrada Familia. He used basic ratios based on 1/12th of the
largest dimension. For example, he divided the total length of the church (90 m)
by 12 to have a module of 7.5m which is further used in the floor plan and the
heights of the structure.
The same system was also applied to the diameters and heights of the columns,
dimensions of the window openings and vaults, etc. For example, the total height
of the column is twice the number of points of the polygonal cross-section of the
base, in meters.

49
 Fig 6.12: Proportioning system in plan, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.13: Proportioning system in columns, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

50
6.2 FRANK GEHRY AND WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL

6.2.1 FRANK GEHRY'S DESIGN PROCESS

Fig 6.14: Architectural sketch for Transformation AGO, © Gehry International, Architects, Inc
(Source: www.ago.net)

Frank Gehry is one architect who ideates extensively with sketches and models.
His sket hes ha e hat he alls the te tati e ess, the essi ess, that he uses
for formal exploration beyond the existing. Gehry is renowned for his quality of
turning these abstract drawings into tangible 3-dimensional form. His sketches
form the basis for several small-scale gestural models that serve to lay working
concepts and are often made with ephemeral materials like cardboard, wood,
cloth. Gehry extensively employs physical modeling to explore both formal and
functional aspects. These physical models are scanned at every stage into a
sophisticated computer and formulated and rendered into a working structural
form.

Fig 6.15: Gehry wrangles a piece of cardboard (Source: "Sketches of Frank Gehry", documentary, 2012)

51
 Fig 6.16: E a ple of origi al ph si al odel right a d a odel of the sa e desig , after it’s ee
digitally rationalized (left) (Source: Shelden, www.dspace.mit.edu, 2002)

It is a misconception that Gehry's buildings are designed as mere containers for

the sake of the form. In reality, Gehry follows an 'inside out' methodology where
he begins with the building program. With his team, he makes massing models
with blocks over multiple configurations to establish functional relationships with
Gehry's evolving sketches. Gestural models of wood, cardboard, cloth etc act as
intermediate iterations of form and function. He also makes conceptual models to
understand the nature of dialogue his building has with the context it sits in.

6.2.2 WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL

Fig 6.17: Frank Gehry's original sketch of what would become Walt Disney Concert Hall
(Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

52
 Fig 6.18: Studies of different concert hall configurations.
(Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.19: Preparatory model of the Founders Room ceiling vault, 1998
(Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

53
Fig 6.20: Preparatory model of the Founders Room sky lit interior, 1998
(Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.21: Acoustical ray-tracing studies (1989) by Dr. Toyota.

(Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

54
Fig 6.22: Acoustical studies of the concert hall using laser measurements from physical models (1989) by
Dr. Toyota. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.23: Digitizing one of the early models of the Walt Disney Concert Hall. (Source: "Architecture in the
Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.24: One-tenth scale model for testing the acoustics of the hall. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital
Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

55
 Fig 6.25: The coordination model for the concert hall. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B.
Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.26: The surface pattern done in CATIA for one part of the concert hall. (Source: "Architecture in the
Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.27: The detailed digital model of the stud frame system for cladding on the Disney Concert Hall.
(Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

56
Fig 6.28: Final model of Walt Disney Concert Hall (Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.29: Model with metal exterior, 1994 (Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

57
Chapter 7

58
7.1 Design Thinking and Design Methodology

The major leap in the design approach from the traditional methodology to
computational modeling is the shift of emphasis from constructing the form to
constructing the structure of relations between elements and the behavior of the
object under transformation. This has morphed the process of design from being
prescriptive with regards to establishing defined formal and spatial elements to
now a descriptive procedure of defining interdependencies between parameters
to result into equations that generate a variety of potential possibilities. The
architect now articulates the inner logic of the project rather than the external
form. Instead of working on a parti, he now works on a generative system of form
making, controls its behavior over time and under different conditions and selects
the appropriate form that results from the operations.

Fig 7.1 Inference structure in parametric design problem solving

(Source: "Parametric Design Problem Solving", Enrico Motta, Zdenek Zdrahal, 2003)

59
With Associative Parametric design methodology, spatial possibilities are
disconnected from empirical intuition which was the prime driver of the
traditional design approach. Traditionally, the process of "form making" was
channelized by first order logic, monotonic reasoning and stable design
conceptualization. Very often, perfect shapes were obsequiously copied and
recombines by following static formal principles. This resulted in a lack of
originality and imaginative thinking.

Today, the process of "form finding" happens in a dynamic, non-linear,

indeterministic system of organization. The sphere of relational geometry in a
dynamic field of forces allows the architect to think beyond the existing. The
computational construct becomes a self-reflexive discourse in which graphics
actively shape the designers thinking process, creating a symbiotic mutually-
beneficial interactive system between the designer and the machine. This opens
gates to fields of indetermination and emergence as nothing is predestined in the
course of actions and reactions.

Another major ideological shift is in the fact that traditionally, the abstract space
of design was a static neutral space of Cartesian coordinates. Today the design
space can be perceived as an environment of force and motion rather than
neutral vacuum. The three dimensional Cartesian space has been replaced by a
four dimensional dynamic field of forces where the form is modeled also under
the influence of the fourth dimension, time. The possibility of inculcating the
influence of time and performance over time was not viable with traditional
design tools.

The contemporary model of design can be understood to be structured as

follows:
i) A system of influences, constraints, relational or operative dependence is
defined first through the process of information and its temporal behavior is
defined
2) The consequent structure of interdependencies is often given some inclusive
form(formation)
3) This form is then subjected to the process of deformation or transition guided
60
by those very same relations, influences and constraints set within the system
itself (B. Kolarevic, 2003)

This is drastically varying from the traditional linear system of design thinking and
processing where information, formation and deformation occurred in a
disassociate manner, requiring the architect to deal with one independently and
vary the others repeatedly to ingrain the influences of the changes in one. The
manual process driven disassociation was the major limitation of the traditional
process with respect to form articulation.

7.2 Driving Forces of the Process

The primary driving forces for any design process, i.e. function, site and
environment and structure remain static in either design approach. What has
transformed is the way the influences of these drivers are incorporated into the
design.

In the traditional approach, style heuristics were primary catalysts of

incorporating the influences of site or understanding of functions and structure.
This was largely tinted by the architect's personal experience, empirical intuition,
perception, immediate memory, association recall and relative judgment. There
was an almost finite pool of Euclidean geometries, composed and recombined in
different fashions as per different requirements. Site influences were mentally or
manually analyzed by the architect and became the underlay (static rules) over
which the design was articulated or were infused into the design in an "ex post
facto" fashion. The structure was also explored in a restricted environment since
the analysis of the structure was an entirely divorced process from formulation,
happening independently and hence requiring the architect to make manual post-
formulation iterations of analysis.

61
 Fig 7.2: Traditional conscious inspiration chain (Source: www.eliinbar.files.wordpress.com)

In the contemporary computational modeling, the emphasis has shifted from

particular forms of expressions to relations. Thus these interdependencies
become structuring, organizing, driving forces for form generation and
transformation. Even though the context of form modeling is externalized, the
arresting capacity of the design remains internalized as it still lies in the domain of
the architect's interpretation and perception but through the channel of
computation.

7.3 Relationship between different parts of the design process

In the traditional methodology of design, ideation, conception, formulation - all

happened in a continuum with the architect employing drawings and models. But
the process of synthesis and construction was aloof from the design process.
Hand drafted drawings had a higher scope of errors and very low on the efficiency
scale. The design process had loose ends and there was a disconnect between
design, analysis, fabrication, manufacturing and synthesis.

With the advent of the computer but before the employment of associative
parametric design that released in 1989, the design process became more
segregated and the division of task between man and the computer, lacking an
intimate machine-man environment, made the design process further scattered.
The architect ideated on paper, conception and formulation happened with both
traditional tools as well as with computer participation but without a
continuation. Also, the disconnection that has existed between design and
production remained. Computerized analysis was in little dialogue with the
62
formulation process. Drafted drawings did make the process quicker and allowed
for quick revisions and sharing of data between parties but there was still room
for communication and translational errors.

It was only after the coming of Parametric design and digital morphogenesis that
the design process started to knit together. Ideation, formulation, analysis,
representation of design - all could now happen on a single platform, in a
continuous sequence that allowed moving back and forth through this associated
structure. The close relationship that existed between architecture and
construction remerged with a valuable feedback mechanism between conception
and production.

Fig 7.3: The nature of the process with traditional design tools (Source: Author)

Fig 7.4: The nature of the process after the advent of the computer until 1989 (Source: Author)

Fig 7.5: The nature of the process in the contemporary digital age (Source: Author)

63
7.4 Form and Geometric Exploration

The digital revolution changed the process of formulation in three big ways:
i) Computational design worked on the principle of "finding form" unlike the
traditional process of "making form". It allowed exploitation of the emergent and
adaptive properties of form. The process did not centre anymore around finding a
fixed solution but exploration of infinitely variable potentialities. The technologies
allowed for this infinite variability to become as viable as modularity.

ii) The form was no longer subject to the static norms of the traditional process. It
was now capable of consistent and dynamic transformation in a four dimensional
modeling environment.

iii) With NURBS and Parametric morphogenesis, there was a leap from platonic
geometries and Cartesian planes to total geometric freedom and exploration.
Traditionally complex compound curves were described and constructed through
an approximation by linking together tangent circular arcs and straight line
segments. Here the curvature of the curve changed only at discrete points.

Fig 7.6: A compound curve constructed from tangent circular arcs and straight line segments.
(Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", p15, B. Kolarevic, 2003)

NURBS curves were the digital equivalent of the traditional drafting splines made
of plastic, wood or metal and weights, that were used to drafting splines for ship
hulls. NURBS curves allowed a greater control on the shape of the curve by
manipulating the control point weights and knots. This allowed created curves
with their curvature changing continuously.

64
 Fig 7.7: Comparing traditional spline modeling with Mathematical modeling.
(Source: www.aliasworkbench.com)

7.5 Analysis and Metamorphosis

The collaborative computational design allowed for the analysis of design to

happen parallel to the process of formulation unlike the traditional method where
analysis could happen only after the form had been articulated. Analysis could
now actively shape the design in a dynamic fashion.

The designer could now employ rapid prototyping and investigate his design
through an iterative process. As digital modeling allowed for exploration of a
range of potentialities, the designer could use one of the interpolated forms for
further development or produce different forms of the object as it morphs.
Dissimilar forms could also be blended to produce a variety of hybrid forms that
brought together the formal characteristics of the "base" and "target" objects.

Traditionally too, an architect could manually create versions of his design but the
major shift was in the amount of time the architect now saved while creating and
testing iterations and the fact that ideating, prototyping, building and analysis
happened in a closed continuous loop allowing the architect to move back and
forth the process and to make changes that could be automatically reflected at a
previous or later stage.

65
 Fig 7.8: Rapid Prototyping model. (Source: www.studentask.blogspot.in)

7.6 Design information

With the digital information revolution, one of the most the significant shift was
in the increasing importance of centrally-structured design information and the
collaboration of its production, control, exchange and extraction. The design
information provided directly for the construction information in a mutually
beneficial process without the error-prone and time -consuming hierarchy of
intermediate drawings as in the traditional system.

This newly discovered ability to produce and analyze design information and then
use it directly for construction allowed for a valuable feedback mechanism
between conception, formulation and production. As the production of drawings
reduced, the design and construction processes became more efficient. This
single source of design and construction information and it's associative behavior
allowed for a better control on the information and ease of revisions. This could
not happen in the traditional methodology where the series of intermediate
drawings made control of information scattered and making revisions very
inefficient.

66
7.7 Role of the architect

In the traditional process, the architect's cognition and empirical intuition were
major forces in molding the design. A lot of design decisions were direct results of
the architect's associate memory and personal expression. All processes of
conception, analysis and representation were in human hands and thus
unavoidable errors could not be eliminated. Since the architect worked with
paper and hand-models, he disengaged from the construction process. The series
of intermediate drawings increased the gap between the designer and
construction.

As the digital information started to translate directly to construction information

through computer controlled machinery, error prone production of drawings
became vestigial. This brought the control of information into the hands of the
designer again, making him the "information master builder".

During the design process, the designer was now the editor of the morphogenetic
potentiality of the designed system where the choice of emergent form was
directly influenced by the designer's substantive knowledge - his aesthetic
sensibilities and cognitive abilities. The designer hence worked in a mutually
beneficial symbiotic relationship with the machine in a self reflexive discourse.

67
Chapter 8

68
BASIS OF TRADITIONAL DESIGN CONTEMPORARY DIGITAL
COMPARISION METHODOLOGY DESIGN METHODOLOGY
1. Impact on design - Emphasis on constructing the form - Emphasis on constructing the
thinking and methodology structure of relations between
elements and the behavior of the
- Prescriptive design process: object under transformation
establishing defined formal and - Descriptive procedure of defining
spatial elements interdependencies
- First order logic, monotonic - Dynamic, non-linear, indeterministic
reasoning and stable design system of organization
conceptualization
2. Driving forces of the - Style heuristics, experience, - Interdependencies between
process empirical intuition, perception, elements- structuring, organizing,
immediate memory, association driving forces for form generation and
recall and relative judgment. transformation.

3. Relationship between - Parts of the design process in - Design and construction associated in
different parts of the continuum but disconnect between a valuable feedback mechanism
design process design and construction

4. Form and geometric - Form making - Form finding

exploration - Fixed solution - Infinitely variable potentialities
- Static - Dynamic
- Platonic geometries and Cartesian - Geometric freedom
planes

5. Analysis and -Analysis in a "after-the-fact" fashion - Analysis parallel to formulation,

metamorphosis actively shaping the design in a
dynamic fashion
- Manual versions of design - Rapid prototyping,
- Difficult to morph, disassociated - Ideating, prototyping, building and
prototyping analysis happened in a closed
continuous loop

6. Design information - Error-prone and time-consuming - Design information = Construction

hierarchy of intermediate drawings information, centrally- structured

7. Role of the architect - Disengaged from the construction - Information master builder
process
Table 8.1: Conclusions (Source: Author)

69
Having looked at the evolution of design tools and methodologies over the
centuries and the nature of each, one starts to realize that there's still a domain
of challenges to overcome. The geometric freedom and the range of formal
exploration that digital design methodologies offer tend to make the designer too
occupied with the play of geometries and the form. It is important to realize that
in true essence, architecture is a lot more than just the form. Also, the approach
of "let's design a mess and build it anyway" is a prevalent phenomena today.
Another major challenge lies in coming up with a design model that aims at
efficient forms that can be built in a sustainable fashion.

In the domain of designing of computational models- the challenge is to be able

to describe the process of design precisely enough to allow its computation, to be
able to translate the intangible decisions and procedures that the architect
undertakes into explicit tangibles that can be computed. At the same time, it's
pivotal to understand that not all inherent human processes of design be
rendered to the computer. Some procedures and aspects of the architect's design
process cannot be translated into mathematical models. The computer, with its
numbers and mathematical relations, often fails to compute human sensitive
aspects as they have too many variables and fewer constants. It's crucial for the
architect to use his humane understanding of the same, his sensitivity and
intuition while looking at such aspects and incorporating them in a symbiotic
interactive environment with the machine. In this interaction, the division of
activities undertaken by the architect and those by the machine must not
disintegrate the design process, rather continue to maintain the correlations
between its different stages.

One of the major breakthroughs of the contemporary design methodology in the

information age has been the integration of design and construction information
making production of error-prone and time-consuming intermediate drawings
unnecessary. The challenge now is to develop an information model that
facilitates all phases of design and building and provides for an integrated design
environment among all parties and participants in the building process.

70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes, Ebward Larabee, The Design Process, Perspecta, Vol. 5, MIT Press, 1958

Bassegoda, Juan, El gran Gaudí (in Spanish). Barcelona: Sabadell, 1989

Broadbent, Geoffrey, Design is Architecture, John Wiley and Sons, 1973

Burry, Jane, and Mark Burry, The New Mathematics of Architecture, London: Thames and
Hudson, 2010

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press, 2003

Lynn, Greg, Animate form, Princeton Architectural Press, 1998

Moneo, Rafael, The Freedom of the Architect, 2001

Negroponte, Nicholas; Bazjanac, Vladimir; Milne, Murray; Rorick, Huck, Reflections on the
Computer Aids to Design and Architecture, Petrocelli/Charter, 1975

Rowe, Peter, Design Thinking, MIT Press, 1987

Rudofsky, Bernard, Architecture Without Architects, University of New Mexico Press, 1964

Smith, Karl. The Nature of Mathematics, 1984

Wiggins, Glenn E., Thesis: Methodology in Architectural Design, MIT, 1989

[Online] http://www.danieldavis.com/a-history-of-parametric

[Online] Http://www.sagradafamilia.org

[Online] Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Gaud%C3%AD#citerefbassegoda1989

[Online] Http://mcburry.net

[Online] http://priceonomics.com/the-software-behind-frank-gehrys-geometrically

[Online] http://www.ago.net/frank-gehrys-process

[Online] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/frank-gehry-sketches-of-frank-gehry/602

[Online] http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall#Situation

[Online] http://wdch10.laphil.com/wdch10/wdch/process.html

71
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1.1: Understanding nature of architecture design. (Source: Author)

Fig 1.2: Ways in which architecture can add value for people. (Source: Author)

Fig 1.3: Fallingwater or Kaufmann Residence (1935) by Frank Lloyd Wright in Pennsylvania,
United States. (Source: www.wright-house.com)

Fig 1.4: Ronchamp Chapel (1954) by Le Corbusier in Ronchamp, France. (Source:

www.archdaily.com.br)

Fig 1.5: Deconstructing the design process (Source: Author)

Fig 2.1: Dwellings below, fields upstairs, China (Source: Architecture without Architects, Bernard
Rudofsky, 1964)

Fig2.2: Earliest known architectural drawing, depicting the ground plan of the palace of Nur
Adad in Larsa. Clay tablet engraving; 1865-1850 BC (Source: www.payette.com)

Fig2.3: The nature of the process before Architects (Source: Author)

Fig2.4: A terracotta model of a temple, found at the site at Perachora | Mid-8th Century BC |
National Archeological Museum, Athens. (Source:www.pinterest.com)

Fig 3.1: Leon Battista Alberti, Della Pictura drawing showing a horizon line and vanishing point,
1435 (Source: www.classicalert.org)

Fig 3.2: Section of Brunelleschi's dome drawn by the architect Cigoli, c. 1600.
(Source:www.wikipedia.org)

Fig 3.3: The nature of the process with traditional design tools (Source: Author)

Fig 4.1: Ivan Sutherland demonstrating Sketchpad (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

Fig 4.2: “utherla d’s diagra of of the 1 ato i o strai ts i “ket hpad, 19 3 (Source:
www.danieldavis.com)

Fig 4.3: A NURBS curve (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

Fig 4.4: First version of Explicit History, later known as Grasshopper (Source:
www.grasshopper3d.com)

Fig 4.5: The nature of the process after the advent of the computer until 1989 (Source: Author)

72
Fig 5.1: Comparison of Major Two-Dimensional Geometries. (Source: "The Nature of
Mathematics", p 501, Karl Smith, 1984)

Fig 5.2:Isomorphic Polysurfaces. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", p 21, B. Kolarevic,
2003)

Fig 5.3: The Grasshopper canvas with some nodes. (Source: www.grasshopper3d.com)

Fig 5.4: Paramorph by Mark Burry (Source: www.mcburry.net)

Fig 5.5: Structure of the Parametric design process (Source: Author)

Fig 5.6: The nature of the process in the contemporary digital age (Source: Author)

Fig 6.1: Antonio Gaudi: Portrait and Signature (Source www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.2: Original drawing by Antonio Gaudí, Casa Botines, 1891. (Source:
www.commons.wikimedia.org)

Fig 6.3: An upside down force model of the Colònia Güell, Sagrada Família Museum (Source:
www.christopherwhitelaw.us)

Fig 6.4: Gaudi's atelier in the Sagrada Familia, 1917 (Source: www.gaudidesigner.com)

Fig 6.5: i) Original Gaudi model for the Glory's façade, ii) Original model of the intern naves,
Photos in Gaudi's studio in the Sagrada Familia, published in 1929 (Source:
www.gaudidesigner.com)

Fig 6.6: Tracing Gaudi's inspirations from nature (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.7: Hyperboloid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.8: Paraboloid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.9: Helicoid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.10: Ellipsoid, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.11: Double twisted columns, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.12: Proportioning system in plan, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.13: Proportioning system in columns, Sagrada Familia (Source: www.sagradafamilia.org)

Fig 6.14: Architectural sketch for Transformation AGO, © Gehry International, Architects, Inc
(Source: www.ago.net)
73
Fig 6.15: Gehry wrangles a piece of cardboard (Source: "Sketches of Frank Gehry", documentary,
2012)

Fig 6.16: Example of original physical model (right) and a model of the same design, after it’s
been digitally rationalized (left) (Source: Shelden, www.dspace.mit.edu, 2002)

Fig 6.17: Frank Gehry's original sketch of what would become Walt Disney Concert Hall (Source:
www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.18: Studies of different concert hall configurations. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital
Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.19: Preparatory model of the Founders Room ceiling vault, 1998 (Source:
www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.20: Preparatory model of the Founders Room sky lit interior, 1998 (Source:
www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.21: Acoustical ray-tracing studies (1989) by Dr. Toyota. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital
Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.22: Acoustical studies of the concert hall using laser measurements from physical models
(1989) by Dr. Toyota. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.23: Digitizing one of the early models of the Walt Disney Concert Hall. (Source:
"Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.24: One-tenth scale model for testing the acoustics of the hall. (Source: "Architecture in
the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.25: The coordination model for the concert hall. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age",
B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.26: The surface pattern done in CATIA for one part of the concert hall. (Source:
"Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.27: The detailed digital model of the stud frame system for cladding on the Disney Concert
Hall. (Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 6.28: Final model of Walt Disney Concert Hall (Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

Fig 6.29: Model with metal exterior, 1994 (Source: www.wdch10.laphil.com)

74
Fig 7.1 Inference structure in parametric design problem solving
(Source: "Parametric Design Problem Solving", Enrico Motta, Zdenek Zdrahal, 2003)

Fig 7.2: Traditional conscious inspiration chain (Source: www.eliinbar.files.wordpress.com)

Fig 7.3: The nature of the process with traditional design tools (Source: Author)

Fig 7.4: The nature of the process after the advent of the computer until 1989 (Source: Author)

Fig 7.5: The nature of the process in the contemporary digital age (Source: Author)

Fig 7.6: A compound curve constructed from tangent circular arcs and straight line segments.
(Source: "Architecture in the Digital Age", p15, B. Kolarevic, 2003)

Fig 7.7: Comparing traditional spline modeling with Mathematical modeling.

(Source: www.aliasworkbench.com)

Fig 7.8: Rapid Prototyping model. (Source: www.studentask.blogspot.in)

Table 8.1: Conclusions (Source: Author)

75