Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Source Fields : Experiments in Computation and Public Architecture in the Age of the Echo Chamber Preiss, Alexander Edgar 2019-04-26

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Preiss_Alexander_ARCH_549_Source_fields_2019.pdf [ 140.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378518.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378518-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378518-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378518-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378518-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378518-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378518-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378518-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378518.ris

Full Text

SOURCE FIELDSExperiments in Computation and Public Architecture in the Age of the Echo ChamberByAlexander Edgar PreissBAS, Carleton University, 2015Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in The Faculty of Applied ScienceCommittee:Blair Satterfield GP2 Committee Chair ___________________________Mari Fujita GP1  Mentor ___________________________Oliver David Krieg ExternalMelissa Higgs ExternalThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC© Alexander Edgar Preiss, April 2019SOURCE FIELDSExperiments in Computation and Public Architecture in the Age of the Echo ChamberByAlexander Edgar PreissBAS, Carleton University, 201Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degre  of Master of Architecture in The Faculty of Ap lied ScienceCom itte :Blair Satterfield GP2 Com itte  Chair ___________________________Mari Fujita GP1 Mentor ___________________________Oliver David Krieg ExternalMelissa Hig s ExternalThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC© Alexander Edgar Preiss, April 2019iiiii Source Fields is a research and design project that aims to be critical of its urban and societal context through antagonization. The work intends to be emergent through optimization of architectural experience obtained through computational negotiations of physical and human forces. This exploration sought to understand how computational design is changing contemporary practice. Through an interview process with local professionals, it was determined that computation is changing how the design process is carried out. This research identified key areas of future study including early use of computation, and the potential powers of machine learning. The research portion of the work investigates archi-tecture’s changing relationship with the public. Further it examines the role of the technology throughout history in shaping new aspects of practice and society. This body of research informed a reading of our contem-porary society as an echo chamber. The following design work attempted to use computation to counter this contemporary phenomenon. The design work is an experiment in computationally arranged space. It is the design of a computational system that would simul-taneously create form, and perceive the effect of that form on explicit architectural experiences. This process was split into five phases which plot iterations in a three dimensional field of thousands of possible design iterations using multi-variable optimization. Three buildings were produced from these source fields which represent a minimum, medium, and maximum amount of computation time. The project is intended to be understood as an experiment in the value of optimization, and of intuitive design choice within an architectural design methodology. Embracing the documented restructuring of architectural practice, this project shifts an architect’s attention from object to process. The proposed building is a community centre for Surrey-Newton which acts as the context of an unconventional deployment of computational strategies that attempt to quantify the qualitative. Rather than optimize for physical efficiency, the aspiration of this process is to map a field of options in pursuit of variety of experience and chance encounter.AbstractvivAbstractList of FiguresAcknowledgmentsChapter 1A brief History of ComputationChapter 2The Meta Interview: Computation in PracticeChapter 3Logical Argumentation: Technology, Society, and the CityChapter 4Case StudiesChapter 5Graduate Project Part II ProposalChapter 6Graduate Project Part II Appendix ASketches, Grasshopper Screen Shots, and Model PhotosAppendix BBibliography and Image Citationsiiivxi1931498393173199Table of ContentsFigure 1.1Timeline of the Development of Computation Figure 2.1Design Sequence from Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services, AIBCFigure 2.2Computational Design Methodologies Group AFigure 2.3Computational Design Methodologies Group BFigure 2.4Achim Menges, 2015, “Cyber-physical fibre placement process” Figure 2.5 Roland Halbe, 2015, “2015. RH2739-0030.jpg” (ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2014-15)Figure 2.6 Vierlinger, Robert and Arne Hofmann, 2015, “Figure 11: Different alternatives of example 2 in its final setup of parameters and objectives.”Figure 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197Sebastiano Serlio, “On the House outside the City of the poor Merchant or poor Citizen”Figure 3.2J.B. Godin, “Plan and Section of the residential building of the ‘Familistèré.”Figure 3.3 Le Corbusier, “Stuttgart, The Steel House by Le Corbusier on the Weissenhof.”Figure 3.4 Jørn Utzon, 1973-76 “Bagsvaerd Church North Elevation and Section”Figure 4.1 Timeline of PrecedentsFigure 4.2 Rem Koolhaas, “Exodus, or The Voluntary Prisoners of Archi-tecture, 1972.”Figure 4.3Peter Eisenman, “House VI, Transformations IX-XII, 1975.” 317192123252734373841515254List of FiguresviiviFigure 4.23Street Elevation Figure 4.24View of the CourtyardFigure 4.25View Inside the AuditoriumFigure 5.1Proposed Work flow from Crowd-Sourced  data to building organizationFigure 5.2Combination of Site Forces Figure 5.3 Computational space planning in the Void vs. In ContextFigure 5.4 Google Earth, “Government Conference Centre,” Areal Photographs of SiteFigure 5.5Google Earth, “Government Conference Centre,” Areal Photographs of SiteFigure 5.6 Google Earth, “Government Conference Centre,” Areal Photographs of SiteFigure 5.7 NCC Watch, “Union Interior” Graphic OverlayFigure 6.1 View of downtown Vancouver from the southeastFigure 6.2 A Herd of SheepFigure 6.3 An AlgorithmFigure 6.4Christophe Vorlet, “The Echo Chamber”Figure 6.5Source FieldsFigure 6.6Percent Population Growth between 2006 and 2011Figure 6.7Site PlanFigure 6.8Community Engagement Survey Word AnalysisFigure 4.4Ungers et al., “The City within the City: Berlin as a Green Archipelago.” Figure 4.5Aerial Photograph of Documentation Center of the Former Nazi Party Rally Grounds Figure 4.6Gunther Domenig, “Plan and Section”Figure 4.7Documentation Centre EntranceFigure 4.8Documentation Centre Interior CorridorFigure 4.9 Aerial Photograph of Quinta MonroyFigure 4.10 ELEMENTAL, “Plan and Section”Figure 4.11Quinta Monroy After ConstructionFigure 4.12Quinta Monroy After InfillFigure 4.13 Aerial Photograph of Seattle Public LibraryFigure 4.14 OMA, “Plan and Section”Figure 4.15 OMA, “Seattle Public Library Model”Figure 4.16Seattle Public Library at NightFigure 4.17Aerial Photograph Metropol ParasolFigure 4.18Jürgen Mayer H. Architekten, “Plan and Section”Figure 4.19Metropol Parasol Aeriel PhotographFigure 4.20Metropol Parasol Ground Level ViewFigure 4.21Aerial Photograph of the Free Educational Institution Figure 4.22Amid.cero9, “Plan and Section”77777786878889898990949494979810010210556596061616364656567686969717273737576ixviiiFigure 6.28Phase.04 Diagram Figure 6.29Phase.05 DiagramFigure 6.30Source Fields PhasesFigure 6.31Minimum BuildingFigure 6.32Minimum Phase.04 and .05 Scores Figure 6.33 Medium BuildingFigure 6.34 Medium Phase.04 and .05 ScoresFigure 6.35Maximum BuildingFigure 6.36 Maximum Phase.04 and .05 ScoresFigure 6.37 Source Field ScoresFigure 6.38 Minimum Floor PlansFigure 6.39 Medium Floor PlansFigure 6.40 Maximum Floor PlansFigure 6.41Minimum AxoFigure 6.42Medium AxoFigure 6.43Maximum AxoFigure 6.44Minimum SectionFigure 6.45Medium SectionFigure 6.46Maximum SectionFigure 6.47Maximum Interior PerspectiveFigure 6.9Typical Single Variable OptimizationFigure 6.10Typical Multi-Variable Optimization Figure 6.11Group B Method DiagramsFigure 6.12Proposed Source Field MethodFigure 6.13Data, Process, FormFigure 6.14 Offset Analysis applied to Shifted Corridor RelationshipsFigure 6.15 Sou Fujimoto, Children’s Centre for Psychiatric Rehabili-tation, Floor PlanFigure 6.16Offset Analysis of Fujimoto’s Children’s CentreFigure 6.17Offset Analysis ScoreFigure 6.1803398875 View Analysis Conducted in Normative SpaceFigure 6.19 View Analysis Conducted in Shifted Corridor RelationshipsFigure 6.20 Mies van der Rohe, Barcelona Pavilion, View Analysis Animation FrameFigure 6.212D View Analysis Fields along Circulation RouteFigure 6.223D View Analysis Fields along Circulation RouteFigure 6.23View Analysis GraphFigure 6.24Spatial Inputs into Source Field MethodFigure 6.25Phase.01 DiagramFigure 6.26Phase.02 Diagram Figure 6.27Phase.03 Diagram134136138140141142143144145146148150152154156158160162164166106106108109109110112113114116118120122123125127128130132xixThis project would not have been possible without the patient guidance and constructive criticism provided by my committee. I owe Blair, Mari, Oliver, and Melissa much gratitude for their passion and expertise. As for SALA students and staff there are many that I owe thanks. I am grateful for Joshua’s continuous positivity in times of doubt. My models would have suffered if it were not for Riley, Conner and Parker’s diligent assembly. This project would have been incredibly different if Haobo did not introduce me to Octopus. Finally, Graham and Adriana saved me countless hours of wasted time in the shop. All deserve my thanks.My family has been a constant source of inspiration, respite, and encour-agement. Their support can not be measured and I am always grateful for their love.My highest praise and appreciation goes to Pauline for her unwavering support through this work and in life. Thank you. AcknowledgmentsFigure 6.48Medium Interior PerspectiveFigure A.01SketchesFigure A.02SketchesFigure A.03SketchesFigure A.04SketchesFigure A.05 SketchesFigure A.06 Phase.01 Grasshopper ScreenshotFigure A.07 Phase.02 Grasshopper ScreenshotFigure A.08 Phase.03 Grasshopper ScreenshotFigure A.09 Phase.04 Grasshopper ScreenshotFigure A.10 Phase.05 Grasshopper ScreenshotFigure A.11 Octopus User Interface Phase.05 / Maximum Map of IterationsFigure A.12Phase.05 / Maximum Rhino ViewportFigure A.13Physical ModelFigure A.14Physical ModelFigure A.15Physical ModelFigure A.16Physical ModelFigure A.17Physical Model Figure A.18Physical Model1681741751761771791801821841861881901911921931941951961971A Brief History of ComputationChapter 1 3Figure 1.1 Timeline of the Development of Computation - Graphics by AuthorA Brief History of Computation  This chapter focuses on the recent history of digital compu-tation and the development of software tools that have greatly impacted contemporary architecture. Computation is a loaded term in architec-tural practice today. The Oxford English Dictionary defines computation as, “The action or process of computing, reckoning, or counting; arith-metical or mathematical calculation; an instance of this.” In an attempt to frame a definition for architects, Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges define it is follows: “In relation to design, computation is the processing of information and interactions between elements which constitute a specific environment, the pivotal word being interactions.” They continue, “Computation as a design methodology is to formulate the specific. Where computer-aided processes begin with the specific and end with the object, computational processes start with the elemental properties and generative rules to end with information which derives form as a dynamic system.”  This brief history of computing is focused on the recent techno-logical developments of the 21st century. In architecture, it is difficult to pinpoint the first instances of computation. An argument can be made that architects like Frei Otto or Antoni Gaudí used physical methods of compu-tation in their work well before the first digital computers. These holistic definitions of computation are discussed in Chapter 2. Today however, we understand computation as an incredibly flexible digital process. Modern digital computation relies on the mathematic achievements of early civili-zations. A key shift toward the digitization of our decimal mathematical notation was the invention of the binary system. Leibniz formulated binary notation in 1703. George Boole created Boolean Algebra in 1847, a system of logical operations that could operate mathematically. This method remained without a practical application until Claude Shannon discovered that Boole’s logic is precisely the method to create simple circuitry that could perform incredibly complex arithmetic. These three developments allowed for complex mathematics to be broken down into simple standardized units and operations. This breakdown of complexity into highly rational rules based systems was the foundation of all modern digital computing. The first digital computers were developed in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The world’s first programmable computer was the Z3, an invention of German Engineer Konrad Zuze. WWII encouraged both German and Allied technological development which led to the invention of the “Colossus” computers designed in Bletchley Park (the machines which famously cracked the German encryption Enigma). In the 40’s and 50’s the US military invested heavily in developing computation, creating interactive machines that could calculate ballistic trajectories. The United States Air Force (USAF) recognized the potential for computation to play 1941 First Programmable Computer: Z31 Konrad Zuse, Germany1942 First Operational Computer in the US2 Antanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC) University of Iowa1944 Colossus Computer for Code-breaking3 Led to success of DDay1946  First Interactive Computer4 US Navy, Project Whirlwind, Used for Ballistics Calc.1955  First Transistor5 Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain Nobel Prize in Physics1952  First Numerically Controlled Milling7 MIT1958 First Integrated Circuit9 Jack Kilby, Texas Instruments1964 First Commercial Mainframe12 IBM System/3601969 First Microprocessor16 Intel 40041975 First Home Computer18 MITS Altair 8800 Home Computer1977 Apple II191981 IBM Personal Computer2019521956196319641968-   19691975 198419851990199820002007Parametric Architecture Coined6Luigi MorettiAutomated Programming Tool (APT)8Douglas T. Ross, Servo Lab, MITFirst Program to see CAD in 3D10Larry Roberts, CAD Project, MITSketchpad, (Precursor to AutoCAD)11Ian Sutherland, CAD Project, MITBuilding Optimization Program (BOP)13Niel Harper, (SOM)The Life Game14 John H. Conway, Cellular AutomataComputational Design of Structure15Reptile System, John FrazerBuilding Description System17Ian Braid, MIT, Precursor of BIMFirst Neural Network21WISARD, Aleksander et al., Imperial College, London Foundation of MIT Media Lab22CATIA adopted by Frank Gehry23Commercial Release of Rhinoceros24McNeel and AssociatesAutodesk RevitAutodeskGrasshopper Plugin for RhinoMcNeel and AssociatesHardware DevelopmentsSoftware Developments5a role in fabrication. In 1952, in partnership with the USAF MIT debuted the first numerically controlled milling machine. These machines were not fully robotic, as an operator was required to enter in the numeric controls. What set these machines apart from existing milling methods was their use of highly accurate electric motors to drive the axis of a milling machine. These tools reduced human error and created the world of robotic fabrication.  At the same time as MIT and the USAF were pioneering automated fabrication, architects were learning of the potentials of computation. Luigi Moretti, in 1952, theorized the possibility of parametric archi-tecture. John Frazer discloses how Morette’s theories were revolutionary by explaining, “Though there are even earlier examples of parametri-cally descried three-dimensional forms, it would seem that Moretti was probably the first to create three-dimensional architectural form using a set of parametric relationships resolved by digital computation.”9 Moretti was not describing a pre-determined shape mathematically, his form was derived from the relationships set forward in his equations. This began a new era in architecture, where relationships between first principles were explicitly stated and the resulting architecture was manifest out of those principles.   The USAF/MIT partnership continued through the 1950’s and 1960’s in the pursuit of increased production efficiency. Numerically controlled milling was a good first step, but it was tedious to transform a design into machine code. This led to the development of the Automated Programming Tool, by Douglas T. Ross at the MIT Servo Lab.10 Achieved in 1956, this tool could output geometry to machine code, a notion of automation that is still sought in architecture firms today, as we shall discuss in Chapter 2. At this time production had been digitized, the generation of machine code from 3D geometry was automated, so it became clear to the USAF and MIT that there was a bottleneck by designing on paper, and then re-drawing digitally. What was needed was a fully digital design environment. This need was filled by Ian Sutherland’s 1964 Ph.D. thesis project Sketchpad.10 This project demonstrated: digital drawing using a light pen, 3D geometry, object snapping, and viewing of that geometry from any angle. This project was the precursor to all modern CAD, and 3D modeling environments. These developments while funded by the USAF created the most ubiquitous tools in the design industry today. The increasing strength and value of computation allowed software experimentation to become a revolutionary field. These were experiments that would come to shape the future of architecture. Skidmore, Owings and Merril (SOM) and Ellerbe & Associates were the first architecture firms to integrate computers into their offices in the 1950’s and 60’s12 In 1968, Niel Harper of SOM created the Building Optimization Program (BOP), a software that could live estimate costing and area calculations.13 This kind of live information created the first digitally informed designers who could interact with real-time metrics as opposed to a lengthy calculation process for each iteration. A few years later in 1975 Ian Braid of MIT created the Building Description System.14 This was a modeling software created form through primitive shapes and a list of translations. The embedded memory of translations in a form led to the possibility for other data to be carried in that form as well. This became the founding notions of Building Information Modeling.15 The efforts of Harper and Braid have radically transformed the design process for architects today. Also pioneered during this time was the first Neural Network entitled WISARD by Aleksander et, al.16  This development began the field of AI research that is still growing today. Neural Networks are not something that have been integrated into mainstream architec-tural design at the moment, however as we shall see in Chapter 3, there is ample demand and research ongoing with this technology.  The development of digital computation hardware and software has radically altered the design process of architecture. In a matter of decades, digital processes enabled new modes of fabrication, trans-lation, design, and analysis. Computation is a general-purpose technology that has already overhauled most industries including architecture. This profession is most indebted to military-academic partnerships which radically changed the way in which things can be produced. As hardware becomes cheaper, and software tools become more robust it is hard to envision a world where architecture is separated from computation. In the following Chapter we shall see from firsthand accounts the ways in which computation has altered the design methodology. Endnotes1 Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Computation,” accessed December 3, 2018 http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/view/Entry/37968?redirected-From=Computation#eid2 Achim Menges and Sean Ahlquist, eds., Computational Design Thinking (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 13.3 Gerard O’Regan, Introduction to the History of Computing: A Computing History Primer (New York: Springer, 2008), 40.4  O’Regan, History of Computing, 47. 5  Ibid, 50.6 Ibid, 67.7 Ibid, 72.8 Daniel Cardoso Llach, “Software Comes to Matter: Toward a Material History of Computational Design,” DesignIssues 31, no. 3 (Summer 2015): 46. 9 John Frazer, “Parametric Computation: History and Future,” Architectural Design 86, no. 2 (March/April 2016): 18-2310 Daniel Cardoso Llach, Builders of the Vision: Software and the Imagination of Design (New York: Routledge, 2015), 42.7Timeline Endnotes1. Gerard O’Regan, Introduction to the History of Computing: A Computing History Primer (New York: Springer, 2008), 67.2. O’Regain, History of Computing, 4.3. Ibid, 72.4. Daniel Cardoso Llach, Builders of the Vision: Software and the Imagination of Design (New York: Routledge, 2015), 38.5. O’Regain, History of Computing, 95.6. John Frazer, “Parametric Computation: History and Future,” Architectural Design 86, no. 2 (March/April 2016): 19. (18-23)7. Daniel Cardoso Llach, “Software Comes to Matter: Toward a Material History of Computational Design,” DesignIssues 31, no. 3 (Summer 2015): 46.  8. Llach, Builders of the Vision, 42.9. O’Regain, History of Computing, 6.10. Llach, Builders of the Vision, 68.11. Ibid, 49.12. O’Regain, History of Computing, 102.13. Llach, Builders of the Vision, 24.14. Andrew Adamatzky, ed., Game of Life Cellular Automata (New York: Springer, 2010), 3.15. Frazer, “Parametric Computation,” 20.16. O’Regain, History of Computing, 121.17. Llach, Builders of the Vision, 88.18. O’Regain, History of Computing, 127.19. Ibid.20. Ibid, 144.21. Igor Aleksander, “Neural Computing: Hyper or Reality?,” European Management Journal 6, no. 2 (1988): 116.22. Llach, Builders of the Vision, 83.23. Ibid, 14.24. Ibid, 92.11 Llach, Builders of the Vision, 49.12 Ibid, 23.13 Ibid, 24.14 Ibid, 88.15 Ibid.16 Igor Aleksander, “Neural Computing: Hyper or Reality?,” European Management Journal 6, no. 2 (1988): 116.9The Meta Interview, Computation in PracticeChapter 2 11Introduction This chapter aims to convey the urgency of the research at hand. To engage with computation in architecture it is important to consider the viewpoints of others working in this field. To that end, interviews have been conducted with practitioners in Vancouver who incorporate computation in their work, and as we shall discuss, they illuminate areas in which computation is effective in contemporary practice. Compu-tation is in high demand in the industry and that deficit is not showing any signs of relief. This project is positioned to respond to the needs of the industry by investigating the potential for early use of computation in combination with intuitive design. Further, computation has enabled new fields of design-manufacturing in which the future architect can be seen as a master fabricator. This revolution in the construction industry further begs for the integration of computation into the design process itself to assist in the translation from brief to building. The rise in machine learning points to the possibility of a self-selecting parametric design methodology which shows potential to increase the scope of computa-tional design. This emergent field provides motivation to engage with new methods of design. Finally, while technological revolutions are promoting the urgency of new design methods, those who are already embedded in the research of computational design are noticing a trend that most developments are missing the necessary human connections that make architecture successful. This notion helps shape the trajectory of any new computational methods towards a critical architecture that is emergent out of its human context.The Meta-Interview In order to understand how practitioners are engaging with computation, it is imperative to consider the process in its context. The term computation encompasses a broad range of methods. As such, multiple narratives of its use must be consulted. An interview process was selected to explore these issues in context. The interviews were designed to help gain an understanding of the current level computation is shaping contemporary Canadian practice. A goal of this process was to identify areas where computation has not been implemented successfully or warranted further research. The interviews consisted of three practicing architects, two architectural interns, and one student researcher who had worked extensively with computational processes.  Here it must be acknowledged that this study is a qualitative organization of responses to a standard set of interview questions. Inter-viewees were selected if they worked intimately with scripting, compu-tation, and architectural practice day to day. The sample group was limited to individuals who would opt in, provide a donation of their time, and were in the Vancouver area. This allowed the practitioners to respond in their familiar context. What follows is a meta-interview where the six responses to each question have been consolidated, interpreted, and discussed as a group in order to find where the interviewees agreed and disagreed.  What is Computational Design? The interviewees answered this question at varying scales. To some, using a computer in any capacity in the design process enabled computational methods, the example of contemporary BIM environ-ments was used to illustrate this. This viewpoint was shared by a third of the participants. This holistic definition of computational design includes computerization. The other two thirds disagreed instead believing that computational design was something that was only occurring when certain methodologies were used. Their comments can be interpreted in the following definition: Computational design is a methodology where a designer interacts with a design medium (physical or digital) that behaves according to a set of explicit rules. The designer leverages the creation of those rules and the agents that interact with the medium toward a design intent. Often this means harnessing computer power, however there are examples where physical processes also enable this method. It can be seen as something that is enabling complexity beyond what is easily comprehended by the human brain. However, it must be under-stood that computational design is not an end but a means, it is a tool to be deployed in service of design intent. Where is the line between Computational Design and Traditional Design? This question offered a point of discomfort with all participants. The interviewees’ answer skirted the direct notion of the question, as many found the separation of the terms ‘Computational Design’ and ‘Traditional Design’. There was a wide range of responses from; there is no separation, to: anything done within the computer environment is computational design, and finally: you know it when you see it. This variety in response can be seen as an issue with the question. Drawing a line between the two terms is difficult and in order to do so you need to make some assump-tions. The first is that the human intuitive design process, one where a designer considers a broad range of factors and responds using their best judgment, is not computational. Second, is that the whole traditional design process could be replaced by computational design. These are dangerous assumptions and instead one should consider re-examining the question. The phrasing of the question suggests that computational design is something that could operate in autonomy of ‘traditional’ design when that is not the case. Instead computational design is something done within the larger category of action know as design, and therefore the two categories presented here as a binary are actually inseparable. As long as humans are involved in the design process, computational design 13can be considered a technique. Techniques of design are methods that require skill and practice not unlike sketching, space planning, or commu-nication. There is no line except perhaps one completely encompassing both terms. Computational design is used in conjunction with human intuition. The methodology is developed by the designer.  Is Computational Design something that Matters? The participants agreed that computational design was something that mattered, however their responses showed two positions, one of excitement and one of apprehension. Two thirds believed that compu-tation required public awareness because of its potential to offer the public better design solutions. Within this viewpoint some stated it added efficiency to architectural practice, explaining how computation can be leveraged by all specialists within the construction industry to create more intelligent solutions. Those who approached computation with excitement were interested in the methodologies requirement to explicitly state problems and explore measurable solutions. In a world where building performance requirements are becoming standard practice, computation is being defended as one of the only ways to deliver on an architect’s predictions.  The remaining one third promoted an apprehensive awareness of an increasing reliance on computational tools. One interviewee explicitly mentioning the notion that an AI could potentially take over many aspects of the industry, to them this was a dangerous loss of control. Concern for control and authorship was mentioned by another in the apprehensive camp, with anecdotal evidence provided of times when they deployed computation it felt like there was a lack of explicit design control as compared to a strictly human intuitive design process. The opposing views between the participants is arguably reflective of the industry as a whole. On the one hand, computational skills are in high demand as projects, and their performance metrics are becoming more complex. On the other, the traditional freedom architects have enjoyed in creating form and detail, is moving from a state of manual decision-making, to automatic decision making based on abstract codified relation-ships. These responses indicate that the practice of architecture is in a moment of transition, and for better or worse, computation is leading that transition and therefore must be engaged. In your mind, when did Computational Design Start? The group labeled several unique times in the history of archi-tecture where the origins of computational design could be found. The most recent of these was the mass-adoption of visual programming in a flexible modeling environment. This was the development of Rhinoceros, and the Grasshopper plugin in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. With these tools designers could engage with computation with little programming knowledge and this time marks the rise of computational design to mainstream architectural practice. Further back in history many partic-ipants labeled the pioneering work of Frei Otto as the birth of modern computational research. His use of physical models in the 60’s used the laws of physics to predict efficient structures. While analog, his process otherwise acted computationally as he engaged with a rigorous rules based medium to create form. Participants noted that his work was not dissimilar to the parametric and gravity defined models of the Sagrata Familia designed by Antoni Gaudí between 1880 and 1920. Gaudi’s string models were acknowledged by participants as an example of another explicitly constructed, rules based system for the creation of form. Lastly, a participant labeled that computational design was just the latest iteration of abstraction in a long line of technological developments starting with the camera obscura in the 17th century. Their position was that the camera obscura was one of the first times architects and designers engaged with a dynamic rules based representation of the outside world. When one would trace reflections of reality they were engaging in an abstraction and filtering of reality through a predictable medium. To them, this notion of filtering has been a part of architectural design and representation since the renaissance and computation is the just the latest invention in this line.  Why does your firm engage with scripting and computation? On the subject of why a participant’s firm chose to engage with computation there was consensus that among other unique reasons one major factor for engaging with computation was to stay relevant within the profession. Those most on-board believed so strongly in the potential for computation that the entire firm has been structured around its use. Many at larger corporate firms made the point that a push for compu-tation happened from within the company towards the executive, and in order to get the executive on board, the point had to be made that computation would not only increase efficiency but further it had the potential to increase the overall quality of designs. Others noted that it is the only logical solution to the increasing complexity and decreasing timelines on many forms of project delivery. Some noted that architecture, engineering, and construction have not yet received the efficiency boost that computerization has enabled in other industries. Lastly, one of the skeptics of computation acknowledged that while their research was not concerned with computation itself it did serve useful in limited exercises to forward a specific agenda. To all involved it was clear that computation, if nothing else, helped them stay competitive and assist an existing design process. 15What problems do you face integrating scripting to architecture?  Problems abound in the re-tooling of architectural practice. The interviewees labeled many areas in which there was difficulty in imple-menting computational design. One of the largest issues was the education of exiting designers. All the participants labeled this as an issue noting that the investment of time and loss in productivity during a training process is often too steep on projects with tight constraints. When expertise is present, there is often significant lead time in the development of a coded exercise. Participants noted that sometimes it is not possible to wait for results, some projects demand evidence of design faster than the development time of novel code. Interestingly two individuals noted that efficiency is not limited by technology or software, as those are easily acquired, but it is the expertise that is most difficult to find. Another issue identified by many interviewees was the organization of the construction industry. Many noted the adoption of novel formal strategies not only requires re-training in the design side, but also re-training of labor and manufacturing efforts. One pointed out that overall in the Canadian construction industry there is a lack of trust in new systems and often it takes a lot of convincing to try to construct things out of the ordinary. This notion of trust was expanded by two participants who explained that most clients also don’t ask for it outright, and so must be convinced that computational design is something good for their needs and the needs of the buildings future occupants. Computational design is facing challenges on many fronts. For the parties interviewed these challenges were not insurmountable, as long as the profession evolves to meet these new demands.    What data was used as an input into the scripting environment? Digital Computational processes are concerned with the processing of data. On this subject there was a large variety or responses and it was clear that data selection has everything to do with the specific design problem at hand. For those using computation at every phase of the project, all site data became relevant. This included site geometry, energy requirements, climate, views, municipal zoning, and building code. For many of the interviewees climatic and energy consumption data was the largest sources as their primary concern is building performance. And on the research side of things the known behaviors and limits of materials were used when new material geometries were being tested. All the participants did however hint at the requirement for more data that related to human experience. Many interviewees had identified the need for metrics for things like livability, comfort, culture, or social inter-action. Upon further questioning participants would not identify concrete strategies to approach these metrics as it was perhaps too fraught with oversimplification. What was apparent from these discussions was that more data is useful but being critical of that data is a necessity. When the goal of an exercise is to affect aspects of human inhabitation that are not easily quantified, the architect must use critical judgment.  Where is your firm headed? Computation is poised to change all the practices interviewed. Most believed that their respective firms would develop automated solutions to mundane or tedious daily tasks. Many agreed that a robust toolkit of specialized computational processes would best assist a design process where the designed object was constantly changing from project to project. This was seen as a way to maximize the investment put into any given code. Two of the six identified that their firms were devel-oping new tools in order to approach robotic manufacturing, automating aspects of fabrication. These initiatives point to an increased reliance on the computerization of the design process, however few explicitly stated an interest in using computation as a generative tool. It was implied on several occasions that computation could be used to inform design moves, but the directions the majority of firms interviewed seemed to be heading was towards an augmented design process where computation was leveraged to optimize all aspects that could be numerically quantified. How will computation change the practice? The participants took unique positions in answering this question. A thread that unites their predictions is the increasing reliance on automation. The following are brief summaries of the most radical predic-tions for the future of architecture: In one interview, there was a notion that all “everyday” buildings like market housing would be completely automated. They attributed this to increasing prescriptions of design in municipal and building codes, and the increasing responsibilities taken on by developers. The partic-ipant continued to explain the loss of these everyday buildings from the world of architectural design would put a large number of architects out of business. They insisted that the only remaining realm for architecture after automation is in the creation of novel, exciting, and unique experi-ences. These last enclaves of design could be icons of capital or public works. Another possible future was forecast as a return to the role of the architect as the master builder, or in this instance the master fabricator. The possibility to automate the entire working-drawing process, and in some instances avoid it entirely, through direct integration with digital fabrication. This re-situates the architect as the coordinator of design and manufacturing. These new vertically integrated firms could be a one stop shop for design, manufacture, and construction. 17Figure 2.1 Design Sequence from Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services, AIBC - Graphics by Author The notion of subjectivity and authorship was explored by one of the participants. Again in response to the inevitability of increasing automation the role of the architect would be shifting. In this scenario the architect, strengthened by digital tools, would rely on their critical judgment more than ever as their curation of digital inputs radically affect the outcome of design. This would be true for all disciplines in the design process and it could be seen that designs would become more consid-erate and refined as the iterative process, when combined with critical designers, is super-charged.Discussion The practice of computational design is rapidly changing the industry. The examples provided here illustrate how different viewpoints can illuminate the multi-faced future of architecture. From these practi-tioners, we find that computation is to be used within the design process and is not a replacement of the design process as we know it. Computa-tional design matters within the profession as it provides the opportunity to hit performance goals, save on materials, and in general, optimize a design to any numeric metric. This use of computational design has already become mainstream. It is clear that an area warranting future investigation is the numeric representation of aspects of architecture that are not easily numerically represented. In either scenario, numeric or non-numeric, computational design is also highlighting the need for critical reasoning. When outputs are so explicitly linked, in an under-standable piece of code, to inputs, the curation of the inputs becomes important to the outcome of computational architecture. Further, firms are pushed to engage with this technology to stay relevant. They are attempting to overcome the challenges of re-tooling their workforces, and the industry as a whole. Computation is already changing how the practice of architecture operates, and has the potential to make archi-tects hyper-specialists, master fabricators or further reinforce our role as critical designers. Introduction to Diagrams   The interview process has been instrumental in shaping an understanding of the current state of computational design in Vancouver. In an attempt to move beyond the broad notions of computation it is worth taking a deeper look into how computation is introduced into a design method. To facilitate this each participant was asked to speak about a specific project, and provide a description of the design process used. Those descriptions were then interpreted and represented in this chapter for comparison. The breakdown of design sequence has been presented here in a linear arrangement for the clarity of the diagram, and they would benefit with an acknowledgment that many design methods are cyclical and iterative. The Sequence’s subdivisions have been based on the Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services from the AIBC. This schedule is the same document that would most likely dictate the billing structure of the participants projects. Again, it is worth noting that in many instances the interviewees indicated that the clean subdivision of activities is not so cut and dry, but nevertheless, this categorization of design tasks can be used as an effective baseline. Figure 2.1 shows us the sequence of these design categories.1 The area of focus has been limited to the first 4 phases, Predesign through Construction Documents, as these areas show the most potential for computation to affect the architecture. The following diagrams illustrate a series of different methodologies for integrating computation in practice.Major Design Changes Minor Design Changes Minor RevisionsPredesignSchematic DesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DocumentsBidding NegotiationsConstruction Contract AdministrationPost-ConstructionResearch Focus Area19PD SD DD CDPD SDInterdisciplinary Charrette Performance OptimizationInternal Dialectical Process Material OptimizationDD CDPD SD DDHuman ActionsComputational Actions Schmatic DesignPredesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DrawingsSDPDDDCDCDStandard Design ProcessDialogPatkau ArchitectsnDesign IterationDigital ComputationHuman Intuitive ComputationDigital Design IterationAutomated ProcessFigure 2.2 Computational Design Methodologies Group A - Graphics by AuthorStandard Design ProcessThis diagram is a representation of the beginning 4 phases as identified by the AIBC. It is a process that does not include computation. This methodology relies entirely on human intuitive computation as a method to combine the contextual aspects of a project into architecture. Included are arrows which represent cyclical iterations. DialogIn a competition that balanced net-zero energy requirements with socially activated urban planning Dialog used the following approach. The initial proposals were created by a team using human intuitive processes, these then were workshopped in an interdisciplinary design charrette. Both these methods were predominantly intuitive exercises. Computation was used later to ensure the performance requirements were met. A suite of time-saving computerization tools were used.Patkau Architects This project was for the re-building of a burned down multi-faith space. The foundation conditions were pre-existing and so the project had to respond to these and the cultural factors of the site. A strong design intent was built through a dialectical process between experienced professionals and junior staff members. Computation was used during the CD phase to model and fabricate complex curvature out of wood.21Figure 2.3 Computational Design Methodologies Group B - Graphics by AuthorPD SD DD CDPD SD DD CDPD SD DD CDStantecPerkins + WillLWPACnMulti-Variable Option Generation & Human Intuitive SelectionHuman Intuitive First Principles, Multi-Variable Options and Human Intuitive Selection  Multi-Variable SolvingOptimizationHuman ActionsComputational Actions Schmatic DesignPredesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DrawingsSDPDDDCDDesign IterationDigital ComputationHuman Intuitive ComputationDigital Design IterationAutomated ProcessStantecAttempting to impress a new client, here computation was used for value engineering. The building, located in Texas, was severely limited by its zoning conditions, and therefore building volume envelope was prescribed by regulation. A computational model was generated that could effectively shade the building from sunlight, while strive for cost efficiency. The model was able to pick the most efficient overall strategy. Perkins + Will In this large multi-tower development computation was used to generate thousands of initial responses to the site geometry, site conditions, and regulations. These initial massings were evaluated on an intuitive level and the winning schemes were chosen and further developed through a traditional process, until it was clear which possessed the best ‘fit’.LWPACThis project is a mid-rise timber dwelling complex. It’s general site strategy was designed through intuitive means, however this organization utilizes a series of multi-variable optimization methods to ensure their proposal meets performance, and optimization standards. If not, the process is iterated until a fair equilibrium is met. This firm aims for full automation of the working drawings process, including robotic fabrication. 23Figure 2.4 Achim Menges, 2015, “Cyber-physical fibre placement process” Discussion – The Urgency of Early Integration  Organized into two sets these diagrams show six project method-ologies. Some that use computational sparingly towards the end of the design process (Group A), and others where computation is integral to the outcome of the design (Group B). Those in Group A indicated that computation was integrated at this late stage as many within the firm were not trained to use these methods. The team members who were able to use computation were generally fresher out of school and as they had less seniority, they were generally involved later in the design process. This is interesting because as personnel change over perhaps computation might work its way into the beginning of the design process. The decision to place computation late in the process is therefore not because that is the only area it is effective, but is rather a symptom of the issues of training in a fast paced workplace. These processes speak to a need for early process computation. For Group B, these firms engaged with computation at early, or critical stages in the process. In general they are typically able to cover more ground, be more precise, and work in new ways thanks to computation. They are proof that there is value in integrating computation to the beginning of the design process and support this research’s pursuit of that notion. What is most interesting about Group B is that computation never takes the place of a human intuitive process, rather these methods offer hybrid approaches where a designer works with an abstract digital model of their unique relational associations between competing factors. These approaches are living proof that by integrating computation into the design process early, the outcomes can be intrinsically linked to the competing forces on a site. They speak to the potential advantages of early integration indicate where the industry is going. Computation should be integrated early to allow architects to work cooperatively with their own explicit methodologies. Computation allows us to remove certain variables from our intuitive process and instead view them explicitly as interconnected relationships. This method of explicitly stating a problem is useful when increasingly architecture is asked to perform complex specific tasks. Computational Making Computational making is in the forefront of architectural materials research. Architects have created new built possibilities using compu-tation, six-axis robotics, and custom tooltips. These advancements would not be possible without computation. Achim Menges, a prominent figure in computational making, believes that computation plays an integral role in facilitating new forms of construction. He explains, “as materialization becomes more computational and generative, design becomes increas-ingly physical and procedural, leading to a potential point of convergence where design and construction merge.”2 This is an interesting proposition. Menges’ prediction for the future matches one of the possible futures identified by the interview process, one where architects find themselves in a new role as the master fabricator. He describes the 2015-16 ICD Research Pavilion as an example of this convergence. Here computation allows for a fiber composite to be laid against an inflated formwork, real time monitoring allow for the simulation of the deformation of the formwork and the model adjusts the force of the robot accordingly. In this project computation has created direct feedback between construction and design. This use of computation points to a shift in the design process is parallel with the notion of the architect as the master fabricator. 25Figure 2.5 Roland Halbe, 2015, “2015. RH2739-0030.jpg” (ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2014-15)Menges notes another interesting fact the evolution of design. This is the tendency for computational design to become increasingly procedural. This notion of the procedure can be seen today in our urban society. The contemporary city is one of spatial subdivision subject to policy, planning, and supervision. Menges is not incorrect in noticing the trend towards procedural design, and it is affecting not just his world of advanced geometries, but the contemporary city as well. In this context, compu-tation enables the architect to manage procedure and leverage different forces turning the explicit terms into a designed object. If we are to take something from the rise of computational making, it is that the architect is empowered more than ever before to affect the execution of a design. Seeking empowerment, we must engage with computation as a force to counter our increasingly procedural built environment. Machine Learning in Architecture Machine learning is an area of research that shows potential in assisting with computational design. The rise of parametric modeling has given architects the ability to create objects that contain infinite variations of itself within the input criteria. These objects then rely on intuitive design methods to choose an appropriate variant. This is a process different than one of iterations, in which lessons from a previous design are applied to a new one. By using machine learning (ML) architects have the potential to build in a learning process where variants approach a pre-defined level of fit and therefore begin to perform like an iteration.  Architectural iterations are punctuated by moments of evalu-ation. Typically that evaluation will be towards some preconceived notion of what an architecture should be like. In some instances this is adherence to a concept that is driving the design spirit, this evaluation therefore is something that happens at an intuitive level where the designer calls upon their expertise for judgment. This method leads to subjective decision-making. This mode of work is not invaluable, on the contrary it is a method in which many designers express a unique approach to design and can be highly sought after. Another scenario occurs when a goal of the iterative process is to optimize a measurable metric. In these instances evaluation is much more procedural with all outcomes easily quantified and it is quite easy to choose the best ‘fit.’ An example of this occurs when a buildings energy performance is modeled in real time against design moves. In this realm the iterative process is highly valuable in balancing performance with design intent. Perhaps there is a third option, one where subjective choice could be expressed numerically, and the use of optimization tools could be used towards finding results that iterate towards the subjective. A process that comes close to this was demonstrated by Robert Vierlinger and Arne Hofmann. In their 2013 conference paper A Framework for Flexible Search and Optimization in Parametric Design they present the notion that numerous measurable design aspects could be repre-sented in a 3D plot. The tool allowed for the real time updating of a field of positions, which affected the outcome of an iterative design process.3 Their model used ML algorithms to continuously strive for a structural system that best matched the desired attributes. This was one of the first examples of multi-objective settings where compromise towards a large number of inputs is accommodated. This if often the same situation that is faced by a designer in the beginning stages of a design problem. In Fig. 3.6 We can see that the structural system maintains its ability to hold up a mass, while avoiding a middle area, as well as minimizing excessive loads on any individual member. This method, demonstrates the possi-bility for ML to assist in the computational negotiation of complex require-ments. It is able to find compromises iteratively, and more importantly it is unaware as to the meaning behind the values it given. The mechanism is 27not producing the design, it is the evaluation and curation of the systems goals that guide the process towards resolution. Therefore if we are able to define subjective goals for architecture, goals produced from a human critical intuitive analysis, then we can create a computational system that will strive to meet those goals. Figure 2.6 Vierlinger, Robert and Arne Hofmann, 2015, “Figure 11: Different alternatives of example 2 in its final setup of parameters and objectives.”The Missing Spirit“The architectural field’s current use of the parametric has been superficial and skin-deep, maybe importantly so, lacking of a larger framework of referents, narratives, history, and forces. Despite the contemporary collective desire to forget postmodern semiotic signification, everything visual eventually devolves into symbolic imagery. The recent architectural production has been dedicated towards a post-postmodern architecture of radical distortion as a way to escape signification and subvert semiotic legibility (twisted hyperbolic forms, stretched out shapes, extreme continuity of places and surfaces, etc.). I would argue that the ‘parametric work’ being produced today fits within an evolution of so-called postmodernism, concerning the image of quantity; the indexical referent is itself and analogous systems. To the extent the profession has utilized parametric today, there is very little instigating complexity other than a mind-numbing image of complexity, falling short of its rich potential to correlate multivalent processes or typological transformations, parallel to meanings, complex functional requirements, site-specific problems or collaborative networks.”4Michael Meredith (MOS Architects) exclaims here that computationally derived architecture has a missing spirit. This sentiment is shared by many architects and theorists today. The tone in many pieces tends toward the hopeful but it is clear that designers are conscious of the apparent detachment of some aspects of computational design from the “real-world.” Karl Chu, professor at the School of Architecture at Pratt, belongs with this group. He utilizes Genetic Algorithms to create complex pattern based geometries. Though his work is often in the production of intricate form he recognizes, “It is not surprising that the origin of compu-tation lies in an attempt to embody instrumental reason in an abstract machine with the attendant drive to encode the logic of life and the world around us in all its manifestations.”5 He firmly believes that computational design must be based out of the “logic of life,” and is not an exercise in isolation. This notion can be traced back to some of the earliest practi-tioners of computational design, John Frazer. As we have discussed, Frazer’s pioneering work in evolutionary design has paved the way for many others. However, upon reflecting on the trajectory of the now much wider practice of computation he reiterates the importance of the original goal of computation at its first adoption. He recalls:“But my main point is that we went to all this effort in order to solve real social, environmental and technical problems where we believed a computer could significantly assist. But now that there is massive computer power and software cheaply available, most scripting has become nothing more than an onanistic self-indul-29Endnotes1  Architectural Institute of British Columbia, Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services, (Vancouver: AIBC, 2009) 44.2  Achim Menges, “The New Cyber-Physical Making in Architecture: Computational Construction,” Architectural Design 85, no. 5 (2015): 33.3  Robert Vierlinger, and Arne Hofmann, “A Framework for Flexible Search and Optimization in Parametric Design,” Paper presented at: Design Modelling Symposium, Berlin, October 2013. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1516.87274  Michael Meredith, “Never Enough (Transform, repeat ad nausea),” in Algorithmic Architecture: From Control to Design, ed. Tomoko Sakamoto and Albert Ferré, (New York: Actar, 2008), 6.5  Karl Chu, “Metaphysics of Genetic Architecture and Computation,” Architectural Design 76. no. 4 (2006): 40.6  John Frazer, Interview with Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures, (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 53. 7  Meredith, Never Enough, 8.gence in a cozy graphics environment. Endless repetition and variation on elaborate geometrical schema with no apparent social, environmental and technical purpose whatsoever.”6Computation enables complexity. At times this complexity can overpower what is comprehensible. This is a dangerous capacity as control must be tightly maintained if architecture is to maintain a design direction. If we are to engage with computation, as so many firms are already, we must strive to maintain a connection with the sociological and human environ-ments our buildings serve. These opinions create an understanding that computation is a means, to be used towards a human centred archi-tectural ends. Meredith summarizes this requirement by stating, “Archi-tecture can only be critical or difficult or meaningful or complex if it directly engages culture, if it becomes meaningful to a social cultural network.”7 To reflect the aspirations of a society architecture, computational or not, must still engage critically with its human context. This notion often seems lost when some computational strategies are researched. This is not intended to diminish the significant effort and innovation required to develop computational methods but rather acknowledge that when applied to architecture, solutions are evaluated against a field of social, economic, cultural, and otherwise human factors. Conclusion  This project aims to engage with the issues raised in this chapter. The industry is rapidly evolving new computational methods, with many of them taking place late in the design process. These methods in many cases are confused with computerization, of which is the automation of mundane or tedious tasks. Computation has the potential to create more considerate designs when combined with a critical intuitive process early in the design process. As we have discussed some practitioners are already deploying this methodology and it is revolutionizing the way in which their firms operate. These methods are becoming more relevant and therefore warrant further investigation. Computation has already created new possibilities in combination with materials research. Advances in fabri-cation technology and new digital tools have given rise to a new breed of master fabricator architects. As robotic fabrication and computational design merge, the building construction industry has potential to evolve to accommodate new methods in the built environment. Lastly, practi-tioners of computational design are in the process of shifting from exper-imental proof of concepts, to applying their research to the intricacies of contemporary architecture. There are many voices in the field who are labeling the lack of critical, societal engagement a predominant issue in computational design. This thesis proposes to explore the possibilities of early integration with computational design toward the development of a critical emergent architecture.31Logical Argumentation: Technology, Society, and the CityChapter 3 33Introduction A critical emergent architecture, as it suggests, is an architecture that springs from its context and does so not with blind mimicry, but instead with a political position towards that context which has affected its architectural qualities. As we have discussed, the profession of archi-tecture is already colliding with computational methods. This collision is reshaping practice. Systemic change to how architecture is produced will create a new architecture, and if we are not cautious, will push us towards the realm of technocratic expressionism as our soul means of creating value. What is crucial to understand about computation is that it first and foremost is a tool.  It is a method for the digital manipulation of existing processes of in nature. Engagement with these processes does not create architecture in itself, as architecture must be understood as more than the byproduct of an arbitrary process. If computation is the means, then what is the ends? To harness computation towards a critical emergent architecture is to take the position that buildings should be criti-cally emergent. Why is this of importance? In this chapter we will discuss how technological and societal change caused architecture to respond by attempting to embody the aspiration of a new society. This has been apparent since antiquity and has remained constant throughout many movements. Contemporary architects are engaging in the current society of global urbanization. In response to our capitalist urbanization, archi-tecture might be understood as the key to spatial humanization.Historical Precedent The next examples are movements where architecture has been built in critical response to a contextual ideology. There is not an attempt to categorize whether all architectural movements are contextually critical or not, nor do they attempt to assign a binary conclusion of good or bad. They are instead a field of positions in which previous architects have attempted to express that which architecture is concerned. What is important between them is their similarities despite their distribution through time and the technologies that influenced them. From antiquity to present there has been a notion that architecture is not conceived within a vacuum.Antiquity The notion that a building would embody aspirations of its society has impacted architecture since its inception. This is evident in the rigid rules applied to Roman architecture. Rome deployed technology in service of its expanding state. Aqueducts, roads, and siege engines contributed to the conquering and administration of surrounding cultures. Vitruvius, formalizing architecture in his ten books, makes particular note that one of the reasons he endeavored to systematize architecture was because of Caesar Augustus’ will in forming a cohesive sense of state. Vitruvius explains: “…I observed that [Augustus] cared not only about the common life of all men, and the constitution of the state but also about the provision of suitable public buildings; so that the state was not only made greater through [Augustus] by its new provinces, but the majesty of the empire was also expressed through the eminent dignity of its public buildings.”1 Here we understand that Rome’s approach to architecture was as a tool to combine conquered cultures into its empire. The buildings were meant to express a notion of shared ideology through expressing ‘eminent dignity’ and were integral in the creation of Rome as a cohesive state. Western architecture has first and foremost been a tool towards the expression of a contextual ideology. In this case, an authoritarian expression of the might of the Roman Empire (and an expression of an appropriated Greek vernacular). However, the ideology or political position that Vitruvian architecture expresses, is understood as an ambition or ideal and not a simple reflection of existing conditions. Justified as a mechanism in creating a “cohesive state” Vitruvian architecture identifies and critically antagonizes the other, which in this case, is the heterogeneous groups of people incorporated within the Roman Empire. In the Roman tradition, architecture is limited to civic buildings and its criticality is limited to expressing opposition to all forms of non-conformity, however this began to change in the Renaissance.Renaissance The changing economic forces that brought about the renais-sance also shifted, for the first time, the societal context architecture was responding to. Technological developments in international trade, banking, mathematics, and the arts contributed to a new society in Italy. At this time power was attainable through economic success, and not limited to state or religious administration. These developments contributed to a societal shift towards secularization and humanization.2 Here, we examine the Renaissance not as a whole style but instead focus on a key shift that was occurring in periphery of the Movement. Michael Fazio, in Building across Time comments on the movement at large noting, “With the artistic accomplishments of antiquity now matched and even superseded, many sixteenth-century Italian architects grew impatient with the restrains placed on them by the perceived rigidity of High Renaissance esthetic thinking and so flouted the rules of classical ordering, some would say to troubling excess.”3A frustration with the constraints of classical revival combined with an increasingly influential merchant class created the rise of architecturally designed housing. Aureli understands this time as crucial in how archi-tecture shifted its contextual relationship with the city. He notes that in particular the texts of Sebastiano Serlio are the first inclinations of 35Fig. 3.1 Sebastiano Serlio, “On the House outside the City of the poor Merchant or poor Citizen”architecture accommodating the citizen and explains, “before Serlio, the architectural project was a matter only for important institutions or rich patrons; by contrast, Serlio took all classes into account, form the poor peasant to the king.”4 His attention to the domestic was a direct impact of the new Ideology and political context in renaissance Italy. It was not Serlio’s attention to the domestic that caused social change, instead it was quite the opposite. His new vision for contextual architecture was founded on the shifting thought processes occurring in his time.  We understand that renaissance Architects were occupied with the revitalization of the glory of Rome and the classical orders. During this resurgence, came opposition and evolution as many of the rules were deemed too restrictive for an architecture appropriate for the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In response to the monumental expression present in classical orders Serlio proposes a radically subdued style and one which has explicit accommodation to all classes. As you can see in Fig. 3.1 Serlio’s houses do not evoke high state authority through traditional classical motif. Aureli explains this new approach was coined Decorum and reports:“Decorum guarantees that every social class can find its proper architectural accommodation. Here, architecture collaborates with power not by representing it thought monumental symbols but by becoming its tool for the cultivation of societal well-being.”5Decorum may be seen as rationalist in organization by economic and social striations. It may also be seen as an attempt to break down the binary conditions between civic, and non-civic buildings that traditionally locked architecture in servitude to the former. By striating the public and designing for all classes Serlio demonstrates the political and ideological shift in the renaissance, namely the rise of the merchant class. His work was emergent from an interpretation of the political and technological power shift of his era, and he manifested a new ambition for architecture accordingly.Industrial Revolution Utopians  The industrial revolution transformed western society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The steam engine, a new technology that was capable of transforming material resources into general-purpose work, led to the mechanization of labor tasks. Other technologies were undergoing revolutions that contributed to changing societal condi-tions of the period. Leslie Tomory, explains that the revolution was not in response to a single technology but rather a time of radical change where, “Research in other technologies and industries proliferated, such as in canals, roads, waterwheels, hat and candle making, agriculture, concrete, glass, pottery, gas, water supply, brewing and food preserva-tion.”6 These developments changed how western society, and its cities operated. One such shift was the increasing urbanization of workers.7 The massive growth of urban areas was attributed to the exponential growth workforces needed to operate the new mechanized factories.  The notion that the existing city model was not providing the adequate structure for the post-industrial society was shared by philos-ophers of the era. The utopian Charles Fourier was one of these thinkers who believed that the formal structure of a city, and its administrative 37Fig. 3.2 J.B. Godin, “Plan and Section of the residential building of the ‘Familistèré.”structure should evolve to meet the needs of the new society. He believed that society could be viewed as an evolutionary phenomenon with distinct periods, each successively higher orders of peace and prosperity.8 Benevolo elaborates on this stating: “But Fourier considered these advances as mere stepping-stones towards the sevenths and defining stage, when life and property would be completely collectivized; leaving the towns, men would settle in ‘phalanges’ of 1,620 individuals and would live in special buildings called ‘phalansteries.’”9 Fourier’s tactic was a logical exercise in arguing his true thesis, the desire for a cumulative period where the old society is replaced with a new order. From technological revolution, came the theoretical re-formatting of society in social and formal architectural terms. Industrialist J.B. Godin attempted to realize this vision. The Familistere, an industrialist take on Fourier’s utopian housing solution was completed in 1880.10 The building housed multiple families, in separate apartments (Fig. 3.2) He maintained Fourian planning by accommo-dating community integration of shops and schools.11 He elevated work by providing amenities to the workforce and accommodated the growth of their families. This proved to be an investment in his own business, as family loyalty would promote future generations to seek employment at the factory. While the Familistere was successful in the time of its operation, it did not represent a sustainable alternative to western cities. The town’s entire economy revolved around the factory and therefore was inherently temporary. Without the resiliency that was offered by the multiple opportunities in a city, Godin’s experiment was short lived.   The Familistere and the philosophical thinking of Fourier were responses to the technological and societal changes occurring in the Industrial Revolution. Their work contributed to a utopian architecture that was critically and politically reflective of their contexts. The revolution they encountered fueled their exploration, and what we notice is that though isolated utopian architecture may be achieved, if they do not engage with realities of cities they do not contain the resiliency to affect long lasting change. Outside these rare utopias, industrialization was still causing major issues within the western city.  Workers conditions were poor and health was becoming a concern to city officials, designers, and philosophers. It was a phenomenon that was impossible to ignore. The empowerment of these masses of workers contributed to the Marxist movement. One of its founders, Friedrich Engles, noted that simply re-locating workers in poor housing was not enough to change a funda-mental societal problem. On the subject of mass housing he describes “The breeding places of disease, the infamous holes and cellars in which the capitalist mode of production confines our workers night after night, 39Fig. 3.3 Le Corbusier, “Stuttgart, The Steel House by Le Corbusier on the Weissenhof.”are not abolished they are merely shifted elsewhere!” 12 The utopian archi-tecture of Godin is emergent out of the context of nineteenth century industrialization and philosophy. It was disconnected from the city and could not provide sustainable housing. Forty yeas later a new proposal the modern housing of a city was proposed by the modernists.Modernism Western society saw patterns of unhygienic urban density from the nineteenth into the twentieth century. These aspects were tackled head on by the 1920’s Modernists who leveraged technological innovation, again in use towards a societal issue. The fascination with housing continued from the industrial revolution into the work of Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. In these early days of modernism, their work was not concerned with expression of state control, common ideology, or with the stratified class systems proposed in the renaissance. The modern ideals instead can be understood as entirely pragmatic, focusing instead on real deployable design solutions, leveraging mass production for the mass public. Benevolo explains, “Le Corbusier would work for any client, from the Salvation Army to the Russians, without sufficient thought for the effect the client would have on the architectural product, and even Gropius and Mies, the most socially committed, at first made light of the political implication of their work, concentrating solely on making contact with economic forces.” From the onset, modernism was concerned with providing a new way of living, one that included the hygienic notions of Fourier, however engaged with the real economics of urban contexts. A project that embodies this criticality towards city context is the 1927 Werkbund exhibition in Stuttgart. The Weissenhof estates, show a critical response to the evolution of western society. The site organization, designed by Mies, separated pedestrian from vehicular traffic.13 This prior-itized human interaction and safety by creating a place explicitly for that activity. The human-centred position of this work is further embodied by the range of projects. The projects were not designed to accommodate or reference each other’s geometries though they do share a similar style and material attitude. This combination of forms was meant as a field of prototypes.14 This project embodies a new aspiration for a mass-pro-duced western society: That there is room in society for a multitude of expressions, and through the use of technology our living situations can be elevated. Benevolo elaborates stating,“But if one remembers that the buildings were conceived as prototypes suited for mass reproduction, and are in a certain sense the samples of so many districts, the Weissenhof may be considered as an inspiriting representation of the modern city, and the basic harmony of the various contributions showed that a broader unity could be arrived at, in which the various methods of planning could balance one another. The changing society of the early twentieth century was represented in these new proposals for modern living. In an attempt to separate themselves from notions of historical repetition, and to create an archi-tecture that was critical and antagonized the shifting society of their time they exchanged symmetry and ornament, for proportion and mass production. 41Fig. 3.4 Jørn Utzon, 1973-76 “Bagsvaerd Church North Elevation and Section”Post - Modernism In recent history, Post-Modernists dispatched architects to produce outputs opposed to what Le Corbusier describes as “…quite different from those that were the glory of ages past.”15 The break from tradition in modernism and its subsequent failings to adequately address the shifting mileu of the late 20th century led to the development of systems theory, and complexity theory. These interdisciplinary studies shaped certain aspects of Post-Modern architecture.      Charles Jencks in The Architecture of the Jumping Universe asserts that “In the West there is a crisis in architecture that reveals a crisis in culture and the way we live today. Western society is confused, politicians lack direction and architects, who are meant to crystallize the noblest aspirations of an age, are at a loss as what to represent.”16 In other words, in a society with political and dogmatic uncertainty, architecture is left without a guiding doctrine. The pursuit of which illustrates the epistemo-logical position of Jencks and his contemporaries. One is the assumption that architecture should have a guiding doctrine, and second is that architecture must react to the world of forces surrounding it. Though complexity theory creates an expression of the physical properties of the cosmos, again we find that architecture is legitimized by its critical relation to an ideological context. Critical Regionalism Critical regionalism directly advocated for architecture’s critical position against the forces of globalization, and urbanization through a process of interacting with a regional situation. This movement aided in the questioning of western architecture as a whole, recognizing the contemporary position of power to be directly related to economic strength. In response to global economic expansion, the movement aims to maintain an architectural focus on regional conditions. The primary mechanism of imparting this criticality was through form, and phenome-nological experience. Frampton argues for an architecture that is opposed to urbanization, unconcerned with trends or the propagation of the avaunt guard, has a strategy indirectly derived from the peculiarities of a place, is not romantic towards vernacular, is concerned with boundaries between itself and its context, has a structure that responds to its local conditions, and is multisensorial.17 At face value this movement seems to be directly advocating for a type of emergent architecture. The strength of these six points was also their weakness, namely their explicit and limiting terms. In following critical regionalism, there is an underlying notion that the architect is the final deciding entity as to what context has cultural value, and what does not. Precisely because of this tenuous territory the contemporary critical regionalist perspective is one of liberation.    The new position of critical regionalism today is less involved in the explicit doctrine of what to do and what not to do to make your building. Today it is in response to the homogenizing effect of global capitalist society. In 2014 upon revisiting his position Frampton shifts his viewpoint stating, “I thought then, as to some degree I still do, that the way to achieve an authentic, inflected, but still modern architecture culture was to return as a rear guard to grass roots.”18 Instead of explicit rules of engagement, here what is acknowledged is a field of possibility when engaging with a human context, or a grass roots process. Discussion Having examined patterns in history where technology has seeded societal change we have seen how architecture has repeatedly attempted to critically embody the new society by antagonizing the notions of the previous society. In antiquity, the Empire of Rome was expressed throughout its conquered states through an architecture of harmony, uniform proportions, and a strict adherence to explicit rules. The renais-sance became a time when architecture could encompass the private lives of citizens through new forms of housing, this engagement was preceded by the rise of a powerful merchant class. The new notions of the city-state and of the citizen gave rise to an architecture of citizen’s homes. This attention towards housing increased during the industrial revolution. Steam technologies increased urban populations throughout Europe and created a crisis of poor living conditions. Again, architecture was used as a tool to communicate the aspirations of new ideas, and in the case of the industrial revolution were Marxist factory towns. The inability of these towns to operate sustainably gave rise to the modern movement in which the economics of mass production could be leveraged to create affordable and hygienic homes for the masses. Most recently, critical regionalism attempted to critically counter the forces of global capitalism by turning 43the focus of architecture towards local conditions and human percep-tions. In the wake of technological upheaval architects have attempted to embody changing notions and find opposition to existing ideologies. This is a pattern of political engagement with societies ideologies, and it is through the mechanism of antagonization that these architectures have represented change. This is not to say that architects themselves brought about changes in society or its behavior, on the contrary, society in its evolution invents new technologies and processes that cause itself to change. Architecture, in that sense, is in a constant state of keeping up. Architecture becomes critical when it becomes political, antagonizing existing ideologies and accommodating novel ways for individuals to live. The notion that architecture should be emergent out of its political contextual environment is not new. Throughout history archi-tecture has been justified as a tool towards the active propagation of an ideology. In the west this has been in place since antiquity and is now one of the burdens of our global society. As global capitalism has become the driving force behind the expansion of western civilization, now archi-tecture is explained as a cause and solution to this condition. One thing that is remaining constant is that architecture is intrinsically tied to the ideological forces of a society in which it is produced. It operates as a spatial record of the non-physical forces shaping a societies life. For this reason, it is imperative that an architecture developed today, and that is concerned with the public, is a critical emergent architecture.  What then is our contemporary situation, and how might archi-tecture register a critical perspective in this context? The contemporary city today is affected by the powers of global capital and the unifying forces of urbanization. Our technologies today allow for rapid transfer and consumption of information and goods. We have built up systems that allow for this efficient transfer to occur. These capitalistic factors are the foundation of urbanism. Aureli explains that urban planning, since inception, has been concerned with providing this infrastructure, “This paradigm is the condition of limitless and total integration of movement and communication brought about by capitalism.”19 Built on notions of efficiency, our urban environments are fundamentally different from the traditional notions of the western city. What sets our contemporary cities apart from cities of the past, beyond the search for efficiency, is the way in which our society operates. On the history of urbanism, it is important to underline the difference between the private and public realms. Hannah Arendt writes thoroughly on this subject in The Human Condition. She proposes the Greek concept of the vita activa as the breakdown of human activities into three categories: labor, work and action. Labor is the activity which is most connected to the organic nature of the human body, and includes all things which allow for the sustained existence of humanity.20 Work encompasses all activities that are unnatural, any creative exercise of man.21 Lastly she explains action as the single defining characteristic of man, the activity that only humans may engage in; “… the only activity which goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter, corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men … live on the earth and inhabit the world.”22 Action, to Arendt, is therefore the highest calling of humanity as it is the work that deals not just with creation, but also with the interaction of humanity as a whole. The vita activa occurred in parallel with the development of the city state, which in turn pre-empted the development of the public realm. The city-state enabled people to live together indefinitely, without tyranny or violence, other than in family groups.23 These early cities enabled citizens to master labor and work, and exist entirely in the public realm.  Arendt makes the case that “…only the foundation of the city-state enabled men to spend their whole lives in the political realm.” 24 This new pattern of living allowed for political discussion, which would come to shape western civilization. The private home was of no concern to the city, or to political processes.  The inhabitants of antiquity believed that private realm reduced humans to an animalistic nature. Arendt notes that “this, precisely, was the ultimate reason for the tremendous contempt held for [the private realm] by antiquity.” 25 After the fall of Greece, during the reign of Christianity, the public and the private realm shifted. The ideas behind this shift were evident in the writings of Plato, who said that “. . . the utopian reorgani-zation of polis life is not only directed by the superior insight of the philos-opher but has no aim other than to make possible the philosophers way of life.”26  This sentiment was a precursor to the vita activa’s replacement with the vita contemplativa. Arendt explains this new approach to human activity by stating: “. . . action was now also reckoned among the neces-sities of earthly life, so that contemplation (the bios theutikos, translated into the vita contemplativa) was left the only truly free way to live.”27 This removed action’s status as a high human order, and relegated it to the realm of the private.  It is in the modern age, as distinct from the post-classical era, when housing becomes part of the public realm, and for the first time is relevant to the history of action or great deeds. Arendt notes that the recognition of the social society crept up during the modern age, under “the disguise of an organization of property-owners who, instead of claiming access to the public realm because of their wealth, demanded protection from it for the accumulation of more wealth.”28 These property-owners were the beginning of the middle-class. Arendt illustrates the difference between antiquity, and the modern era by stating: 45“The distinction between a private and public sphere of life corre-sponds to the household and the political realm, which have existed as distinct, separate entities at least since the rise of the ancient city-state; but the emergence of the social realm, which is neither private or public, strictly speaking, is a relatively new phenomenon whose origin coincided with the emergence of the modern age and which found its political form in the nation state.”29  It is in contemporary society that humanity mutually depends on itself for survival. The emergence of society, common acceptable behaviors, and nation-wide housekeeping in the form of economics and healthcare make activities associated with survival part of the public realm.30 The rise of society into the public realm, and into the relevance of history, also signaled the decline of action.31 Modern history now involves an element of statistical reporting, which is used to analyze the socio-po-litical landscape. Statistics tend to rely heavily on repetition and uniformity across the masses, which juxtaposes the singular greatness of the event in previous political society. Arendt elaborates on this topic and states: “It is decisive that society, on all its levels, excludes the possibility of action, which formerly was excluded from the household. Instead society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior … to exclude sponta-neous action or outstanding achievement.”32 In this context, our modern society has created the conditions which celebrate conformity, in the name of economic prosperity. This notion is precisely why cities are being transformed by urbanization. The increase in international real-estate speculation, in combination for our society’s tendency to produce docile well behaved citizens has created the condition of cities with a missing spirit of the public.  Urbanization acts as an unstoppable force in the production of pixelated private spaces. The term pixelated here refers to the fractal-like layering of subdivisions that allows for the easy replication and adminis-tration of our urban environments. The division of property lines, building, and individual residential units can be seen as a hierarchical layering of urban space, that does allow for its operation however, unless the pattern is broken it becomes monotonous. Aureli identifies this notion as an example of Hegel’s concept of “bad infinity.”33 This concept can be explained as a process where finite modules are pushed towards infinite replication, and because the modules themselves are not infinite then the only possible outcome is repetition. Aureli elaborates on this stating, “This compulsive repetition leads to a loss of temporal specificity and historical process, that is, the sense of destiny in the moment in which we happen to live. To bad infinity everything is reduced to blind faith, to the infinite creation of new, finite things just for the sake of new things.”34 Purely capitalistic urbanization promotes bad infinity. That is not to say that creating housing is a negative endeavor, as many North American cities are facing skyrocketing housing prices. However, when we consider the city as a whole, we must have more amenities and opportunities than endless units of housing. To counter the aggressive replication of urbanism, we should antagonize its monotony with public form.  To that end Aureli proposes a response to the contemporary city, an absolute architecture that antagonizes its context and embodies a critical ideology. He does not make the assumption that arhcitects can counter this unstoppable force of urbanization and instead proposes that, “The only program that can reliably be attributed to architecture is its specific inertia in the face of urbanization’s mutability, its manifestation of a clearly singular space.”35 The notion of an archipelago, one where islands of specific program exist within a sea of urbanization is used to convey his proposal. This notion seems to allow for architecture to attempt to engage critically with its context, in the opposition of bad infinity, and the creation of place. These ideas are a contemporary re-interpretation of critical regionalism but instead of an interpretation of specific vernacular or a focus on material history, Aureli shifts the emphasis to political will, formal tension, and conflict between a building and its site. While this definition is considerably broader than critical regionalism, it is in fact more inclusive to unique situations and human groups in general. It does not prescribe a rulebook but instead sheds light on a city’s unique human heritage as a source of inspiration. In the pursit of a critical emergent architecture, we must consider taking a position against the notions of bad infinity present in contem-porary urbanism. Today’s urban society is facing a new shift brought about by technology. The Internet has been populated as a space-less location for the discussion of politics at a global scale. This coincides with Arendt’s claim that society weakens the force of action over time. The digitization of politics in the twenty-first century diminishes the pursuit of a contemporary agora. With this in mind, a critical emergent architecture must seek the notions of the political not literally but in its antagonization of its ideological urban context, as well as the direct engagement with the intuitive will of its main user group. In order to capture the aspiration of our time, and to engage in our society, one must consider a multitude of individual voices in the design process, just as our digital public allows us to do. By formalizing collective relationships and imparting an antago-nistic spirit to the project, a critically emergent architecture may be able to balance autonomy in a sea of urbanism with our contemporary notions of crowd-source political discussion. 47Endnotes1  Frank Granger ed. Vitruvious on Architecture: Books 1-5, trans. Frank Granger, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 3.2  Michael Fazio, Marian Moffett, and Lawrence Wodehouse, Buildings across Time: An Introduction to World Architecture (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 285.3  Fazio, Moffett, and Wodehouse, Buildings across Time, 336. 4  Pier Vittorio Aureli, ed., The City as Project (Berlin: Ruby Press, 2013), 28.5  Aureli, The City as Project, 28.6  Leslie Tomory, “Technology in the British Industrial Revolution,” History Compass 14, no. 4 (2016), 157.7  Leonardo Benevolo, The History of Modern Architecture, vol. 1 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977), 133.8  Benevolo, The History of Modern Architecture, 151.9  Benevolo, The History of Modern Architecture, 152.10  Michel Lallement, “An Experiment Inspired by Fourier: J.B. Godin’s Familistere in Guise,” Journal of Historical Sociology 25, no. 1 (2012): 38.11  Lallement, “An Experiment Inspired by Fourier,” 45.12  F. Engles, The Housing Question, ed, C.P. Dutt (New York: International Publishers, 1935), 48.13  Benevolo, The History of Modern Architecture, 478.14  Benevolo, The History of Modern Architecture, 480.15  Le Corbusier, The Athens Charter, trans. Anthony Eardly (New York: Grossman, 1923), 7.16  Charles Jencks, The Architecture of the Jumping Universe (London: Academy Editions, 1995), 18.17  Kenneth Frampton, Six Points18  Kenneth Frampton, quoted in 19  Pier Vittorio Aureli, “Toward the Archipelago,” Log 11, (Winter 2008): 97.20  Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958) 7.21  Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 7.22  Ibid.23  Ibid, 23.24  Ibid, 24.25  Ibid, 46.26  Ibid, 41. 27  Ibid, 14. 28  Ibid, 68. 29  Ibid, 28.30  Ibid, 46.31  Ibid, 40.32  Ibid.33  Pier Vittorio Aureli, “Toward the Archipelago,” 100.34  Ibid, 100.35  Ibid, 119.49Case StudiesChapter 4 51 This chapter is a collection of projects both theoretical and built. Each of these works embodies a different attitude towards the generation of form, the response to an urban fabric, and the embodiment of a critical ideology. Between these examples we will see that a critical emergent architecture can appropriate strategies from all of the following projects. To the right is a timeline of the projects surveyed, and included in that timeline is the notions of the beginning of computation labeled by the interviewees from Chapter 2. Further this timeline shows the scope of the brief history of digital computation from Chapter 1. All the projects included in this study were conceived during our digital computation age, however rather than expressing computation for computation’s sake these projects offer a critical position for architecture and its urban and human contexts. Figure 4.1 Timeline of Precedents - Graphics by AuthorIntroductionRhinoceros 1998 Frei OttoExtents Of Chapter 2Camera ObscuraAntoni GaudíLa Sagrada Familia184018501870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020Grasshopper 3D 2007Rem Koolhaas Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture (1972)Peter EisenmanHouse VI (1977)Ungers, et al.Berlin as a Green Archipelago (1977)Gunther DomenigDocumentation Centre of the Former Nazi Party Rally Grounds (2001)Alejandro Aravena, ELEMENTALQuinta Monroy (2003)OMASeattle Public Library (2004)Jürgen Mayer H.Metropol Parasol (2011)Amid (cero9)Free Exucational Institution (2014)53Figure 4.2 Rem Koolhaas, “Exodus, or The Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture, 1972.”Architects   Rem Koolhaas, Madelon Vriesendorp, Elia Zenghelis, and    Zoe ZenghelisDate    19721Location   LondonClient    The City as Meaningful Environment (Competition)Program  Theoretical UrbanismDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes Exodus, is the radical provision of a new form of urbanism, destruc-tively implemented from east to west across the city of London. Koolhaas, referencing the Berlin Wall, explains that, “division, isolation, inequality, aggression, destruction, all the negative aspects of the Wall, could be the ingredients of a new phenomenon: architectural warfare against undesirable conditions, in this case London”2 He re-purposes the notion of spatial delineation towards notions of liberty and luxury as opposed to military control. The form is conceived as a series of autonomous programmed spaces. The existing fabric of London is juxtaposed against the monumentality of the strip. Ingrid Böck recognizes this phenomenon stating, “The violation of the urban fabric through architecture produces the effect of a cynical and blunted rendition of power so that the city of London is treated as an insignificant series of private spheres, whereas the new world is projected as a meaningful enjoyment of public spaces.”3 This project represents a political position taken by Koolhaas et al., that, in order to overcome anxiety produced in the existing context of London, extreme measures must be taken. The intentional deployment of military tactics towards new political reform is an example of contextual antag-onism. The project creates a new understanding of the city fabric by formally opposing the city of London. Significance to Thesis  Koolhaa’s use of antagonization for social good, is a theoretical example of how architectural form can create a critical response to a given context. This is relevant in the pursuit of a critical emergent archi-tecture as it provides a framework of formal antagonistic moves. First, by changing the fabric of the city using large square modules, Koolhaas disrupts the existing operation of the city causing occupants to take notice of the foreign object. This disruption is made most apparent by the use of walls. Secondly the separation of program, in line with modernist planning principles, provides opportunity to create intense zones of activity, which in immediate juxtaposition to the heterogeneous urban context of London. While this notion should not literally be taken forward in this project, the notion of placing juxtaposing programs adjacent to each other is an interesting provocation. Lastly the critical position of the project, that contemporary London is anxious and isolated, is made apparent in the re-purposing of space public program. The position presented in this work was generated through Koolhaas’s critical reasoning, and its implementation is top-down imposition of his will toward the site. This is antithetical to the aspirations of a critical emergent architecture, and therefore should not be taken literally. What is interesting is this project’s reading in conjunction with ELEMENTAL’s Quinta Moroy, which we shall discuss later in this chapter. Both projects propose a critical response to context, however this work calls for complete top down, deterministic control to create a new reality. Rem KoolhaasExodus, or Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture (1972)55Peter Eisenman House VIFigure 4.3 PeterEisenman, “House VI, Transformations IX-XII, 1975.” Architect   Peter Eisenman Date    Drawing series 19754Location   Cornwall, Connecticut, USClient    Dick and Suzanne Frank5Program  ResidenceDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes Peter Eisenman’s House VI is the physical record of a logical rules-based design process. The building, constructed for Dick and Suzanne Frank, transforms abstract geometries into a single family home. Paired with the house are a series of axonometric diagrams that show the sequential development of space. Eisenman explains the relation between the house and its drawings stating that, “The diagrams for house VI are symbiotic with its reality; the house is not an object in the traditional sense-but more accurately a record of a process.”6 The drawings reveal Eisenman’s position on the source of context in architecture. Desley Luscombe notes that Eisenman’s interest in modern movements of the arts influenced his position on architecture. She explains: “He referred to a period where painting had become non-ob-jective, writing had become a-temporal and non-narrative, musical composition had become a-tonal and poly tonal, and film had become non-narrative.”7This apparent detachment from the functional notions of architecture, and the resultant reliance on the technique of axonometric transforma-tions is what made this house so radical. His diagrams illustrate a logical process of experimentation in which planarity, abstract colour coding, and sequential transformative operations can come to create complex, self-sufficient form. There are no explicit references to history, or site and instead the work embodies critical first principals in which all aspects of the design respect.Significance to Thesis This project serves as an excellent example of the connection of a built artifact with a highly logical process. The computational aspect of a Critical Emergent Architecture will be a logical exercise in the curation of first principles and the subsequent operations. Eisenman’s example of rigorous and methodical axonometric operations demonstrates a clear application of a process. This serves as a precedent in both the graphic display of a process and the rigorous approach in which representation of a process can inform the evolution of that process itself. Luscombe sheds light this notion of Eisenman’s by explaining his use of the diagram: “In his use of technical drawing to provide access to attributes not easily recognized through this experience, he proposed that drawings should not simply be understood as preliminary to building. This he recognized that realsied building was not summative of its architecture thought but remains only partial in what it could reveal of that thought.”8 With this in mind, any representation of a building that is the result of a process should not be limited on the final outcome, but inclusive of the transformative aspects of that process. 57Architects   Oswald Mathias Ungers, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Riemann,     Hans Kollhoff, Arthur Ovaska,Date    19779Location   Berlin  Program  Theoretical UrbanismDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes  Berlin as a Green Archipelago, was a project led by Oswald Mathias Ungers and a group of architects that questioned the relationship between architecture urbanism. It repositions the context of architecture from its surrounding urban area, toward referencing the other exemplary archi-tectures within a city. Each exemplary architecture, manifested an island to which the surrounding urbanization was recognized as a sea.10 Arriving at a time in Berlin’s history where the urban population was shrinking and the city was negotiating the political intensity surrounding the Cold War, the project aims to question requirement for city planning. Ungers Ungers, et al.Berlin as a Green Archipelagoet al. proposed that planning was impossible due to the political volatility of urban cities.11 Aureli explains how this project was a revolutionary re-framing of the relationship between building and city stating, “Berlin as a Green Archipelago was the only project to take a position vis–à–vis an emerging reality of the city by radically shifting its focus from the problem of urbanization – the further growth of the city – to the question of its architecture, its form and limits.”12 Instead against the sea of urbanization, autonomous Islands of architecture punctuated the city and provided the context of public life. This reading dismisses the notion of the public street as a place of city place making. Aureli explains this intentional shift as a process of categorization, explaining that urbanization is a force of expansion and the infrastructure network allows this to happen.13 By removing the street from the realm of public importance, the public insti-tutions that punctuation this sea then become the contextual heart of the city. Significance to Thesis  This project has been crucial in the development of the notions of a critical emergent architecture. The project suggests a level of autonomy from the immediate formal arrangement of the city. This releases archi-tecture from the necessity to respond to its neighbors directly, and instead proposes that architecture that responds to the public. This project allows for political aspirations greater than that responding to infrastructure. The notion that each architecture is itself an island, allows for islands to oppose, contradict or otherwise antagonize each other in the creation of a dialectic relationship. In this way a critical emergent architecture may embody the aspirations of its inhabitants without concern for the mimicry of adjacent islands. This method of engaging is vital in re-creating notions of public in an otherwise privatized urbanism. Aureli provides insight on how this is possible stating, “The island/parts, recognized and formed as existing symbolic places – like the Kreuzberk or Lichterfelde districts – introduce within the undifferentiated realm of urbanization a clear agnostic space that turns urbanization into a polis: a city evoked not through its totality but through the confrontation of its parts.”14Therefore for an architecture to become critical, and to emerge from its constituency it must be able to embody aspirational notions without the hinderence of universal requirements of a regulated urban zone. Contributing to this understanding Aureli proposes that, “Architecture is a precondition of urbanization, a project that reconstructs through itself the formal and political sense of the city.” 15 With this in mind a critical emergent architecture might most effectively resonate with its public through autonomy and antagonization. Figure 4.4 Ungers et al., “The City within the City: Berlin as a Green Archi-pelago.” 100502559Architect   Gunther DomenigDate    2001Location   Nuremberg, GermanyClient    Nuremberg Municipal Museums16Program  Documentation CenterDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes The subject of this study is the Dokumentationszentrum Reichsparteitagsgelande Documentation Center of the former Nazi Party Rally Grounds. Built on the 11 square kilometer park space which was used for the infamous Nazi Party Rallies.17 In 1934 Hitler commissioned the design of the new rally space and the work was undertaken by his favorite architect Albert Speer. The Center is located 2.5 kilometers from the city center of Nuremburg, Germany. The existing building onto which its alterations have been made is the uncompleted Nazi congress hall. The hall itself was designed by Albert Speer and was modeled after the roman Coliseum.18 Significance to Thesis This project is appropriate to support the thesis explained above as it embodies criticality, and the notion that juxtaposition is a tool which enables co-existence. Domenig has embodied the cultural sentiment present in Nuremberg by confronting an undesired past, making use of existing infrastructures and supporting radical juxtaposition. This building is emergent in the antagonization of its site creating opposition in both form and material. Through juxtaposition each form may be read in relation to the other. Domenig has shown that juxtaposition of building form and material is appropriate in sites where there is sensitive cultural history, and how new program can revitalize under used sites. His work is arguably more synergistically aligned with the existing building by the nature of its alien morphology. The juxtaposition of this form within the shell of the other allows the inhabitant to consider them distinct objects in space and therefore support the notion that both groups of distinct buildings, can co-exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Domenig has provided an example as to how this co-existence can create an oppor-tunity for critical thinking and cross communication between structures. Gunther DomenigDocumentation Center of the Former Nazi Party Rally GroundsFigure 4.5 Aerial Photograph of Documentation Center of the Former Nazi Party Rally Grounds 615 10 25 50Figure 4.6 Gunther Domenig, “Plan and Section” Figure 4.7-8 Documentation Centre Entrance (Above) Interior Corridor (Below)63ELEMENTALQuinta MonroyArchitects   ELEMENAL – Alejandro Aravena, Andrés Iacobelli,   Alfonso Montero, Tomas Cortese, Emilio de la Cerda19Date    2003 - 2004Location   Inuique, ChileClient    Chile Barrio Program, Chilean Ministry of Housing and     Urban Development20Program  HousingDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes Quinta Monry is a new form of urban inhabitation for the country of Chile. Completed in 2004 the project by Elemental architects is the response to the issues of improvised housing. The project was a redevel-opment of a site that used to be home to families who, with nowhere else to go, squatted on the property.21 The project aimed to provide a housing unit for only 7500 USD.22 The solution to overcome the economic situation was to build, half of one usable house. Francesca Privitera explains ELEMENTAL’s intent reinforcing, “The structure was not a finished solution, but an open worksite, a promise of space and life, suspended between the present and the future, between the substance of what had been built and the uncertainty about what was to come.”23 The project relied on human computation for the design and implementation of the remaining half of the project. Significance to Thesis This project serves as an antithesis to the strategy proposed by Koolhaas et al. in Exodus. Instead of implementing a completely top down design strategy the Architects created a framework that allowed for collaborative design. The attitude, and specific spatial relationships were up to the individuals inhabiting the project. Privitera makes note of this intention stating, “Standardization integrated with spontaneous urban forms and with participated planning workshops will give rise to an urban form shared by the community, not imposed form above but the outcome of fertile integration between public initiative and citizens.”24 Through the use of community design this project is able to evoke the will of its inhabitants. In the progress of a critical emergent architecture, computation could allow a sensitivity to human occupation through the use of user input. In this way a form derived using the critical emergent method could contain the participatory spirit of a group of people.10 25 50 100Figure 4.9 Aerial Photograph of Quinta Monroy651 5052Figure 4.10 ELEMENTAL, “Plan and Section” Figure 4.11-12 Quinta Monroy After Construction (Above) After Infill (Below)67OMASeattle Public LibraryArchitect   OMADate    1999-2004Location   Seattle, Washington, USClient    Seattle Public LibraryProgram  Public LibraryDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes This project builds upon Koolhaas’ notions of Junkspace, with an understanding of the increasing commercialization of public space.25 In response OMA leverages the institution’s public nature to create open social spaces between specialized areas of program. Böck explains Koolhaas’ strategy by stating, “Instead of flexible, multifunctional spaces, the scheme involves spatial compartments defined for a more specific performance within a tailored flexibility. He thus arrives at the diagrammatic section of the library, consisting of five units of stability and regularity, on the one hand, and four intermediate areas of instability and irregularity.”26 In this way the library is a balance of the specific needs of the institution and the accommodation for informality and spaces for programmed social inter-action. The building is then shrink-wrapped in a diagrid of white steel and glass. The diagonal mullions and structural elements contribute to the active, chaotic, and irregular nature of the interconnected social spaces. The skin highlights this institution’s operation as a specialized book lender and general-purpose public gathering space.Significance to Thesis This project helps identify a possible formal strategy in the pursuit of a critical emergent architecture. The building in section is autonomous from its urban context. Its vertical organization accommodates the production of ancillary public spaces. The relationship between public and programmed space, seems to be something that could be arranged computationally based on user input, and a mediation of a variety of other relevant site input. The project is critical as the adherence to the guiding ideology of common space. Rather than simply accommodate the minimum library standards, the organization of specific zones creates an inhabitable in-between. This points to the possibility that a computa-tional critical emergent architecture might find use for the space between specific programs. Further this building demonstrates the conceptual 10 25 50 100Figure 4.13 Aerial Photograph of Seattle Public Library69251055 10 25 50Figure 4.14 OMA, “Plan and Section” Figure 4.15-16 Seattle Public Library Model (Above) Seattle Public Library at Night (Below)71Jürgen Mayer H.Metropol Parasolsimplicity of the shrink-wrap as a formal expression of internal program. Architect   Jürgen Mayer H. ArchitektenDate    2004-2011Location   The Plaza de le Encarnación, Seville, SpainClient    City of Seville and SACYR (Engineering & Construction     Multinational)Program  Plaza, Museum, Retail, Restaurant, Viewing PlatformDescription and Analysis of Critical Design AttributesMetropol Parasol exhibits radical form while integrating into local condi-tions. Built atop The Plaza de le Encarnación, the project was initiated after Roman ruins were discovered during a renovation process of the existing space.27 Jürgen Mayer H. Architekten won the last of three competitions for the new space with their design of a waffle canopy of wooden trusses, with integrated Museum, shops, and restaurant. The project has been designed to negotiate the ruins by placing foundations in areas away from the preservation site.28 Mayer responds to this move by stating, “Building above an archeological site was treated as an opportunity rather than a problem.”29 The organization of the program is relatively straight forward. The ruins are encapsulated within a museum, that structure also houses ground level retail, and provides an opportunity for the public to access its roof. The roof structure, elevated walkway, and restaurant are lifted above the plaza and match the surrounding context’s roof plane. The building respects the adjacent context matching this height, and through the placement of the structural trunks. Significance to Thesis The intent to create a radical form yet retain a sympathetic connection to the exiting context makes this project relevant to this thesis. At first glance, through form and material it appears that this project would operate in much the same way if it were placed in any city around the world. However upon further inspection the formal concept has been modified to fit its context. The building proposes radical juxtapo-sition however retains contextual notions of scale. The project expresses its autonomy while still accommodating existing city operation, thereby critically antagonizing the city without realizing drastic change. The site specific positioning of the structure allows for the autonomous organi-zation of the viewing platform. In this way the project is an example of how radical formal juxtaposition can be integrated into a site by responding to the existing formal conditions.  10 25 50 100Figure 4.17 Aerial Photograph Metropol Parasol7325105Figure 4.18 Jürgen Mayer H. Architekten, “Plan and Section” Figure 4.19-20 Metropol Parasol Aeriel Photograph (Above) Metropol Parasol Ground Level View (Below)75Architect   Amid.cero9 - Cristina Díaz Moreno & Efrén Gª GrindaDate    2004-2014Location   Madrid, SpainClient    Institución Libre de Enseñanza [Fundación Giner de los     Ríos]Program  Classrooms, Auditorium, OfficeDescription and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes Amid.cero9’s Free Education Institution attempts to accom-modate an existing courtyard garden while provide increased program-matic density on a constrained urban site. The institute was operating out of small existing building on the site and required new classrooms and auditorium space to keep up with their growth.30 The architects explain that, “The project implemented on the original site where the institution was installed in 1884, strives to reflect the approach to nature and the landscape propounded by Francisco Giner de los Ríos, possibly Spain’s first contribution to modern landscaping.”31 The building maintains the existing relationship, however augmenting it through the addition of program encircling the garden. The designers explain that the geometry optimized to maximize views to numerous classrooms at once. They assert that by, “Using our eyes as screens or projectors instead of collectors of information, we can employ them to shape the diagonals, the overlapping planes and the depths of the garden.”32 Significance to Thesis Cristina Díaz Moreno & Efrén Gª Grinda’s work is another example of how radical form may be generated out of the complexities of site input. It is critical of its context, proposing unique form as the remedy to a difficult locale. The project’s conceptual stance of preserving the garden is expressed in the program layout. The building contorts itself within its property boundaries to accommodate the existing program. While form is dissimilar to the architectural context, it is instead derived from contextual relationships on the site. This project also hints at the use of computation to optimize its form in some of the drawings, however with no record of an iterative process this is uncertain. What is clear is that the work postu-lates that through material juxtaposition, and highly site specific relational form finding, a building can provoke the forward thinking ideology of its inhabitants.Amid.cero9Free Educational Institution10 25 50 100Figure 4.21 Aerial Photograph of the Free Educational Institution 7725105Figure 4.22 Amid.cero9, “Plan and Section” Figure 4.23-25 Street Elevation (Above), View of the Courtyard (Left), View inside the Auditorium (Right)79Conclusion The discussion of these case studies helps synthesis a rulebook for critical emergent architecture. All of these projects were designed during the development of the digital age. They speak broadly to many contemporary notions of architecture and its role as a distinct object within an ever increasing sea of urbanization. Within each is a critical attitude towards its surrounding context, and the inhabitants the building serves. The studies were broken up into two categories, experimental or process driven, and realized.  The experimental projects illustrate an understanding of the contemporary city as field of private pixels. Exodus finds use of military techniques to antagonize London. The juxtaposition and heroic form of the monolithic wall expresses an irreverence towards the existing condi-tions if taken literally. The use of defense systems to separate public and extravagant experiences is an ingenious method in creating notions of luxury. The project illustrates a desire for the exceptional in form, and in architectural control of the organization of the city. While it terrifying, the project’s antagonization through juxtaposition is effective. The second project discussed for its theory was Berlin as a Green Archipelago. This reading of the city is similar to Koolhaas et al.’s position of autonomy however at a much more manageable scale. Instead of mass destruction, the urbanism is left to operate autonomously from public oversight. Instead public concerns are manifest in the few and dispersed exemplary projects that dot the map of Berlin. Though sharing autonomy, the two project are dissimilar in their approach to context. Instead of juxtaposition the Berlin project insists on autonomy. Rather than provide a prescriptive rule to the creation of urban architecture, Ungers et al. leave that up to the critical judgement of the architect. Both these projects call for the architect to provide the critical reasoning in a work. They support critical emergent architecture by allowing for radical juxtaposition of forms, and further for strategies that are not necessarily responding just to the immediate urban context.  The realized projects do not attempt to change the structure of urbanism and instead accommodate or oppose that structure in a variety of ways. Domenig illustrates how a building can be taken over by the introduction of juxtaposing form and content. His building supports the pursuit of an emergent architecture as his intervention would not operate without the context of the existing building. ELEMENTAL illustrate a counter approach Koolhaas, and the notions behind the Weisenhoff estates. Though the project is fundamentally the results of the economic situation, it nevertheless demonstrates how design may be selectively turned over to a buildings inhabitants. This project serves as a represen-tation of our contemporary society, one where ownership and agency over the creation of space is important. OMA’s library serves as an example of program layout being integral to form. Rather than attempt to create symbolic meaning the project literally embodies the relationships of its programmatic hierarchy. The library is an excellent example of the possibility of the in-between space. This approach to form is opposed by Mayer at Metropol Parasol. The Seville sunshade, while exposing how to integrate an alien morphology into an existing site, is a predominantly aesthetic exercise. This is precisely one of the reasons that it is difficult to determine whether or not it is successful at antagonizing its environment. It is in opposition to its surrounding in formal and construction methods, but it offers very little in programmatic activation, other than offering space for collective assembly. This project serves to underscore the necessity for usable program in architecture. Finally, Amid.cero9’s Free Educational Institution makes a clear example of the goals of a critical emergent archi-tecture. The project accommodates irregularities of the site, in a way that that creates form rather than hinders it. It makes material and geometric criticism of its context. However, the building does not necessarily accom-plish this with the use of computation, the details of its genesis are ambiguous and could therefore benefit from a rigorous representational methodology. Eisenman’s drawings for the transformations of House VI serve as an exceptional example of the role of representation. From these studies we can see the importance of juxtaposition, autonomy, and rigorous representation to the notion of a critically emergent architecture.81Endnotes1  Ingrid Böck, Six Canonical Project by Rem Koolhaas, (Berlin: Jovis, 2015), 33.2  Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau, Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large: Office for Metro-politan Architecture, (New York: Monacelli Press, 1998), 5.3 Böck, Six Canonical Projects by Rem Koolhaas, 35.4  Desley Luscombe, “Architectural concepts in Peter Eisenman’s axonometric drawings of House VI,” The Journal of Architecture 19, no. 4 (2014): 562. 5  Luscombe, “Architectural concepts in Peter Eisenman’s axonometric drawings of House VI,”607.6  Peter Eisenman, “House VI,” Progressive Architecture 58, (June, 1997): 59.7  Luscombe, “Architectural concepts in Peter Eisenman’s axonometric drawings of House VI,”565.8  Ibid, 605.9  Pier Vittorio Aureli, “Toward the Archipelago,” Log 11, (Winter 2008): 114.10  Pier Vittorio Aureli, “Toward the Archipelago,” 115.11  Ibid, 115. 12  Ibid, 13  Ibid, 116.14  Ibid.15  Ibid, 118.16  “Contact,” Nuremberg Municipal Museums, accessed October 24, 2016, http://www.museums.nuremberg.de/service/contact.html.17 Museen der Stadt Nurnberg, “The Former Nazi Party Rally Grounds,” press release, November 23, 2013, https://museums.nuernberg.de/documenta-tion-center/press-releases/.18  Sharon Macdonald, “Undesirable Heritage: Fascist Material Culture and Historical Consciousness in Nuremberg,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 1 (2006): 14.19  Francesca Privitera, “Da Quinta Monroy a Conjunto abitacional Violeta Parra,” Firenze Architettura 19, no.1 (2015): 52.20  Privitera, “Da Quinta Monroy,” 52.21  Ibid.22  Ibid.23  Ibid, 52.24  Ibid.25  Ingrid Böck, “Six Canonical Projects,” 263.26  Ibid, 267.27  Michael Webb, “Metropol Parasol,” Architectural Review 229 no. 1732 (2011): 58.28  Jürgen Mayer H, “Metrpopl Parasol, Seville” Architectural Design 82 no. 5 (2012): 72.29  Jürgen Mayer H, “Metrpopl Parasol,” 72.30  Cristina Díaz Moreno and Efrén Gª Grinda, “Free Educational Institution [Francisco Giner de los Ríos Foundation],” El Croquis 184, (2016): 76.31  Moreno, “Free Educational Institution,” 76.32  Ibid, 81.83Chapter 5Graduate Project Part II Proposal85 Introduction Our discussion so far has led us to the following observations. Computational design is a pressing subject that is altering the practice of architecture. Practitioners who are incorporating this method have created a hybrid relationship between the designer and their digital process. These individuals see computation becoming an increasingly important part of the practice of architecture. We have also seen that throughout history, the advent of new technology has created societal change. In western society this change has been manifest in architecture as increasing attention towards individuals. Rather than a homogeneous mass, we recognize today that society is heterogeneous. Our cities today are in the grip of the forces of global capital. This drives expansion in the segregated private spaces of a city, however does not offer a position on how to engage with the politics of human interaction. We have discussed examples that represent extremes of engagement and of imposition. Further we notice that architectures that antagonize a situation are able to embody notions of change more effectively than an architecture of mimicry. In response to this research a critical emergent architecture may re-introduce notions of political antagonization by engaging with an existing element of the city through radical juxtaposition and the inclusion of crow-sourced user input.  A project exploring computational space making, should engage with notions of the public as it presents the opportunity to generate the complex rather than impose the unilateral. Pippo Ciorra explains why the public realm must be addressed by explaining it is irresponsible to choose to ignore public situations, He states, “In architecture (and even less so in urban studies) this choice does not exist. Each work - weather public or private - contributes to shaping the social space, and therefore has a political value, whether or not the architect realizes this, whether or not he or she wants it to be so.”1 Therefore this project aims to engage with the public to build a matrix of subjective choice that a computational strategy might be tested against. This choice does not place the soul authorship in the hands of the public. In any computational process this would be impossible. The designer of the process is much to intimately linked to its operation and therefore this proposal will be a hybrid of user input, and critical designer sculpting of an operation. In Scripting Cultures Niel Leach, gives an account on this notion of inseparability stating, “I believe that all gener-ative processes hold the designer to account, they should be seen as prostheses to the architectural imagination. But we need to lose the old fashioned notion of the architect as some top-down demiurgic ‘designer’ and reconfigure the architect as the controller of processes.”2 Much like what Leach is suggesting, this process is intended to allow for crowd-source choice to affect form though a designed process. Thesis statement Through studying the existing use of computation in architec-tural design one can conclude that the process is often left until the later stages in the design sequence. This tendency should be re-evaluated as computational methods have the potential to enable an architecture that is formally emergent from the multitude of competing forces on a site. This process aims to be an explicit registry of the negotiation of intuitive and crowd-sourced first principles. By engaging with public interests, physical, and environmental conditions this method is in pursuit of a criti-cally emergent architecture that embodies collective will as a method to antagonize the status quo.GPII Proposal  The project proposed for part two of this body of research is concerned with an addition of public program to a complex existing site. The site in question the Government Conference Centre (Formerly Ottawa Union Station) in Ottawa, Ontario. At one time this site was a heroic gateway to Ottawa offering connectivity to the rest of the nation. It has subsequently been under Government stewardship after Ottawa’s rail lines were removed. The building will temporarily house the Senate for the next decade as Center Block is renovated. This project asks what is possible if after this occupation, and the building is given to the city of Ottawa. The programs selected aim to create moments of interaction between negotiating a range of specific requirements and therefore include: a library & public workspace, commercial retail, aquatic recre-ation, and perhaps other program that becomes apparent during the site analysis phase. 87Figure 5.1 Proposed Work flow from Crowd-Sourced  data to building organi-zationFigure 5.2 Combination of Site ForcesMethodology The proposed methodology requires the collection of two types of data. First is the analysis and representation of the existing physical infrastructures on the site. These are to be collected from GIS data and a scheduled appointment with Canadian Centre for Architecture to gain access to the original drawings. Second will be the design and admin-istration of an engagement survey. The survey will aim to interact with local community groups in the vicinity of the project. Key outcomes of this survey will be the numerical representation of data that is typically difficult to quantify. This may be achieved through the use of a sliding scale for responses, asking for word associations, or asking for intuitive grouping. Some examples include:Please provide a rank from 1-10 of how likely you would visit the pool on your own:(Lest Likely) 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 (Highly Likely)Please provide a word best describes a library space to you:  _________________Physical and Climatic ConditionsSubjective User DataCritical Emergent ArchitectureMulti-Variable SolvingSubjective Data Computational Process Emergent Programmatic Organization This data would then be interpreted as to discern the desired spatial qualities for the participants. People who choose descriptions of light, air, openness, speed, etc. would indicate a request the corresponding spaces to be exposed to natural light, to visibility with other public areas, and require priority access to grade. These subjective choices can be mapped as a series of numerical targets for a computational process that strives to arrange program in an attempt to achieve those targets. In this way, the open-source notions of a user group can come to affect the formal arrangement of a building. These human goals, are to be used in conjunction with a variety of designer implemented goals and the geometric constraints of an existing site. If successful the experiments will provide insight to how computational approaches can lead to unexpected form-finding that embodies the aspirations of a constituency. 89Figure 5.3 Computational space planning in the Void vs. in context.Figure 5.4-6 Google Earth, “Government Conference Centre” Areal Photographs of Site The SiteArchitects   Bradford Lee Gilbert, Ross & Macfarlane,   (2014 Renovation - Diamond and Schmidt)Date    1906, 1909-1912Location   Ottawa, ONClient    The Grand Trunk Railway, (2014 The Federal Government)Program  Central Train Station   (1966 Government Conference Centre)Description and Analysis of Critical Design Attributes  The building was constructed between 1909 and 1912. It served as Ottawa’s central rail station under the Grand Trunk Railway until 1966.3 The building was left idle until it was renovated in 1968 to become the Government Conference Centre.4 The steel building is ornately decorated in the Beaux-Arts style which was typical of the design architect Bradford Lee Gilbert.5 The building massing is split into five blocks, the main entrance, the general waiting room, the ticketing block and concourse, and the new main enteric which was added after the rail sheds were demolished in the sixties. The structure is sited at the corner of Rideau Street, and Colonel By Drive. This is a major intersection for buss, pedes-trian, bicycle, and light rail. Its prominent location and ease of access are legacies of the building’s history as the heart of Ottawa’s transportation system. Computational process in the Void Computational process with Physical ConstraintsThis building will provide a crucial contextual grounding for the project. It will provide the computational process with friction in the generation of responsive formal arrangements. 91Figure 5.7 NCC Watch, “Union Interior” - Graphics by Author Endnotes1  Pippo Ciorra, “(Un)political,” in This Thing Called Theory, ed. Teresa Stoppani, Giorgio Ponzo, George Themistokleous (London: Routledge, 2016), 261 – 72.2  Niel Leach, Interview with Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures, (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 67.3  “Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Government Conference Centre Building.” 2012. Marketwire (Jun 01). http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1018050908?accountid=14656.4  “Explore the Buildings near Parliament Hill,” The Government of Canada, last modified August 31, 2017, https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/citeparlementaire-par-liamentaryprecinct/decouvrez-discover/edifice-buildings-eng.html#a9.5  “Explore the Buildings near Parliament Hill.” 93Chapter 6Graduate Project Part II95Figure 6.3 An AlgorithmFigure 6.2 A Herd of SheepFigure 6.1 View of downtown Vancouver from the southeastIntroduction As we have discussed, architecture is in a constant state of playing catch-up. Whether architecture is changing to accommodate a new shift in the social operations of our society, or retooling itself with the advent of a new technology, shifts in architecture occur after tectonic changes in the fabric of society. Architecture does not cause these changes, and instead may be understood as a medium by which previous or outdated notions of how we live might by antagonized. The advantage and perhaps the challenge of architecture has is the ability to formalize relationships between people, materials and the environment. Architecture should evolve along with society, and therefore the question relevant to this project is: What is the current state of our society? In an attempt to answer this question, one might realize that any single answer would be incomplete. However, there are very specific aspects of our society that relate directly to architecture in a way that is unprecedented. Acknowledging the dangers of generalization, we might find incredible potential in identifying a few specific issues with which to interact. The following phenomena have been shifting the mechanics of our society and are causing changes in our daily lives. First, as we have discussed in Chapter 3, is that the predom-inant force shaping our urban fabric is Global Capitalism. In other words, the relentless pursuit of private market driven buildings has created an endless cellular urbanism the likes of which Hegel would categorize as bad infinity. This is a reality of architecture today and is something that cannot be countered simply by changing a building’s form. However urbanism’s existence does provide opportunity for an architecture of antagonization. One where formal autonomy might create a space of public significance in a sea of private compartments. A second trait of our society is the digitization of politics in the 21st century. Instant communication and statistics have combined to provide instant trends, and instant democracies. This is not an inherently negative development however, it does beg the question: How does this affect architecture? This observation coincides with a reduction of the importance placed on public spaces to host political interactions (further explained in Chapter 3). As some politics has migrated from the streets to the message board, one of the last places left to interact with other members of the public are spaces of commerce and recreation. This project chooses to focus on recreation as it has potential to be one of the last venues were citizens might be political in their engagement of others, without an ever-present structure of government politics or economic powers. 97 Last is the rising predominance of hyper-specificity and mass customization. Algorithms have come to shape many of our daily interac-tions. Further, customization of products and information is increasing to provide each citizen their own tailorable experience of the world. As we observed in Chapter 2, this phenomenon is occurring within the building industry. Optimization software enables practically any aspect of a building that might be numerically represented to be tested and refined until an external ideal is met. Again, this is not an inherently negative aspect of the contemporary condition. On the contrary, architects have never been so empowered to deliver on their promises. What this does signal to the profession as a whole is the necessity for a serious inquiry this notion of optimization. It begs the question, if we are able to search for an ideal, how do we define ideal? All of these phenomena might be summarized by a new notion, a spectre of the 21’st century. I am speaking of the concept of the echo chamber. This concept has been blamed for many ailments of our contemporary society. These range from altered election results, the propagation of fake news, to personal loneliness. This Project intends to counter the effects of the echo chamber by proposing a source field. The project proposes to engage citizens on an anti-urban level by dismissing top down planning principles. It attempts to provide a space where monotony and trends are replaced by variety of experience and the chance encounter. Lastly it hopes to change the way architecture approaches computation by using multi-variable solving as a method to diverge, rather than converge. Instead of optimizing to a single defined optimum value, the method discussed in this chapter creates a field of iterations that is mapped in space in relation to one another. This source field aims to enable the architect to create an architecture that antago-nizes the status quo of the contemporary echo chamber.Figure 6.4 The Echo Chamber99Figure 6.5 Source FieldsThesis Through studying the existing use of computation in architecture one can conclude that the process is often left until the later stages in the design sequence. This tendency should be re-evaluated as compu-tational methods have the potential to enable an architecture that is formally emergent from a multitude of architectural goals. Perhaps a new process may emerge that acts as a transparent registry of the negoti-ation of intuitive and crowd-sources first principles. By leveraging the necessity to design with explicit intent, architecture can become the artifact of engagement, negotiation, and critical selection. This method is therefore in pursuit of a critically emergent architecture that embodies transparency and interaction as a method to antagonize the status quo.Project Outline Source Fields is an experiment in computationally arranged space. The main body of work lies in the design of a computational system that would simultaneously create form, and perceive the effect of that form on explicit architectural experiences. This process was split into five phases which plot iterations in a three dimensional field of thousands of possible design iterations using multi-variable optimization. Three buildings were produced from these source fields which represent a minimum, medium, and maximum amount of computation time. The project is intended to be understood as an experiment in the value of optimization, and of intuitive design choice within an architectural design methodology. The project uses the public program of a community centre to attempt to antagonize the notions of the contemporary echo chamber. It is located in the neighbourhood of Newton in Surrey BC. The computational method was developed in Grasshopper the multi-variable evolutionary solver is Octopus.101Figure 6.6 Percent Population Growth Between 2006 and 2011North False CreekSurrey-NewtonProposed SiteSurrey-Clayton103Figure 6.7 Site PlanSite Selection and Dataset The project’s architectural program is for a new community centre for the neighborhood of Newton in Surrey BC. This site was chosen as it closely matched the geography and demographics of a similar site that recently hosted a community engagement survey. The site is Sullivan Heights Park, in Surrey-Newton. Immediately to the south of this park is the Bell Performing Arts Centre, a building conjoined with Sullivan Heights secondary school. To the east, a stand of trees separates the flat field form Goldstone Park Elementary and some small commercial programs. The north of the site is exposed to 64 Ave which hosts a small number of private detached homes. To the west the site is bound by 144 St. It shares this thoroughfare with a low rise commercial plaza, and a town-house development. Through the evolution of the project, responses to local intricacies of this particular site were limited to hierarchical arrangement of program (bonuses in computational score for objectives like placing the library on the north, and placing the pool on the ground floor), due to limits in the design of the computational system.105Figure 6.8 Community Engagement Survey Word Analysis An early aspiration of the project was the numeric represen-tation of subjective choice of a building’s future occupants. One goal was to develop a computational system that would strive to satisfy a series of subjective goals. The scope of this project was limited to the devel-opment of computational systems that assist with the organization of a building. With this in mind, an existing survey would serve as a database of subjective choice with which to inform the process. The survey was analyzed for word association. The results of this exercise can be seen in Figure 6.8. This analysis, paired with an in-depth review of the responses to questions asked about the variety of spaces within the community centre, yielded a few key findings. While the survey was very good for repressing demographic information, it was perhaps less successful in illuminating the architectural qualities of the desired space. Or at least not explicitly. The participants of this survey in general wanted the youth space to be youthful, the outdoor space to be outside, and the most important factors within the project should be community, acces-sibility, and safety. This may have been a result of the type of questions asked in this survey, as it was not designed to search for explicit architec-tural keywords. However, it is possible that even if a survey was designed to build a catalog of architectural wishes there would still be the problem of design. How does a designer make critical choices on form, program relations, materials, and the whole other remit of choices in a project from a non specific brief? There is no one answer to this question, as we have discussed in Chapter 2. However, when practitioners are designing a public project, community engagement is expected. Typically architects are required to host a variety of design review meetings where they must explain how their designs have met the needs of the public. What we can take from this is that increasingly in this typology, the design process might benefit from an increase in transparency. This survey analysis made clear that an architect’s true expertise lies in their ability to synthesize complex problems into formal solutions. Designers are able to “compute” an incredible amount of variables, yet as projects are becoming increas-ingly complex, this number of variables is increasing. These reasons led to the development of this project in an attempt to take some variables and make them explicit at the beginning of the design process.107Optimization One of the most compelling attributes that came out of the practi-tioner interviews was the continued use of multi-variable solving. This concept is incredibly important to design as it has the capacity to allow designers to compare compromises using spatial mapping as a way to show the relationship between them. It seems incredibly promising as a technology that can attempt to optimize any aspect of a building that can be numerically represented. What is even more interesting is that in order to work in this way the rules of design intent must be registered explicitly in machine code at the beginning of a process. If adopted, this would be a complete paradigm shift to the typical architectural design methodology. In typical optimization we find that a computer will iterate over time and continuously refine a solution. In a typical optimization problem, most graphed results are not this simple, however for our methods this will do as a good baseline. Typically the rate of change in the input variables and in the results of the optimization is high as the solution races towards an external notion of ideal (See Figure 6.9). Then, over time this refinement becomes slower and slower until the progress approaches near maximum and within a tolerance of that ideal, the solution can be considered to have achieved a maximum optimization. The advantage of this type of optimization is that it is incredibly useful when one is hunting for a solution to a simple problem or is attempting to achieve high perfor-mance of a single aspect of a model. The difficulty of applying this to architecture is that typically buildings are filled with compromises, and maximizing the performance of one aspect of the building might make it much too imbalanced within the larger arrangement than some other less-than-optimum solution.  This is why many firms already area already using multi-variable optimization (MVO). In simple terms MVO is when two or more optimi-zation operations are occurring concurrently and the relative scores of however many optimization goals are compared using 3D space (higher dimensions of space are possible however difficult to comprehend). The iterations may be arranged in this analysis space and coordinated so that all variables result in increased fitness correspond to a position closer to the origin than a less fit solution. A key here is that the axis of this space need not be in the same scale as each other, nor need they be fixed with their origin at zero. What this means is that the graph may be continu-ously re-evaluated as better solutions are generated. With this method, a designer does not need to predetermine what the best score is, but rather explore a range of options and use intuitive judgment to select the ripest fruit among an orchard of options. Figure 6.9 Typical Single Variable OptimizationFigure 6.10 Typical Multi-Variable OptimizationVariable 3Variable 1Variable 2Multi-Variable OptimizationDecreasing FitnessIdeal ScoreResults of ProcessTimeTypical Computational OptimizationEvaluation Criteria109Proposed Method Throughout this project the following method emerged. This method (Figure 6.12), presented here against Group B of the practitioner interviews (Figure 6.11), allows for a designer to work cooperatively with a computational system. The computational system is comprised as a series of phases that tackle different aspects of a building. Each phase, contains a tool that creates the geometries of a space, and a tool that analyses that geometry and assigns it an experience score. When written in code, a machine can follow these explicit rules and, using the built in feedback loop of creation and analysis, can attempt to reach higher and higher scores. The designer has established the formal language, connection rules, hierarchy, and through the design of custom analysis tools is also in control of what a high or low score means. In this way design is not released into the realm of the machine but is instead only constrained to the limits of a designer’s code. By using this method, the space between a designer’s limits may be computationally filled with thousands of design options. It is then up to the designer to choose which iterations continue onto the next phase. The result is a vast tree network of iterations. A source field of architecture.Figure 6.12 Proposed Source Field MethodFigure 6.11 Group B Method Diagrams Figure 6.13 Data, Process, FormPD SD DD CDPD SD DD CDPD SD DD CDStantecPerkins + WillLWPACnMulti-Variable Option Generation & Human Intuitive SelectionHuman Intuitive First Principles, Multi-Variable Options and Human Intuitive Selection  Multi-Variable SolvingOptimizationHuman ActionsComputational Actions Schmatic DesignPredesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DrawingsSDPDDDCDDesign IterationDigital ComputationHuman Intuitive ComputationDigital Design IterationAutomated ProcessPD SD DD CDnHuman Intuitive First Principles, Multi-Variable Options and Human Intuitive Selection  Multi-Variable SolvingSubjective Data Computational Process Emergent Programmatic Organization111Offset Analysis In order to produce space that antagonizes the status quo we must change its operation. Further still, to use computation in this process one must instruct a machine on how to grade different spaces with the same system. For a system to understand something as simple as a shift in the relation of a corridor, it must be able to quantify the size of the remaining spaces, the geometry of the rooms before and after they have been intruded upon, and finally, areas that used to be part of an assembly and are now divorced. The protocol for offset analysis was developed to suit this need. It consists of a simple offset of the bounding volumes of a space. That offset is repeated with each successive polyline at 1m intervals until the boundaries would become inverted. Using this method one can find the following information:• The size of each space using the number of offsets within each    original room• The geometry of space using the change of the number of    vertices between each offset• The amount of zone breakdown that occurs when a single offset   breaks into smaller fragmented zonesEach of these aspects may be given a numerical score, and those three scores can be goals within a multi-variable optimization system.  In addition to offset analysis these diagrams illustrate a simple method to antagonise a normative built environment. By shifting each space’s relationship to the corridor one may find that each space can now be shaped by this interaction with another. The rooms with a shifted connection benefit from an increase in zone breakdown which creates a space with a number of smaller spaces within it. These rooms are partially subdivided by their formal interaction with another object and would not require partition walls for the compartmentalization of program.Figure 6.14 Offset Analysis applied to Shifted Corridor Relationships113Offset Analysis Here we examine Sou Fujimoto’s Children’s Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation. This building is made up out of discrete program blocks of a uniform size which share a common interstitial space. Fujimoto manip-ulates the program blocks to create a series of intimate spaces in the in-between. There is a variety in their size and geometry and orientation. In Figure 6.16 we see the offset analysis of this building’s interstitial space. The computer is able to quantify depth, number of zones, and frequency of change from the bounding polyline to the furthest zone. It can recognize that immediately after offset 1 the space shatters into a collection of smaller spaces with a variety of final depth.Figure 6.15 Sou Fujimoto, Children’s Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Floor Plan Figure 6.16 Offset Analysis of Fujimoto’s Children’s Centre115Offset Score One of the major scoring mechanisms in the pursuit of crenelated, spaces with high levels of zone breakdown is the offset score. The rules to calculate this score are simple. The number of distinct offset zones produced after offset 1 is multiplied by 10. The number of distinct offset zones produced after offset 2 are multiplied by 5. This continues with diminishing multipliers until a distance of 4m or greater is given a 1 times multiplier. In this way the system will receive a greater score by creating zone breakdown earlier. The result of this is that the system is rewarded if it can produce a building similar to Fujimoto’s. This is useful as this project aims to optimize not for material efficiency but for variety of experience and for chance encounter. Figure 6.17 Offset Analysis Scores117View Analysis Another method by which to quantify the experience of archi-tecture is by considering views. Figure 6.18 illustrates the field of view available in normative space. The view lines emerge out of a single point along the circulation route through the space and are bound by opaque walls. What we see from this analysis is that in normative space, an inhab-itant is always able to see their next objective while approaching it. When arranged in this way spatial layout is incredibly easy to understand and navigate. This speaks to the utility of normative orthogonal arrangements. However, the clarity of this arrangement is precisely why it does not allow for variety of experience. An occupant is always aware of where they have come from, and where they are going. Perhaps in an attempt to subvert normative and urbanist values of spatial layout, we should again examine a shift in the connection between spaces.Figure 6.18 View Analysis Conducted in Normative Space119View Analysis Continued Presented here is the same analysis conducted on the shifted corridor example. This small change in form and occupation vastly changes the experience of a space. Now, there are areas within the larger spaces where an occupant can retreat from view and focus their attention on any task at hand. The benefits of zone breakdown that occurred during offset analysis is supported by the view analysis as when the routine is executed from a position within a distinct zone, often the only space visible is the one being occupied. While navigating the circulation path, views to the adjacent space are limited. This circulation bridge compresses the view creating a sense of intrigue and variety. Further, this system allows for moments of surprise when openings are introduced within the circulation bridge. For a brief instant an inhabitants view allowed out of the assembly, inviting the visitor to visually inhabit areas that are currently out of reach. Using this method to connect distinct programs may allow for a building to be optimized for variety of experience and chance encounter.Figure 6.19 View Analysis Conducted in Shifted Corridor Relationships121Barcelona Pavilion  Figure 6.20 illustrates the area of view available while walking through the Barcelona pavilion. What we can see is that Mies uses free standing walls to frame a number of distinct spaces. It is never possible to perceive all of the pavilion at once, and furthermore there is a diversity in the number of spaces visible at any given time. At some points vast areas are visually inhabitable, while in others a visitor may only inhabit a single space. We can see with this analysis that Mies has created a space using the bare minimum interventions that still rewards an inhabitant for exploring. The Barcelona pavilion contains surprises which only reveal themselves through exploration. It is possible to map this quality and perhaps integrate it with MVO as a goal of an architectural system.Figure 6.20 Mies van der Rohe, Barcelona Pavilion, View Analysis Animation Frames123Figure 6.21 2D View Analysis Fields along Circulation Route Figure 6.22 3D View Analysis Fields along Circulation Route125View Analysis Score Figures 6.21 & 6.22 present the complexity of what is actually occurring in the view analysis routine. Shown here in frames these diagrams illustrate a calculation that is conduced all at once. With compu-tation, any point along a given circulation route may be used to generate a view analysis field. What the software is really doing in this analysis method is calculating a high density of points along all circulation routes at the same time. Figure 6.22 further shows that this calculation is not limited to plan but is actually conduced in 3D because of course humans can look in all directions. With this tool, in a few minutes a machine is able to numeri-cally represent the visual quality and variety within any given arrangement of space. The difficult part of this procedure is creating a scoring system that is flexible enough to represent vastly different arrangements on a level playing field. Figure 6.23 is one approach to this problem. The proposed view analysis graph places the entirety of a buildings circulation route along the bottom axis of the graph. Then, from beginning to end, the number of spaces visible at any given time is plotted to the y axis. The result is the following curve. The View Frequency is the number of times that the graph changes its curvature to a new value. This therefore is the number of changes to the visual field that occur within the building. The system may be given a bonus for finding ways to increase the view frequency, which in turn leads to the increased variety of spatial occupation within the building. Another important analysis of this graph is the View Domain. This is the distance between the highest number of spaces visible to the lowest number. If we have learned anything from the Barcelona Pavilion it is that variety is a good thing, there should be some intimate spaces where only one is visible, and others where many are visible. Therefore, the larger the view domain, the more variety there is in the visual experience within the building. Last is a separate calculation called View Focus Average, where the field of view is broken down into the percentage given to each space. This is similar to a percentage opening calculation done for façade glazing. The system is given a bonus if can achieve a higher percentage of diverse views with this value. With this system unique iterations of the same building might be numerically compared on a level playing field.Number of Spaces Visible01234567891011Position Along Circulation RouteView FrequencyView DomainView Focus AverageView Analysis GraphFigure 6.23 View Analysis Graph127Spatial Inputs These volumes represent the sum total number of spaces within the Source Fields project. Each of the three resulting buildings, contain all of these spaces in unique arrangements. They are broken into two groups, large program masses which are constrained to an orthogonal grid, and a series of support spaces which are able to rotate and coalesce freely. Vertical CirculationMulti-Purpose GymMulti-Purpose GymMulti-Purpose GymLap PoolWarm PoolTot PoolCommunity Meeting RoomPerformance SpaceLibrary StacksLibrary Reading RoomDance StudioDance StudioAdmin Flex SpaceFlex SpaceFlex SpaceGame RoomGame RoomChange Rooms SaunaHot TubLifeGuard StationPool SupportPool SupportPool 3DPool 3DLibraryLibraryLibraryUtilitiesUtilitiesFigure 6.24 Spatial Inputs into Source Field Method129Phase.01 The following diagrams will cover the five phases of the Source Fields method. There are two sides to each phase. First, a spatial arrangement is made using the Boolean logic of solids and voids. This is paired with a round of analysis that gives each iteration a score. Phases are iterated until thousands of options are generated, and the designer selects a series of iterations that show promise, and forwards those onto the next phase. Phase.01 arranges the large program volumes within a predefined volume. The system is given a higher score if the arrangement meets a designed hierarchy (Library on top and to the north, pool on the ground and to the south, don’t put the gyms too close together etc.) Further the arrangements are given a higher score if the system avoids clipping programs together in the same space. Lastly, a bonus is given if the distribution of spaces within the volume is uniform. Figure 6.25 Phase.01 Diagram131Phase.02 This phase arranges the support programs among the large programs. Support programs are free to rotate and coalesce. The resulting spatial conditions are analyzed using offset analysis which we discussed earlier. The system is attempting to create multiple spatial subdivisions and find was to introduce zone breakdown into the arrangement.Figure 6.26 Phase.02133Phase.03 Here a series of connections are introduced between the vertical circulation and any isolated areas of program. If two spaces are within 6m of each other they will introduce a connection. These connections are manipulated along any point between a pair of spaces exposed faces. Each bridge may also rotate about its Z axis and extend or reduce its length as a way to control its intrusion on the spaces it connects. This system also uses offset analysis to search for solutions that create a variety of experience, and increased zone breakdown. Figure 6.27 Phase.03135Phase.04 In this phase a series of prisms roam about the bounding volume. They are able to move in X, Y and Z. They are also able to rotate about 2 axes to point in any direction. These act as voids that cut the assembly anywhere they intersect with it, and introduce views between two or more spaces. This phase uses view analysis in 3D along the circulation routes to optimize for high View Frequency, large View Domain, and distributed View Focus Average.Figure 6.28 Phase.04137Phase.05 The final phase is in production of a façade. Similar to Phase.04, a series of voids roam across planes that represent the extents of a second skin. They facades cut a series of louvers and these profiles are trans-ferred to the spaces beyond. This system uses view analysis and percent of opening distributions to create a variety of opening conditions in the building. The second skin acts independently from Phase.04 creating moments where windows view into interior courtyards, or align to view the exterior site. Figure 6.29 Phase.05139Phased Approach When combined these phases are able to produce a building complete enough that it can be evaluated for its architectural qualities. The various analysis methods keep the arrangements in check and a designer is able to consider the value of each iteration. This method reduces the labour required for each iteration. Computation has enabled thousands of variants within the explicit design rules outlined here. Figure 6.30 Source Field Phases141Minimum The following three buildings illustrate the outcomes of the Source Fields method. Minimum is a building that has not received an incredible amount of computing time. This is not to say that it was faster to compute this building, but rather that it was chosen out of a field of early results within each phased process. The phases iterate using the Grasshopper Plug-In Octopus to keep track of the performance of each iteration and to generate the MVO plots. Octopus refines the search for better scores each generation of analysis. Minimum represents results that were not given extensive evolution time and is therefore less compliant with the design goals of this project. What is interesting is that through this non-conformity this building contains many surprising aspects that a designer might re-consider as valuable. This building is filled with glitches that would have been removed if given more refinement time. A major example of this is the clipping of the dance studio into the centre of the pool (shown in detail in Figure 6.41). These glitches offer opportunity for the computational process to surprise the designer by adhering to many but not all design rules. They challenge the explicit rule-set’s assumption that good design can be explicitly predetermined. They show the value in light computation when variety and surprise are a goal.minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable010203040506070809010001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   32Orientation  0.9View Frequency  12% Openings   36Orientation  1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable01020304050607080901001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings  32Orientation  0.9View Freq ency  12% Openings   36Orientation  1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13Figure 6.31 Minimum Building Figure 6.32  Minimum Phase.04 and 05 Scores143Medium This building represents an increase in computation time. Its phase iterations were generally chosen from mid-range optimizations in the field of options. It strikes a balance between glitches and optimization towards the experience goals. Similar to Minimum, the architectural strength of this proposal is in the conjoining of space. In this building the vertical circulation has pierced one of the gymnasium spaces and created the opportunity for a double height sports hall. This hall is exposed to the rest of the building and anyone traversing to other programs. Having received more computation time this building has a much higher View Frequency than Minimum. This is also evident in its Percent Openings graph. This added time has increased the number of visible spaces and the efficient use of the cutting voids from Phase.04. minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable010203040506070809010001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   32Orientation  0.9View Frequency  12% Openings   36Orientation  1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable010203040506070809010001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   32Orientation  0.9Vie  Frequency  12% Openings   36Orientatio   1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13Figure 6.34  Medium Phase.04 and 05 ScoresFigure 6.33 Medium Building145minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable010203040506070809010001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   32Orientation  0.9View Frequency  12% Openings   36Orientation  1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13minimumPhasemedium maximum401234567891011012345678910111213140123456789101112130102030405060708090100Percent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces ViablePercent OpeningsNumber of Spaces Viable010203040506070809010001020304050607080901005View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   3Orientation  0.9ie  Frequency  12% Op nings   36Orientatio   1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13Figure 6.36  Maximum Phase.04 and 05 ScoresMaximum The last building has received the most computing time and has been through the most evolution generations. It is the most compliant to the design goals, and therefore is actually the version that has received the most design. This might seem backwards but the computer is not aware of what it is doing beyond manipulating space, and measuring its outcome. Design only occurs because of the meaning that the designer of the process has given to numeric data. With this in mind Maximum represents the version that most closely adheres to the limited design goals, and therefore is the most designer and least coincidental of the three buildings. This is visible in the resolution of the program layout. The majority of pool spaces have coalesced on the ground floor. Room clipping is at a minimum and vertical circulation has not been encroached upon. The bridge connections create spaces of their own and do not interfere with the operation of each space. Some unplanned moments occur like the addition of a hot pool into the centre of the gymnasium but these results are celebrated and not weaned out. Reading between these three buildings one might come to the conclusion that not all phases need the same level of computational evolution. The surprise of unplanned prog am mixing is an interesting example of this. However, Phase.04 seems to do best with extra computation time. The View Analysis graph for the Maximum building (Figure 6.36), and interior rendering (Figure 6.47) show this best. The Maximum view analysis graph is by far the most varied of three iterations. It contains the highest view frequency and domain, and has the highest score for View Focus. This has created a space with multi-perspectival views between distinct program elements creating a space for juxtaposition with others and increasing the potential fo  the chance encounter. These systems have combined to creates spaces that counter the monotony of our echo chamber society.Figure 6.35 Maximum Building147minimumPhasemedium maximumDesign Bonus   160.5Clip Stop  11Space Distribute  758.312345Design Bonus   123Clip Stop  6Space Distribute  761Design Bonus   123Clip Stop  6Space Distribute  439.3Design Bonus   314Verticy Score  3453Offset Analysis  4Design Bonus   29Verticy Score  4645Offset Analysis  7Design Bonus   111Verticy Sore  3480Offset Analysis  13Connection Rating  7Verticy Score  3777Offset Analysis  416Connection Rating  6Verticy Score  5525Offset Analysis  664Connection Rating 3Verticy Score  5054Offset Analysis  541View Frequency   30View Domain  11View Focus  62View Frequency   123View Domain  6View Focus  761View Frequency  123View Domain  6View Focus  439.3% Openings   32Orientation  0.9View Frequency  12% Openings   36Orientation  1.02View Frequency  12% Openings   28Orientation  0.9View Frequency  13Figure 6.37 Source Field Scores149Figure 6.38 Minimum Floor Plans151Figure 6.39 Medium Floor Plans153Figure 6.40 Maximum Floor Plans155Figure 6.41 Minimum Axo157Figure 6.42 Medium Axo159Figure 6.43 Maximum Axo161Figure 6.44 Minimum Section163Figure 6.45 Medium Section165Figure 6.46 Maximum Section167Figure 6.47 Maximum Interior Perspective169Figure 6.48 Medium Interior Perspective171Discussion  This experimental project has been an informative investigation into computation’s effect on the design process. First is that it is much easier to design a single distinct object, as architects are traditionally trained to do, than it is to design a system that produces multiple “complete” objects. This is because of the difficulty of creating robust data structures and algorithms. A designer might intuitively make judgment on inputs and variables, but a machine needs much more specific instruc-tions. This indicates a second point of learning. That is the fact that good design comes from intuition. A computer, in the context of this project, is only as useful as the designer wielding it. Computation is not a replacement of the design process but is instead a method to super-charge certain aspects of the larger category known as design. Another interesting reality of working in this way is that algorithmic design is an all-or-nothing scenario. If the computational process is not yet complete, there is no visible record of a building. Only upon successful development and debugging of a code can it produce what it was designed to produce. This means that for any practice wanting to implement computational methods in a design process must expect significant lead time to getting a method up and running before any architectural artifacts may be repre-sented. Once a code is operational however, the opposite problem occurs. In a very short period of time there can be thousands of options to weed through, and this is why using MVO and an mapping environment like Octopus is useful in filtering mass amounts of information. Choosing the best option out of a field of options is fun and interesting, but can also be challenging as differences between versions can be difficult to quantify. This reiterates the need to solid design intent and informed designer intuition within any computational process. There is always a human role to play in a computational system. Another major difficulty lies in the fact that the building’s formal language, its mechanisms of creating space, must be conceived of at the start of the process. This is due to the fact that they need to be codified into language a machine can understand. This does not allow for flexibility in the design process to operate outside the designer’s initial ruleset. Within that limitation a machine may hunt for thousands of variants, but the limits are the burden of the designer. Conclusion Source Fields is an experiment in early integration with a compu-tational system. The project aims to engage a method that is often left to the later stages of the design sequence. By leveraging computation this work produces an architecture that is formally emergent out of competing architectural goals. The work intends to be transparent about the production of space and its architectural experience. It has potential to be integrated with a community engagement process by exposing explicit intent and enabling negotiation and critical selection. The proposed building is an unconventional deployment of computa-tional strategies that attempt to quantify the qualitative. In antagonization of our echo chamber society this project aims to create novelty. Rather than optimize for physical efficiency, the aspiration of this process is to map a field of options in pursuit of variety of experience and the chance encounter. Perhaps this is the direction that architecture is moving in the 21st century. Neil Leach identifies with this position and states:End Notes1. Niel Leach, Interview with Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures, (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 67.“I believe that all generative processes hold the designer to account, they should be seen as prostheses to the architectural imagination. But we need to lose the old fashioned notion of the architect as some top-down demiurgic ‘designer’ and reconfigure the architect as the controller of processes.”1 Architects handle the majority of variables in a building however some of them can be represented numerically and it is those that could be integrated into a transparent system in which others might engage. Public engagement with a process like this could become “real-time” leveraging waterfall computation of all phases simultaneously. By engaging the public through explicit and transparent methods, the production of public architecture can critically antagonize our echo chamber society. Perhaps the future of architectural computation lies in the optimization of variety of experience and the chance encounter. 173Appendix ASketches Grasshopper ScriptsModel Photographs175Figure A.01 Sketches Figure A.02 Sketches177Figure A.03 Sketches Figure A.04 Sketches179Figure A.05 Sketches181Figure A.06 Phase.01 Grasshopper Screenshot183Figure A.07 Phase.02 Grasshopper Binary185Figure A.08 Phase.03 Grasshopper Binary187Figure A.09 Phase.04 Grasshopper Binary189Figure A.10 Phase.05 Grasshopper Binary191Figure A.11 Octopus User Interface Phase.05 / Maximum Map of Iterations Figure A.12 Phase.05 / Maximum Rhino Viewport193Figure A.13 Physical Model Figure A.14 Physical Model195Figure A.15 Physical Model Figure A.16 Physical Model197Figure A.17 Physical Model Figure A.18 Physical Model199Appendix BBibliographyImage Citations201Le Corbusier. The Athens Charter. Translated by Anthony Eardly. New York: Grossman, 1923.Llach, Daniel Cardoso. Builders of the Vision: Software and the Imagination of Design. New York: Routledge, 2015.Llach, Daniel Cardoso. “Software Comers to Matter: Towards a Material History of Computational Design.” DesignIssues 31, no. 3 (Sum-mer 2015): 41-54.Luscombe, Desley. “Architectural concepts in Peter Eisenman’s axono-metric drawings of house VI.” The Journal of Architecture 19, no. 4 (2014): 560-611.Mayer H, Jürgen. “Metropol Parasol, Seville.” Architectural Design 82 no. 5 (2012): 71-3.Menges, Achim and Sean Ahlquist Eds. Computational Design Thinking. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley, 2011.Menges, Achim. “The New Cyber-Physical Making in Architecture: Com-putational Construction.” Architectural Design 85, no. 5 (2015): 28-33.Mitchell, William J. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cog-nition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.Moreno, Cristina Díaz and Efrén Gª Grinda. “Free Educational Institution [Francisco Giner de los Ríos Foundation].” El Croquis 184, (2016): 74 – 109.O’Regan, Gerard. Introduction to the History of Computing: A Computing History Primer. New York: Springer, 2008.Otto, Frei, Eds. Georg Vrachliotis, Joachim Kleinmanns, Martin Kunz, and Philip Kurz. Frei Otto: Thinking by Modeling. Translated by Simon Cowper and Ariane Kossack (Leipzig: Spector Books, 2017).Perez-Gomez, Alberto and Louise Pelletier. Architectural representation and the Perspective Hinge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.Privitera, Francesca. “Da Quinta Monroy a Conjunto abitacional Violeta Parra.” Firenze Architettura 19, no.1 (2015): 52 – 59.Sakamoto, Tomoko and Albert Ferré eds. From Control to Design: Para-metric / Algorithmic Architecture. Barcelona and New York: Actar, 2008.Schumacher, Patrik. “Parametricism as Style,” Writings, Patrick Schum-acher, http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametri-cism%20as%20Style.htm#_edn1, accessed February 25, 2018.Tomory, Leslie. “Technology in the British Industrial Revolution.” History Compass 14, no. 4 (2016):    152-67.Webb, Michael. “Metropol Parasol.” Architectural Review 229 no. 1732 (2011): 58-63.Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.Aureli, Pier Vittorio, ed. The City as Project. Berlin: Ruby, 2013.Aureli, Pier Vittorio. “Towards the Archipelago.” Log 11, (Winter 2008): 91-120.Böck, Ingrid. Six Canonical Project by Rem Koolhaas. Berlin: Jovis, 2015.Burry, Mark. Scripting Cultures. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.Coats, Paul. Programming Architecture, London and New York: Routledge, 2010.Benevolo, Leonardo. The History of Modern Architecture, vol. 1, The Tradi-tion of Modern Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.Ciorra, Pippo. “(Un)political.” In This Thing Called Theory, edited by Teresa Stoppani, Giorgio Ponzo, and George Themistokleous, 261-72. London: Routledge, 2016.Chu, Karl. “Metaphysics of Genetic Architecture and Computation.” Archi-tectural Design 76, no. 4 (2006): 38-45.Engles, F. The Housing Question. Edited by C.P. Dutt New York: Interna-tional Publishers, 1935.Fernando Dominquez Rubio and Uriel Fogué, “Unfolding the Political Capacities of Design” In What is Cosmopolitical Design? Design, Nature and the Built Environment, edited by Albena Yaneva and Alejandro Aaera-Polo, 143-60. Surrey: Ashgate, 2015.Fazio, Michael, Marian Moffett, and Lawrence Wodehouse. Buildings across Time: An Introduction to World Architecture. Boston: Mc-Graw-Hill, 2004.Frampton, Kenneth. “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism.” Prospecta 20 (1983): 147-62. Frazer, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. London: Architectural Associa-tion, 1995.Frazer, John. “Parametric Computation: History and Future.” Architectural Design 86, no. 2 (March/April 2016): 18-23.Granger, Frank ed. Vitruvious on Architecture: Books 1-5. Translated by Frank Granger. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931.Jencks, Charles. The Architecture of the Jumping Universe. London: Acade-my Editions, 1995.Koolhaas, Rem and Bruce Mau. Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large: Office for Metropolitan Architecture. New York: Monacelli Press, 1998.Lallement, Michel. “An Experiment Inspired by Fourier: J.B. Godin’s Fa-milistere in Guise.” Journal of Historical Sociology 25, no. 1 (2012): 31-49.Bibliography203Image CitationsChapter 1Figure 1.1 By AuthorChapter 2Figure 2.1 By AuthorFigure 2.2 By AuthorFigure 2.3 By AuthorFigure 2.4 Achim Menges, 2015, “Cyber-physical fibre placement process” In “Cyber-physical fibre placement process” Architectural Design 85. no. 5 (2015): 28 – 33.Figure 2.5 Roland Halbe, 2015, “2015. RH2739-0030.jpg” Accessed December 4, 2018, (ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2014-15) From: http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=12965Figure 2.6  Vierlinger, Robert and Arne Hofmann. 2015. “Figure 11: Different alternatives of example 2 in its final setup of parameters and objectives.” In “A Framework for Flex-ible Search and Optimization in Parametric Design.” Paper presented at: Design Modelling Symposium, Berlin, October 2013. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1516.8727Chapter 3Figure 3.1 Sebastiano Serlio. “On the House outside the City of the poor Merchant or poor Citizen.” In The City as a Project. Berlin: Ruby, 2013.Figure 3.2 J.B. Godin. “Plan and Section of the residential building of the ‘Familistèré.” In The History of Modern Architecture, vol. 1, The Tradition of Modern Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.Figure 3.3 Le Corbusier. “Stuttgart, The Steel House by Le Cor-busier on the Weissenhof.” In The History of Modern Architecture, vol. 1, The Tradition of Modern Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.Figure 3.4 Jørn Utzon. 1973-76 “Bagsvaerd Church North Elevation and Section.” In “Towards the Archipelago.” Log 11, (Win-ter 2008): 91-120.Chapter 4Figure 4.1 By AuthorFigure 4.2 Rem Koolhaas, Elia Zenghelis, Madelon Vriesendorp, and Zoe Zenghelis. “Exodus, or The Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture, 1972.” In Six Canonical Project by Rem Koolhaas. Berlin: Jovis, 2015.Figure 4.3 Peter Eisenman. “House VI, Transformations IX-XII, 1975.” In “Architectural concepts in Peter Eisenman’s axonometric drawings of house VI.” The Journal of Archi-tecture 19, no. 4 (2014): 560-611.Figure 4.4 Oswald Mathias Ungers, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Riemann, Hans Kollhoff, and Arthur Ovaska. “The City within the City: Berlin as a Green Archipelago.” In “Towards the Archipelago.” Log 11, (Winter 2008): 91-120.Figure 4.5 Google Earth. 2018. “Dokumentationszentrum Re-ichsparteitagsgelände.” Accessed December 4, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=49.43187,11.11140&z=16&t=h.Figure 5.6 Gunther Domenig. “Documentation Center Ground Floor Plan 1:1000.” In Fascination and Terror Documenta-tion Centre Nazi Party Rally Grounds Nuremberg. Nurem-berg: Museen der Stadt Nurnberg Dokumentationszen-trum Reichsparteitagsgelande, 2006.Figure 4.7 Chris Baier. “Dokumentationszentrum.” From Wikemedia Commons, March 25, 2007, accessed October 28, 2016, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokumenta-tionszentrum.JPG.Figure 4.8 Holly Mills. “Documentation Centre.” From Holly Mills – Architect. Janurary 18, 2015, accessed October 28, 2016, https://hmillsarchitect.wordpress.com/category/uncate-gorized/.Figure 4.9 Google Earth. 2018. “Quinta Monroy.” Accessed De-cember 4, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=-20.22963,-70.13625&z=17&t=h.Figure 4.10 ELEMENTAL. “Elvación.” From ArchDaily. “Quinta Monroy / ELEMENTAL.” December 31, 2008, accessed December 6, 2018, https://www.archdaily.com/10775/quinta-mon-roy-elemental.205Figure 4.11 Ibid.Figure 4.12 Ibid.Figure 4.13 Google Earth. 2018. “Seattle Public Library-Central Li-brary.” Accessed December 4, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=47.60670,-122.33250&z=16&t=h.Figure 4.14 OMA. “Section.” In Six Canonical Project by Rem Koolhaas. Berlin: Jovis, 2015.Figure 4.15 OMA. “Model.” In Six Canonical Project by Rem Koolhaas.     Berlin: Jovis, 2015.Figure 4.16 OMA. “Building Context.” In Six Canonical Project by Rem     Koolhaas. Berlin: Jovis, 2015.Figure 4.17 Google Earth. 2018. “Las Setas De Sevilla.” Ac-cessed December 4, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=37.39332,-5.99182&z=16&t=h.Figure 4.18 Jürgen Mayer H, “Plan and Section” From Arcspace, ac-cessed December 6, 2018 https://arcspace.com/feature/metropol-parasol/.Figure 4.19 Jürgen Mayer H, “Metrpopl Parasol, Seville” In Architectur-al Design 82 no. 5 (2012): 71-3.Figure 4.20 Jürgen Mayer H, “View from the plaza” In Architectural Design 82 no. 5 (2012): 71-3.Figure 4.21 Google Earth. 2018. “Institución Libre De Enseñanza.” Accessed December 4, 2018. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.43484,-3.69650&z=18&t=h.Figure 4.22 Moreno, Cristina Díaz and Efrén Gª Grinda. “Plans and Section” In El Croquis 184, (2016): 74 – 109.Figure 4.23 Moreno, Cristina Díaz and Efrén Gª Grinda. “Street Eleva-tion” Ibid.Figure 4.24 Moreno, Cristina Díaz and Efrén Gª Grinda. “View of Courtyard” Ibid.Figure 4.25 Moreno, Cristina Díaz and Efrén Gª Grinda. “View of Au-ditorium” Ibid.Chapter 5Figure 5.1 By AuthorFigure 5.2 Ibid.Figure 5.3 Ibid.Figure 5.4 Google Earth. 2018. “Government Conference Centre.” Accessed December 4, 2018, https://www.google.com/maps?ll=45.42460,-75.69350&z=16&t=h.Figure 5.5 Ibid.Figure 5.6 Ibid.Figure 5.7  NCC Watch. “Union Interior.” From NCC Watch, accessed   December 9, 2018,http://nccwatch.org/blunders/union   station.htmChapter 6Figures 6.1 Alejandro Luengo, “Vancouver Buildings” From     Unsplash, accessed April 15, 2019. https://un    splash.com/photos/sQDTLNp0Cp0Figure 6.2 Davide Ragusa, “Borgo Lupo” From Unsplash, accessed    April 15, 2019. https://unsplash.com/photos/    cDwZ40Lj9eoFigure 6.3 Markus Spiske, “Colorful Code” Unsplash, accessed April   15, 2019. https://unsplash.com/photos/8OyKWQgBsKQFigure 6.4 Christophe Vorlet, “The Trouble with the Echo Chamber    Online” The New York Times, accessed April 15, 2019.Figure 6.5 By AuthorFigure 6.6 Graphics: By Author, Data: “Percent population growth    between 2006 and 2011” Data from Statistics Canada,    Census of Population 2016. Figures 6.7 - 6.14 By AuthorFigure 6.15 Sou Fujimoto, “Building Ground Floor Plan” In El Croquis    151, (2013): 41.Figures 6.16 - 6.48 By AuthorAppendix AFigures A.01 - A.18 By AuthorSOURCE FIELDSAlexander Edgar Preiss

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378518/manifest

Comment

Related Items