After experimenting with a range of different input curves to see the different outcomes produced, I began to analyse the different types of spaces produced depending on the magnitude and type of curvature. From this I classified 5 different situations below, and started to visualise how the differing geometries affected the views within the spaces, the views out, and the conditions of the spaces.
From this I selected three of these conditions and started to explore the materiality and thickness of the spaces. I became interested in forced perspective and how I could apply this to the generated spaces to make shallow spaces feel deeper and vice versa. But also distort and effect the users experience of the space in different ways.
Within the three sectional models below, I explored both in section and perspective. Looking in section at how the beams and and roof could connect and sit within the walls, but also how the spacing could change to play with forced perspective. Then the sectional models would be combined to allow myself to visualise the views within the spaces and the views out from them. I took a step back from the previous model where I was looking at a continuous roof system and looked at each of the 3 modules individually to look at different ways I could structure the roofscape and play with the lighting of the spaces.
After producing the axonometric development drawing , I used this as a snapshot to analyse how the code was generating spaces and controlling circulation. But most importantly to reflect on how the walls, beams and roof were working together through manipulation of the code. I started to alter the logic of the code to create a controlled circulation route through the spaces. By randomly deciding whether to shift a wall and creating an opening, or leave the wall untouched.
I then also explored how different input curves could create different spaces and variations by using the same script.
Below is an example of one of the many unique generations that can be produced on the exact same curve. If used on different input curves I could create even more unique variations.
I started to look at the roof form in more detail by considering how it could vary in different ways to affect the environment and experience of the space below. I would then use this to dictate what spaces could be used for. I considered how the spacing and arrangements could be altered to let through different amounts of light, or no light if you want to project video installations. They could even be used as acoustic buffers in tall spaces. Whilst I was exploring the variations of roof form and the transparency of the walls to shut off and expose views, I still wanted the roof form to appear as one cohesive system.
Since the last task, I continued to develop how my code was creating tangents, perpendicular lines and rectangles along any drawn input curve. I became particularly interested in moving the tangents along the created perpendicular and then extending to intersect with the next generated perpendicular line. In some cases the lines could not intersect and I was using this generation to determine what spaces are enclosed or open.
After exploring different arrangements of spaces, walls and circulation, I started to look at how the plan could be translated to create dynamic spaces through the manipulation of the code, such as randomly generating walls or beams at the perpendicular lines. I also created an undulating and pulsating roof form that increases and reduces in height and length by a tolerance from its neighbour.
Developing this further I began to use the code to generate different systems within the generated form, which I would run one after the other. Firstly the layout of enclosed and open spaces would be produced along with the main walls. Then the input curve would shatter to allow me to generate partition walls between these spaces. Finally I would then use the code to produce the beams and then the roof structure.
The geometry of the input curve I used to generate an example proposal was to place my building within the centre of the site and to arrange the spaces around this curve to maximize the views of the site looking outwards. In return this would create an enclosure within the large exposed site. The generated spaces which did not enclose would be use as a route through the building but also the park to maximise engagement to passerby’s.
Below is an example of the one of the many unique generations I could create with the code and with different input curves. I used this drawing to take a snapshot and evaluate how the different systems work together and now I intend to explore the roof form and lighting further to see how it can create different spaces which could display work if different situations.
During my precedent study of spatial configurations, I was particularly interested in how circulation defined the form and organisation of a building and how the building could be treated as a continuous space.
I became particularly interested in the second precedent study and how the continuous space of a building can be subdivided into a sequence of spaces. The subdivision creates different relationships between one another, but also a different relationship between each interior to the exterior of the building. I began by exploring how tangents could be generated along a curve in varying ways to define spaces in between them which either enclose or open.
I then started to evolve these 2D configurations into 3D, by randomly extruding different thicknesses of walls to different heights. To create circulation openings between spaces, or recesses within the walls.
Lastly I created an example of how I could integrate this configuration into the site. I plan to explore how the code could be used to map walls onto topography lines, key geometry or paths within the site to create a series of spaces which are linked to the outside.