Here is a short excerpt from my chapter Simulation Tools for Social Performance – Immersive Building Simulations that talks about agent-based simulations as a tool to optimize a space’s social performance. Other simulation strategies that I write about include Tectonic Articulation, Social Space, Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. This short excerpt is for non-commercial internal, academic and research purposes only. Please do not copy or distribute. The entire text can be found in the book – please consider buying it.

Agent-based Occupancy Simulations

But also on a smaller scale, the analysis and prediction of spatial occupation patterns in various social spaces, most notably office environments, has moved more and more into the focus of contemporary design research recently, as a growing percentage of any developed country’s economy relies on intellectual capital rather than the means of production. Shifting away from the traditional Taylorist work culture with its long-established linear production logic, where the success of different spatial layouts could be easily measured (for example by simple counting the number of completed transactions, as routine assignments were handed down from one worker to the next), office tasks have become increasingly complex and knowledge driven. In Western European countries knowledge economy at this point represents about a third of all economic activities (Eurostat, 2013).

As work procedures became more flexible and spatial occupation patterns more loose and varied, and consequently could no longer be organized and measured according to Taylorist principles, new methods of assessing the performance of spaces need to be developed. Designers, such as the German Quickborner team with their Bürolandschaft concept, started in the 1970s to map the spatial relations between all agents in an office network in two-dimensional matrixes in order to find optimized office layouts. However, these design methodologies were still based on the clear assumption, that there is a linear relationship between the efficiency of a spatial layout and its successful work output.

In knowledge economies employees increase their respective radius of interaction due to the business’s intrinsically networked nature and various new types of knowledge work with their particular needs and mobility patterns emerge (Green and Myerson, 2011). The exchange of work is less vital than information interchange, communication, and human interaction, and the success of contemporary office environments increasingly relies on continuous formal and informal exchange of information and knowledge between actors in various different configurations. A space’s performativity largely depends on its capacity to spatially and semiologically frame the complexly interwoven interactions of its users.

In such a dynamic environment behavioral patterns are no longer linear but rather start to show emergent and unpredictable properties, which are the result of the repeated superimposition of (comparatively simple) interactions of its single constituent components (its agents), which gradually add up to the complex state of the emerging system. The result of such a non-linear process can no longer be predicted. This is also known as a “bottom-up” process, as opposed to a “top-down” process, in which the overall form is determined first. Such emergent systems however can be simulated by programming sets of simple agents that continuously interact with each other according to a basic set of rules. This was first achieved in 1987 by Craig Reynolds, who with his simulation program “Boids” successfully simulated the flocking behavior of birds. While such Agent Based Models (ABM) have been commonly used to simulate physical, chemical, biological, or sociological processes, architecture has only recently discovered their use for the simulation of life processes. Similar to a flock of birds or a school of fish, human crowds show complex non-linear behavior that is the result of a single agent’s behavioral rules or scripts that in turn are triggered by fellow agents or environmental features. As a consequence they constitute emergent systems, that can be successfully simulated by Agent Based Models (ABM). While plenty of commercial software programs, such as Cinema4D or Maya, offer readily available tools for crowd simulation, more complex life-like occupancy simulations at this point still require some scripting knowledge and the use of more specialized programs such as NetLogo (an open source program developed for an academic community) or Unity with its scripting extension (initially developed for the gaming industry).

Agent based design research is normally directed towards a concrete focal task in the form of a design research brief that acts as a experimental setup in relation to which empirical and statistical knowledge, conceptual and theoretical resources, simulation methodologies, and design ideas can be systematically brought together and explored.

In order to measure the different qualities and quantities of the agents’ interactions with each other, as well as with their environment, research focuses on the location, size, shape, configuration and features of informal office areas, such as communication zones, circulation areas and breakout spaces, where spontaneous communicative encounters and unscheduled opportunities for networking, collaboration and skill exchange most likely occur.

In order to set up a feasible first parametric model, the overall number of input parameters can be initially reduced within the conceptual framework of the simulation, gradually increasing complexity.

The main challenge is the development of a population of agents with plausible, life‐like individual behavioral rules that allow for the emergence of an overall plausible, life‐like collective event scenario. In order to accomplish this, any agent population needs to display two key properties of ‘life‐process modelling’. First of all, variable agent differentiation by status, affiliation, department, or position within the social network, implying behavioral difference, and secondly architectural frame‐dependency of behaviors, implying local selection from stacks of behaviors dependent on location and spatial architectural qualities.

The first property allows for the integration of client-specific employee structures and hierarchies, the second property facilitates a systematic semiological approach to the design, as it established relationships between the agents’ behavioral patterns and the furniture elements and features distributed across the space in question.

As the simulations run, systematically emulating various design proposals, relevant measures are recorded and stored to evaluate a scenario’s performance in terms of occupational patterns and communicative interaction. Those measures normally include location, frequency, relevancy and range of encounters and interactions as well as communicative histories, circulation patterns and occupancy maps (so called ‘heat maps”).

Data read out of a UNITY agent-based simulation setup. (c) Agent Based Semiology Research Group Vienna, Daniel Bolojan: 2018

Simulations’ results can not only be summarized and compared in order to judge the performance of a particular office layout. Once the collected data is statistically analyzed and set in relation to the quantitative parameters, such as position and number of specific reference points and furniture elements, throughout a series of related simulation scenarios (thus parametrically attaching it to the same spatial environmental features with changing locations), it can be used to train prediction algorithms in order to forecast agent behavior in novel and previously unsimulated scenarios.

Looking at statistical connections between the qualitative, i.e. semiological parameters of a spatial layout and its features, such as object design, environmental zoning or effective or affective conditions, and the behavioral patterns they generate might eventually lead to understanding the conception of office environments as an explicit design agenda to frame communication with a new and coherent system of architectural signification, rather than an intuitive participation in a historically evolving semiosis of the built environment, in order to develop an approach to architectural design that better engages with the opportunities and challenges of today’s networked society.

References:

Eurostat. (2013). Science, Technology and Innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, p. 115.

Greene, C. and Myerson, J. (2011). Space for Thought: Designing for Knowledge Workers. In Facilities, Vol. 29 Issue: 1/2, pp.19-30, https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771111101304.

Agent-based Semiology for Simulation and Prediction of Contemporary Spatial Occupation Patters

Mathias Fuchs and Robert R. Neumayr

Abstract. Agent-based semiology is a powerful simulation and prediction environment for pedestrian simulation that allows for accurate balancing of complexity. Here, we describe a framework to simulate increasing behavioural interactivity between agents via agent-based modeling, together with a statistical approach to make the results amenable to a quantitative and automated analysis. That approach borrows ideas from crowd simulation and spatial statistics, notably fitting of Poisson processes, and computer graphics. The described process can simply be thought of as that of approaching an observed pattern by an overlay or additive mixture of grey-scale images each of which are distance transforms of physical objects. Thus, we describe the observed pattern in terms of interactions of spatial features which are akin to traditional BIM tags. We thus arrive at a remarkably concise prediction of the simulation outcome. The benefits of this simulation speedup is, on the one hand, to allow for higher optimization throughput, and on the other hand, to provide designers with quantitative feedback about the impact of their design on the simulation outcome.

Keywords: Parametric Modeling, Simulation, Agent-Based Semiology.

Introduction

Agent-based Semiology aims to investigate, analyze, simulate, and predict contemporary spatial occupation patterns in social spaces in order to understand and develop the performance criteria that interactively link these spaces, their interiors, and their users. The research ambition at hand is to develop a cross-disciplinary method of architectural design that generates spatial environments with high social performativity. 

Architecture channels its social processes through semiological associations as much as through physical separation and connection. It functions through its visual appearance, its legibility and its related capacity to frame its users’ communication. In that way the built environment is not just physically directing bodies, it is orienting socialized agents who have to understand and navigate complex spatial organisations, or  “As a communicative frame, a designed space is itself a premise for all communications that take place within its boundaries.” [21].

In a conventional design process, the designer tends to intuitively adapt and spontaneously intervene within the historically evolving semiological system of his respective cultural environment. The aim of agent-based semiology, however, is to move from this intuitive participation within an evolving semiosis towards a systematic and explicit design process, that understands contemporary spatial organisations as coherent systems of signification without relying on the familiar codes found in the existing built environment.

In today’s networked society and its communication-based working patterns, its increasingly open and dynamic environments, complex spaces and multi-layered social systems of use, the users’ behavioural patterns of interaction cease to be linear and simple to predict but rather start to show emergent and unpredictable properties. This emerging behavioural complexity is no longer a clear function of a number of static spatial occupation patterns, but the result of an iterative process in which the repeated superimposition of a set of comparatively simple interaction patterns of a system’s basic components (its agents) adds up to the complex state of the emergent system. Such nonlinear process, in which small-scale interactions govern a systems overall configuration, is called a “bottom-up” process, as opposed to a “top-down” process, in which the overall form is determined first in order to subsequently organize its constituent parts.

The results of these kind of processes can no longer be calculated or predicted and present serious challenges for predictive algorithms, suggesting the use of extensive computer simulations of its underlying dynamics. They can, however, be simulated using agent-based modeling which is commonly defined as “a computational method that enables a researcher [to] experiment with models composed of agents that interact within an environment.” [7]. In, 1987 Craig Reynolds was the first to successfully set up such a  simulation, reproducing the flocking behaviour of birds with this simulation program “Boids” [19]. Since then agent-based models (ABM) have been developed, refined and commonly used for simulations in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, or social sciences, mapping the processes that we assume to exist in a real social environment [15].

While other tools and techniques for understanding social spaces, such as for example Space Syntax [10] have gained considerable popularity over the years, architecture has only recently discovered the use of agent-based models for the simulation of life processes. Similar to flocks of birds or schools of fish, human crowds show complex non-linear behaviour and thus constitute emergent systems, that can be successfully simulated by agent-based modeling. Therefore this research proposes their use for the simulation of architecture-related life processes. 

The analysis and prediction of emergent spatial occupation patterns in today’s social spaces, most notably contemporary office environments, has gathered more attention recently, as the economies of developed countries increasingly depend on the free flow of information rather than on the administration and exchange of goods and services. In Western European countries knowledge economy at this point represents about a third of all economic activities [6].

Moving away from long-established Taylorist office space layouts with its traditional linear logics of mono-directional workflow, where the success of different spatial layouts could be easily measured, work patterns in today’s knowledge economy has become increasingly complex, flexible, and interwoven and can therefore no longer be organized and evaluated according to Taylorist principles. Consequently, new methods of assessing the performance of spatial layouts need to be developed.

Designers such as the German Quickborner team with their Bürolandschaft concept, started already in the 1970s to develop novel office layouts that were essentially real-life diagram-spaces based on the optimization of spatial relations between groups of employees. While this design methodology was still relying on the assumption, that there is a linear relationship between a spatial layout’s organisational efficiency and its work output, one of its major innovation was that it focused on the patterns of communication rather than its contents, thus establishing the flow of information as a generative tool. The other key innovation was the abolishment of spatial hierarchies in order to foster informal communication which was considered critical in a cybernetic organisational model [14], or as Quickborner’s Ottomar Gottschalk put it: “Informal conversations are not only useful – in all likelihood  they are actually crucial.” [8].

In knowledge economies employees increase their respective radius of interaction due to the  intrinsically networked nature of contemporary workflow and as a consequence various new types of knowledge work with their particular needs and mobility patterns emerge [9]. The sharing of work, goods or products is less important than information interchange, communication, and human interaction. A space’s performativity therefore largely hinges on its capacity to spatially and semiologically frame the constant informal and formal transfer of knowledge between its users in various different configurations.

Therefore, a design brief of a contemporary office environment acts as an experimental setup in which empirical and statistical knowledge, simulation methodologies, and design ideas are systematically brought together. In order to measure the various emergent patterns that arise from the agents’ continuous interactions with each other, as well as with their environment, the research focuses on the office space’s breakout space, which is its most informal area, where spontaneous communicative encounters and unscheduled opportunities for networking, collaboration and skill exchange can easily occur. At the same time the space’s furniture elements also allow for planned or organized meetings or conferences of various sizes and configurations.

Simulation methods and ACL – scenario matrix 

The research sets up and refines agent based life process simulations, in which the semiological code is defined in terms of the agents’ behavioral rules or scripts being triggered by specific environmental features as well as by the interaction with other agents. The simulation is run in two independent programs in parallel, NetLogo and Unity, with the same setup and variable values, in order to be able to compare results and data.

NetLogo (see Fig. 1) is a program designed for agent-based simulations with built-in processes that already solve typical agent based simulation scripting problems. As it is purely code based it is fast, scalable and data extraction is easy.

Fig. 1. The Netlogo simulation environment.

Unity is a component based software program, that is very popular amongst game developers used to develop multiplayer video games across various platforms. Its complexity allows for sophisticated agent interactions and can also be fully script driven. 

In order to understand, simulate and predict comprehensive life-like office scenarios with complex behavioral patterns within a controlled simulation, a clearly defined small-scale office breakout space is used to script and test relationships between agents and the environment. The task is the development of a population of agents with life‐like individual behavioral rules that allow for the emergence of a simplified, yet overall plausible collective event scenario. For  this, any agent population needs to display two key properties of ‘life‐process modeling’. 

First of all, there needs to be agent differentiation by status, affiliation, or position within the social network, implying behavioral difference as agents interact with each other. Real-life social interactions are complex in nature, as they depend on multiple variables, that have to be effectively weighted to be made operational in a simulation. While this research has been looking into using social network analysis to extract relevant social network features (for example from email databases) to later inform agent-based life process modeling, at this point  agents’ behaviour, such as probability and duration of interaction, is driven by randomly assigned accumulative interaction values. Agent will choose to interact with the agent agent, who has the highest interaction value within a fixed range of values that who is available (i.e. not occupied) within a defined distance.

Secondly there needs to be architectural frame‐dependency, implying different behavioral patterns depending on location and spatial architectural qualities. To that end, architectural features, which are typical for an office break out space, such as different types of tables, a reception desk, or a coffee machine, are added to the simulation environment, once the basic logic is set up. These features are assigned interaction values similar to the agents, that govern the agents’ interaction with them.

Like in other strands of design research, continuously refining the digital processes becomes an important issue once a basic logic is established[16]. Therefore the complexity of the simulation is increased continuously, step by step. While the simplest movement pattern in spatial simulation is the random walk [17], the initial simulation setup is an agent walking around the scene unaware of his surroundings. 

Simulations gradually increase in complexity and for better systematic comparison are organized in a 2-dimensional matrix system. On the vertical axis we define the agent complexity (agent capacity level – ACL), starting from the simplest possible agent as described above (ACL 1.0). In each subsequent step, the agents’ capabilities are systematically extended (i.e. collision detection, agent interaction, object interaction, etc.), up to a simplified office setup that allows for agent to agent interaction as well as for an interaction with a number of common furniture elements, such as a reception desk, a coffee machine, high tables, low tables, and a meeting table. The result is an accumulative build up of potential agent faculties that allows for direct comparison of individual ACLs and therefor speculation on possible success criteria and relevance of agent capacities. 

On the horizontal axis, each capacity level is tested in four parallel simulation scenarios (A, B, C, D) in order to produce a more robust data set. These scenario differ slightly from each other in terms of their floor pan layout, the location of doors, and the position of interaction objects. The parameters that remain constant are a maximum number of 16 agents per simulation and the total run time of 30 min. During runtime relevant data, such as the agent’s positions, their encounters and interactions, is constantly collected from the simulation and stored for later analysis. For ease of comparison the data is used to create a number of visual quantifiers, such as heat map showing the concentration of occupancy (density) and trail maps tracking the movement of each individual agent. 

The collected simulation data from the first three simulations (A, B, and C) is used to train a prediction algorithm that finally is tested against the empirical data set of the last simulation (D) for accuracy, where the prediction algorithm is confronted with a novel scenario condition.

Statistical description and prediction

Overview and goal

Gaining an approach to a statistical description is necessary for bridging the gap between pedestrian simulations on one side, and 3D modeling. We aim at automating the knowledge transfer in an objective and repeatable way, by deriving a sufficiently general model of the interaction between people and their environment. We emphasise a quantitative, interpretable, easily trained algorithm inspired from statistical learning, that is adaptive and easily extrapolated to new scenarios, in order to leverage the potential of pedestrian simulation for real-world design.

Spatial data analysis [4] deals with regressing observed movement patterns on spatial features. Whereas in a usual linear regression model, the values taken by a single dependent variable are explained by relating them to a linear combination of the independent variables, the so-called features, in a spatial data analysis task an entire spatial field of observations is related to a linear combination of independent feature fields. For instance, the dependent field could be that of successful oil rigs, and the independent fields could be the maps of geographical and geological characteristics. Here, the dependent field is given by the observed pedestrian movement pattern, and the independent feature fields are given by explanatory physical or architectural features of the space. Then, observations of a linear combination of the dependent variables blurred with Gaussian noise. 

Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the  inspiration visually: to bridge the gap between hard geometrical features and smooth pedestrian behaviours.

Fig. 2. The discrepancy between “hard” geometry and “soft” pedestrian movement patterns can be bridged tentatively by assuming the existence of a guiding principle that steers the pedestrian density according to the proximity to the geometrical pattern. In this work, we are formalising the idea of describing the observed pedestrian density as an overlay of proximities to hard geometrical or physical features of the space.

Fig. 3. A spatial pattern is assumed to be generated by input fields, generated by objects. Typically, doors and tables are the “seed crystals” of these fields.

Development of a statistical model

Therefore, we need to find a way to describe regressors or dependent variables. We used a notion of one-channel image, reflected in a C++ class, to capture the spatial impact of a feature in the form of its distance image [12]. A feature is a user-supplied “explanatory” function. Here, we use the distance fields from objects but in principle any kind of one-channel image can be used for the task.  Such a function can be thought of as an gray-scale image, overlaid onto the 2d rectangle representing the scene’s bounding box in plane view. A typical function could represent the distance to a point of interest such as the central table in a meeting room. Thought of as an image, it consists of radial isolines around the table, getting darker and darker farther away from it. In a first step, one models the impacts of the most apparent spatial features, acting as attractors: doors, tables, toilets, staircases, maybe windows, etc. Their impact is modeled by a function which decreases steadily with higher distance to the object. In general, there is a variety of possible “influence maps”.

In concrete statistical terms, estimating the weights or contributions of each feature is done by fitting a Point Poisson Model to the Data with the Maximum Pseudolikelihood Method [3 and 9]. Fig. 4 shows the central object of study: the pedestrian density represented at as a heatmap. Concretely, the process can be thought of as first computing the empirically observed heatmap and then interpreting it as an overlay as pictured in Fig. 6 of distance images to these spatial features. 

Fig. 4. The building block of statistical reinterpretation of the observed pedestrian occupation pattern is the heatmap. A small number of these is used to approach the observed one. This figure illustrates the complexity inherent in an observed heatmap. Moreover, the dependence of the visual appearance of the heatmap on the bandwidth used for its computation, is often underestimated. This phenomenon corresponds to the ubiquitous property of natural patterns to exhibit structure on every scale from small to large whereas artificial patterns are often constrained to fewer scales.

Attaching features to physical objects and statistical model fitting

The aim of statistical analysis is twofold: fostering the understanding of the spatial process by descriptive processing, and the extrapolation of the learned model to new scenarios in a prediction. In this second step, we derive a way to draw the density of pedestrian activity, as generated in a simulation, onto the design canvas in an adaptive manner. We accomplish that goal by employing techniques and algorithms from point processes. In particular, we show how rudimentary BIM (building information model) tag information gives rise canonically to a set of spatial features. We then go on to describe how a Poisson model fitting gives rise to a statistical model which associates to a design intervention a smooth (“parametric”) adaptation of the predicted pedestrian density. See [20] for an overview of density estimation and its relationship with Gaussian blurring, and the subsection below for the exact description of the fitting method of the features. Fig. 4 shows the central object of study: the pedestrian density represented at as a heatmap.

We validate the generated predictive model by careful separation of the data into disjoint learning and testing sets. A particular benefit of the method is its susceptibility to produce not just predictions — as, for instance, a neural network would — but instead to generate an understanding of how the model works, by yielding concrete and interpretable coefficients associated with the spatial features.See Fig. 7 for an example of prediction results on ACL 4.4.

Fig. 5. The concept of reinterpreting and observed pattern in terms of an overlay of simpler ones is quite powerful. Here, we show how any uniform random point pattern, i.e. a noise pattern, can be described almost perfectly as an overlay of generic heatmaps – sine waves in this case. The approximation principle is closely related to consequences of the theory of Fourier series.

Fig. 6. Each spatial object generates its distance transform. Here, six types of objects – door, window, three standing tables and a desk, each generate a distance function. Finally, these are overlaid additively to generate a statistical re-interpretation of an observed pedestrian pattern. The process of fitting the parameters of a Poisson process described here is the one that determines the contributions or weights of each single such feature image to the overlay.

Fig. 7. Result of the prediction. Learning sets are A to B, true observed pattern is D.

Description of the fitting algorithm

The actual core of the method is the computation of the weights of each single image — typically, a distance image. Each weight gives the image’s relative contribution to the overlay which is intended to be describe the output pattern given by the observed pedestrian locations, as closely as possible. The relevant sub-discipline of statistics is that of spatial data [3], and in particular that of spatial point patterns [5]. To simplify matters, a spatial point pattern can, in that context, just be thought of as a finite collection of two-dimensional points. We use the R system of statistical programming [18], and in particular the popular package “spatstat” for spatial statistics [2].

The translation of our geometrical problem into the language of spatial statistics is very straightforward: The locations immediately define a spatial point process, and each distance image defines a spatial function and thereby a covariate (or independent variable as in the more classical context of usual univariate regression). We interpret the latter locations as a spatial point process and  these weights by fitting a point process model to the observed point pattern with the “ppm” method of the spatstat R package. This function, in turn estimates the weights or contributions of each feature by fitting a Point Poisson Model to the Data with the Maximum Pseudolikelihood Method [1 and 11].The function yields a fitted model, and each covariate’s coefficient is interpreted as the desired weight. Note that this method is superior to the naive way of performing a pixel-wise linear regression because it takes the evident correlations between pixels into account. We use the “Poisson” interaction model [13] of the ppm function which is a simplification because it is the simplest model and  already yields meaningful results. Additionally, we integrate a slight non-linearity into the fitting process by taking interaction terms up to cubic order into account.

Generalisability

It should be noted the goal of the prediction is not simply to be as accurate as possible. Indeed, greater accuracy can always be achieved at the expense of generalisability: Learning more about a particular constrained design task comes at the cost of giving up the applicability to a more general design language. On the other hand, a general learned model can not adapt to the particularities of a special situation. 

Here, we have chosen to confine the study to a particular space, so that we have been leaning on the side of accuracy. See Fig. 5 for a demonstration of an arbitrarily good fit of the given data. Input fields are sine waves, and  the overlay or superposition corresponds to the terms of a Fourier series converging against a limit in Hilbert space. Here, we generated a random spatial pattern and have demonstrated extreme “overfitting” by approaching that pattern to a stunning degree, taking a large number of terms into account. On the other hand that illustration shows the power and flexibility of the simple overlay approach. Therefore, in an architectural context, the question of overfitting remains salient, imposing a strong trade-off between prediction accuracy and generalisability.

Limitations and drawbacks

While the simulation’s taxonomy, scripts and results as well as the developed prediction algorithms yield very promising results, the office space layout initially chosen for the simulation setup starts to show certain restriction and limitations. Although size and program of the simulation setup were intentionally kept quite confined in the beginning in order to better control the overall simulation and its results, later on this decision proved to be increasingly limiting.

The prediction’s accuracy increases with each additional object and feature included in the simulation, however, the small scale of the simulation space sets a clear limit to the overall number of one-channel images that can be meaningfully implemented. Not only does the intended use as an office breakout space restrict the types of possible objects and features, the size of the chosen office simulation space also sets a physical limit to maximum number of objects such a space can purposively hold. The next stage of this research will therefore seek to expand the scope of the simulation space, adding an additional office program as well as more one-channel images.

Regarding the geometric-statistical method, a possible drawback is that it does not apply immediately to optimization because on the one hand it only predicts densities which are by definition relative (their integral is one). Another drawback is that it is unclear how to determine which classes of layouts a prediction generalizes to. Thus, it would be desirable to identify either geometric, architectural or maybe even socio-cultural traits of a space which should be treated as being within the prediction scope of the algorithm.

Summary

We have described a unique approach borrowing insights and techniques from architecture, agent-based modeling, statistics of point processes, and computer graphics into a novel framework for semiological interpretation and prediction of contemporary spatial occupation patterns. The methodology introduced in this research is tailored towards measuring and simulating the social phenomena that stem from our increasingly complex built environment.

In total, we have shown that a simple process of overlaying spatial features corresponds to the statistical process of fitting the parameters of a Poisson process.

Outlook

The proposed statistical method can be described as “quantitative semiology” and has, as such, a vast field of possible applications in architecture and urbanism.

The first logical step consists in applying an optimization engine like for instance an evolutionary algorithm to exploit the prediction for “machine design”: one extracts from the predicted density a success measure linked to the functionality of the space or the architecturally desired functional outcome.  It could be defined by the amount of conversations, or by their comprehensiveness, or by some measure of the receptiveness of the design, etc. Then, a density prediction leads to a prediction of that particular chosen measure. From that point on, it lends itself to consider a larger number of possible designs or even an entire parametrized family, and to relate the outcome – the success measure – directly to these parameters. There are straightforward parameters such as sizes, distances and other quantities of geometric provenience, as well as well-studied design parameters coming, for instance, from the space syntax grammar [10]. In general, however, it becomes necessary for actual optimisation to assign some “space DNA” quantities to each proposed design. The more insightful these parameters are chosen, the more likely is the success of a machine learning strategy for associating the social functionality. Hence, one will be in a position to ask for prediction and optimization of the success of an entire design family. For this, it would be helpful to have better design measures and fitness criteria. In particular, the question about insightful and parsimonious design parameters that are suited to describe a design’s functionality remains to be answered in an interdisciplinary approach.

There is an ample spectrum of possible future research possibilities. In particular, it will be worthwhile to exploit exploitation of the more realistic 3d features of a Unity simulation, and pose the question how the agents’ behavior is influenced by their field of vision, possibly to be described in combination with an evolutionary algorithm. In the end, one will learn much more about the complexity of pedestrian behavioral patterns and their interaction with the surrounding space.

References

[1] Berman, M. and Turner, T.R. Approximating point process likelihoods with GLIM. Applied Statistics 41 31–38 (1992).

[2] Baddeley, A., Rubak, E. and Turner, R. (2015). Spatial Point Patterns: Methodology and Applications with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press (2015)

[3] Cressie, N., Statistics for spatial data. John Wiley and Sons, Inc (1993).

[4] Daley, D.J., Vere-Jones: An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Volume I: Elementary Theory and Methods. Springer (2003).

[5] Diggle, P.J.: Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns. Arnold, London, second edition (2003)

[6] Eurostat: Science,Technology and Innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, p. 115. (2013).

[7] Gilbert, N.: Agent-Based Models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., p. 2. (2008).

[8] Gottschalk, O., Architekt of the Quickborner Teams, Symposium “Bürolandschaft” at the documenta 12 in Kassel. (2007).

[9] Greene, C. and Myerson, J.: Space for Thought: Designing for Knowledge Workers. In Facilities, Vol. 29 Issue: 1/2, pp.19-30, (2011).

[10] Hillier, B. and Hanson, J.: The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2003).

[11] Jensen, J.L. and Moeller, M.: Pseudolikelihood for exponential familymodels of spatial point processes. Annals of Applied Probability 1 445–461 (1991).

[12] R. Kimmel and A.M. Bruckstein, “Distance maps and weighted distance transforms,” in Proceedings SPIE-Geometric Methods in Computer Vision II, San Diego (1996).

[13] Kingman, J. F. C.: Poisson Processes. Clarendon Press (1992)

[14] Kockelkorn, A.: Bürolandschaft – eine vergessene Reformstrategie der deutschen Nachkriegsmoderne. In ARCH+ Zeitschrift für Architektur und Städtebau, Vol. 186/187 (2008).

[15] Macy, M. and Willner, R.: From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. In Annual Review of Sociology, 28, pp. 143-166. (2002)

[16] Neumayr, R. and Budig, M.: Generative Processes – Script Based Design Research in Contemporary Teaching Practice. In Paoletti, I. (Ed.), Innovative Design and Construction Technologies. Milano: Maggioli S.p.A., p. 172. (2009).

[17] O’Sullivan, D. and Perry, G.: Spatial Simulation. Exploring Pattern and Process. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 97-131. (2013).

[18] R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

[19] Reynolds, C.: Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques ACM. 21 (4), pp. 25–34. (1987).

[20] Silverman, B.W.: Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, In: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, London (1986).

[21] Schumacher, P.: Advanced Social Functionality Via Agent-Based Parametric Semiology. In: Schumacher, P. (Ed.), Parametricism 2.0. AD 02/2016. London: Wiley, p. 110 (2016).

Studio instructors: Ali Rahim, Ezio Blasetti, Nate Hume, Robert Neumayr.

Asset Architecture 3
University of Pensylvania School of Design Department of Architecture MSD-AAD
Ali Rahim (ed.)
ISBN 978-1940743738

The image you just clicked on shows the project VERTICAL ABYSS by students Ke Liu, Angeliki Tzifa and Dongliang Li.

The Best Building Money Can Buy – The Future of the Skyscraper Outside its Current Capitalist Logic

“Once you learn to look at architecture not merely as an art more or less well or more or less badly done, but as a social manifestation, the critical eye becomes clairvoyant.” – Louis Sullivan

In 1896 Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan completed what would eventually be their practice’s last mayor built project, the Guaranty Building in downtown Buffalo. At the time of its completion however, the building had already changed its name. Carefully located at the intersection of Church and Pearl Street close to most of the city’s and the county’s official buildings, it was initially supposed to be called The Taylor Building, named after a local businessman by the name of Hascal T. Taylor, who had developed the early skyscraper as a speculative office building in the wake of the construction boom surrounding Buffalo’s quick but temporary rise to importance as its former mayor Grover Cleveland was elected 22^nd president of the United States.

It was only due to the entrepreneur’s untimely death before the structure’s completion that the contracted Guaranty Construction Company decided to continue with the project alone. But also the architectural firm Adler & Sullivan met their fate. Ironically enough, a continuous decline in commissions, resulting from a severe recession, known as the Panic of 1893, that in turn started with the burst of a speculative bubble in Argentina, forced the two architects to dissolve their partnership in 1894.

So, speculation, I would argue, has from the early days on been one of the key drivers for real estate development in general but also for its most prominent protagonist in particular: the urban skyscraper. However, little attention has been given to the question of how the principles of financial speculation have affected its historic and typological development.

In her book Form Follows Finance, Carol Willis for example argues that high-rise buildings, especially in Chicago and New York, have always been speculative developments, and that their form, location, and distribution throughout the city are the result of complex interactions of parameters such as plot sizes, local or regional building patterns, cost effective construction technologies, fluctuating real estate cycles, building codes and zoning laws [1].

Christopher Marcinkoski defines speculative urbanization as “[...] the construction of urban infrastructure or settlement for political or economic purposes, rather than to meet real (as opposed to artificially exaggerated) demographic or market demand.” [2] Giving an overview of notable past and present speculation bubbles, he points out a fundamental change in what drives contemporary urban development. Urbanization is no longer a response to economic growth but is rather deployed as a driver for economic growth, thus becoming a preferred instrument of economic production.

As the amount of capital that is channeled towards real estate increases, the degree to which space functions as an asset has increased radically and the large-scale effects, that high-rise buildings as objects of financial investments have on their immediate built environment become visibly more clearly. It seems that cities nowadays have become complexly multi-layered commercial environments, where space is being privatized in all three dimensions and all property—similar to the stock market—is subject to fluctuating value cycles. Buildings have become assets and air rights have developed into a speculative commodity.

In that sense, for some time now, New York, and more specifically Manhattan with its long history of converting incoming capital to high dense building mass has been on the forefront of this development and therefore seems to be uniquely equipped as a location to examine the phenomena of speculation, asset architecture and its effects.

In direct contradiction to the standard evaluation criteria typically associated with any building in an urban context, the contemporary pencil shaped condominium towers, that sprout all over the city, only operate as financial investment assets. Following the national trend, speculative vacancy in New York has grown rapidly to 12% of the housing market [3] and explains why so many facade windows of upscale Fifth, Madison and Park Avenue apartment buildings remain dark every evening. In 2004 across the United States 23 percent of all the houses acquired were for investment purposes and another 13% were obtained as second homes [4].

As of now, New York is still the third most expensive city for prime real estate in the world. According to Knight Frank Research [5], in December 2016 one million US$ let you buy 26 m2 of prime property. At that time only Monaco and Hong Kong did better. For the amount of one million US$ you could afford 20 m2 of luxurious property, in the exclusive Mediterranean princedom that same amount of money bought you a meagre 17 m2 of first class real estate. But cities in the Western hemisphere appear to be on the decline, and Asia seems to be on the rise. In 2016 luxury residential market performance in New York was at 3.50% and market value is forecast to not increase at all in 2017. In comparison, the four top performing cities in the Prime International Residential Index (PIRI) 2016 were all Asian, Shanghai coming in first, closely followed by Beijing and Guangzhou (all three of them with an increase of prime real estate value of around 27%) and Seoul. And contrary to New York, Shanghai’s top real estate segment is predicted to increase in value by another 8% in 2017 [6].

It was only recently, and after looking back at a considerable record of burst real estate bubbles, that the notion of financial speculation as the main driver for urban tower development has started to rapidly gain influence within the contemporary discourse about high-rise structures within an urban context, considerably shifting the way we look at the history of the skyscraper. More than any other contemporary building typology, the tower has always been widely understood, by the general public as well as within the profession, as a symbol for innovation, modernity, technological advancements, and progress. As a consequence, historically, two narratives dominated the discourse about the development of the skyscraper. The first account is chronological, understanding the tower as a in itself shapeless typology that adapts throughout history to the prevailing styles, ideas and agendas of any given specific time period. The second reading focuses on technological aspects, linking constant advances in building and construction technology as the main drivers behind skyscraper development. However as both of these narratives can only operate post festum, they lack the projective mechanisms that would be needed to allow for productive speculations about this dynamic typology’s future.

But now, as these narratives are being cast aside by an increasing criticism of global capitalism, its relation to speculative capital, global wealth distribution and its impact on our built environment, high-rise buildings are rediscovered as ideological objects to bring back a strong social and political agenda to architecture, tying in with modernism’s long lost social project, where rationalization, new technologies, automated production techniques and innovative materials were supposed to provide affordable high-quality products and solve social problems on a global scale.

So, while the contemporary architectural production, such as Norman Foster’s 700-foot ultra-thin high-tech residential tower on 610 Lexington Avenue, just behind Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building, is still well embedded within the current architectural paradigm and its speculative logic, shifting the architectural discourse back towards a more socially biased agenda has also jump-started academic speculation about the socially responsible future of the skyscraper, following Zaha’s famous dictum that “[w]ithout experimentation not much can be discovered. […] I think there should be no end to experimentation.” [7]. And in its more interesting recent moments, the results of these experimental design approaches manage to be innovative on multiple levels.

“New York Horizon”, the winning entry of the 2016 Evolo Scyscraper Competition [8] for example explores a new high-rise typology by excavating Central Park down to its bedrock, thus creating a seven mile long and 1000 feet tall wall of skyscrapers along its perimeter, with an unobstructed view onto the newly emerging underground landscape.

Referring to one of Central Park’s designers, Frederick L. Olmsted’s initial intention, to provide a central common green space, equally accessible to all citizens, the project clearly sets its social agenda in providing an additional seven square miles of inhabitable indoor space with direct view to the park scenery, a commodity that has become scarce in recent years as new towers around Central Park have continued to rise higher than ever before as have the prizes of property with a direct view to it.

By doing so, at the same time, the project inverts the modernist understanding of the relationship between building and landscape, making the purposefully faceless architecture the mere background for the natural landscape as a centerpiece.

But, just like the “Manhattan Tower”, a twelve kilometer high extrusion of the “site formerly known as Central Park, scraping the Stratosphere” in Jimenez Lai’s dystopian graphic novel Babel [9], the proposal also makes us reconsider our understanding of scale and the reciprocity between volume and void. It reveals the complex interplay between the height limits of large-scale human structures and the immediate, yet not directly graspable dimensions of the geological and geographical structures that surround us and it reminds us of the unearthed potentials of the contemporary urban fabric’s inherently stratified nature and vertical complexity.

This year’s AAD PPD students responded to the design brief In equally innovative ways, speculating about how novel ideas about asset driven architecture could start to shape the program, structure, materiality, form and visual nature of the contemporary city tower.

Responding to the prevailing speculative urban high-rise development, the studio’s thesis is how to design a Manhattan skyscraper that, rather than fighting financial investment logic, subversively operates within the capitalist paradigm in order to come up with building proposals that will not only generate a return on investment that outperforms conventional investment strategies, but that will also at the same time be able to operate as a social, cultural or programmatic condenser within the surrounding city fabric.

Understanding the mechanics of asset architecture as a complex social phenomenon rather than an abstract and detached market mechanism, students are able to conceptualize the given challenge simultaneously on a social, cultural, programmatic and aesthetic level.

A series of seven sites in midtown Manhattan along the south end of Central Park that form part of Billionaires Row, becomes the testing ground for this semester’s speculative design research.

Some teams investigate alternative programs that might lend themselves as possible investments and their potential to be organized in new vertical ways.

Starting from the observation that burial space has become a scarce commodity in New York, leaving only one cemetery still selling space for remains on the crowded island of Manhattan, the project “Death in Manhattan” by students Carrie Frattali, Jeon Bosung, and Zhao Xiaoyu for example investigates a novel type of real estate by turning burial space into a commodity and developing it as a vertical program.

The vertically structured mausoleum can produce a huge variety of burial typologies at varying price levels, depending on prominence, orientation, views or relativity to ceremonial or public spaces. Vertically densely stacked mausoleums, niches, stacks of urns or caskets are contained within the structural elements of the building and connected by a procession of programs. The tower’s novel typology rotates the traditional ceremonial progression into verticality, thus elevating the process of ritual, meditation, and contemplation in a vertical version of the traditional landscaped cemeteries. The towers facade consists of a series of louvers that change direction and depth, highlighting program changes on the interior as well as providing a variety of light quality throughout the tower.

Another important field of research appears to be the investigation into new residential typologies. With new condominium towers going up across the city nowadays in the form of super slim pencil towers, the floor plans of New York’s most expensive apartments have locked into one standardized one storey layouts that wrap around a massive central core, increasingly failing to offer differentiated experiences in a saturated market.

“Vertical Abyss”, a project by students Li Dongliang, Liu Ke, and Angelika Tzifa sets out to redefine the concept of luxury housing by developing an interiority of accentuated verticality, that reflects the soaring upright directionality of the tall building’s overall shape. 136 apartments units are devised with minimized footprints on multiple levels, which are connected internally by a moving platform. They are stacked and arranged following a vertical packing algorithm to interlock around a series of vertical void spaces that act as atria for the respective units.

Other design projects finally call into question the well-established financing models for contemporary asset architecture. “Ten Million New York” by students Chen Xiaonan, Wu Mengyue, and Zhong Jianbao for example suggest a participatory bottom-up real estate crowd funding model in which a multitude of small private investors contribute a modest investment to the overall cost of the skyscraper. In return they do not only receive tradeable shares of the building but also gain the exclusive right to access the tower and its semi-private facilities which are being shared by all the investors. The building’s interiority in turn consists of a vastly different spaces, levels, plateaus, niches, and crevices generating a multiplicity of atmospheres with their respective effective and affective conditions to be temporarily inhabited by its shareholders.

Consequentially the continuously variegated outdoor space that entwines the building, reads as a complex contemporary three-dimensional interpretation of New York’s private green spaces, such as Gramercy Park.

Endnotes:

[1] Carol Willis. Form Follows Finance. Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995)

[2] Christopher Marcinkoski. The City That Never Was. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2015)

[3] Sam Roberts, “Homes Dark and Lifeless, Kept by Out-of-Towners.” The New York Times, 06 July 2011. Online Edition.

[4] “In Come the Waves” Economist, 06 November 2008. http://www.economist.com/node/12501011.

[5] Kate Everett-Allen, “Going up, going down.” The Wealth Report 2017. ed. Andrew Shirley. (London: KnightFrank, 2017).

[6] James Roberts, “Future view.” The Wealth Report 2017. ed. Andrew Shirley. (London: KnightFrank, 2017).

[7] Hans Ulrich Obrist, “Foreword” Zaha Hadid Early Paintings and Drawings. (London: Serpentine Galleries and Koenig Books, 2016)

[8] “New York Horizons” Evolo Skyscraper Competition 2016. http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-horizon/.

[9] Jimenez Lai, “Babel” Citizens of No Place. An Architectural Graphic Novel. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012.

Studio instructors: Ali Rahim, Ferda Kolatan, Nate Hume, Robert Neumayr

Asset Architecture 2
University of Pensylvania School of Design Department of Architecture MSD-AAD
Ali Rahim and Robert Neumayr (eds.)
ISBN 978-1-5323-1714-9

Cover image: The Hive. Yifeng Zhao, Nadeel Ayed Mohammad, Chengda Zhu.

The image you just clicked on shows the project BIOMORPH by students Jayong Shim, Dailong Ma & Tai Feng.

Capitalism as an Urban Catalyst

Current American Architecture is not a matter of art, but of business. A building must pay or there will be no investor ready with the money to meet its cost. This is at once the curse and the glory of American architecture. - Barr Ferree, editor of Engineering Magazine, speaking at the American Institute of Architects in 1893ⁱ

More than any other contemporary building typology, since its beginnings in the late 19^th century the skyscraper has always been widely understood by the public as a symbol for innovation, modernism, technological advancements, and progress. Little attention, however, has been given to the question of how the principles of financial speculation have affected its historic development.

Over the years, the typology of the tower has undergone a series of crucial changes, in its building morphology as well as in the way it engages with the surrounding cityscape. For a long time, towers were essentially block buildings, building volumes extruded along site boundaries, and, due to the need to directly connect rentable spaces to their environment, office spaces were arranged on the perimeter around a central core.

In 1952 SOM’s Lever House introduced a new high-rise typology by combining a slender vertical slab tower with an open ground floor, an open courtyard, green space, pedestrian walkways, and a large 2^nd floor plinth containing auxiliary office spaces. In 1958 Mies van der Rohe set back his Seagram Building from Park Avenue by a large open plaza, thus creating a public urban space in front of the building, which became so popular, that the City of New York revised its zoning laws a few years later, offering incentives for investors who created privately owned public spaces. These two buildings went on to set the architectural style for high-rise buildings in New York for the next decades. Nowadays, pencil towers, extremely lean condominium skyscrapers, that do not contain more than one exclusive unit per floor, have started sprouting up all over Manhattan.

To account for the historic development of the skyscraper, two main narratives predominate the contemporary architectural discourse. The first narrative is a strictly chronological one. Invented in the 19^th century due to the need for urban densification and rendered possible by technological advancements, their continuous changes in form and facade treatment throughout history are mainly attributed to their constant adaption to the prevailing styles and architectural agendas of a specific time period. In that way it is easy to categorize towers according to their age and appearance. Towers are historicist, art deco, modernist, international style, postmodernist, or high-tech architecture.

The second, more modernist reading emphasizes the technological aspects, identifying advances in building and construction technology as the most important drivers behind skyscraper development and their typological changes.

While it is certainly true that no high-rise building could have ever been developed without the invention of crucial technologies, such as elevators, air conditioning systems or advanced materials, and that the forms and surface ornamentations of high-rise buildings, not unlike any other building, are subjected to the constant change of architectural styles, none of these narratives can really account for their typological development, let alone for the recent propagation of super thin residential pencil tower developments all over Manhattan. Contrary to standard historic narratives that normally focus on design philosophies, architectural ideologies, styles or technological progress, it might therefore be more interesting to look into the principles of financial speculation to understand the recent development of skyscrapers.

Large urban structures in general, and the buildings that are a part thereof, should be perceived to have an intrinsic networked nature, as they are organized primarily around currents and lines of exchange where people, services, ideas, and goods are collected, organised and redistributed in a multitude of directions (a good account of these phenomena are for example given by Manuel de Landa in his book A Thousand Years of Non Linear Historyⁱⁱ). It seems that cities nowadays have become complexly interwoven commercial environments, where space is being privatized and land property—similar to the stock market—is subject to fluctuating value cycles. Buildings become assets and air rights have developed into a speculative commodity.

In her book Form Follows Finance, Carol Willis argues that high-rise buildings have always been highly speculative developments, and that their form, location, and distribution throughout the city are the result of complex interactions of parameters such as plot sizes, local or regional building patterns, cost effective construction technologies, fluctuating real estate cycles, building codes and zoning lawsⁱⁱⁱ.

Today, there is more capital than there has ever been in the world. Worldwide financial capital has more than doubled from 2001 to 2011 from $37 trillion to $80 trillion^iv. While monetary capital has always played a significant role in determining the built environment, recent shifts in the character of global finance have resulted in a new relationship between investment practices and buildings. As the capital has grown, investors have circumvented traditional stable assets, such as treasuries and municipal bonds, for real estate, which directly affects architecture and urbanism. As the amount of capital that is channeled towards real estate increases, the degree to which space functions as an asset has increased radically.

In this respect Ultra High Net Worth Individuals find unique opportunities in the United States and especially in New York. Whereas, according to the Prime International Residential Index (PIRI), the value of high-end residential property in the whole world increased on average by just around 2% in 2014, luxury residential prices across the US rose by almost 13%. In New York itself prices skyrocketed by a breathtaking 18.8%. This increase starkly contrasts with other world regions, such as Europe with an average increase of only 2.5%^v.

New York City has a total of 845,000 houses and apartments and 102,000 units (or 12 per cent of its housing market) are vacant^vi. This number is predicted to grow further if the growth of capital keeps increasing at the same rate. The people who own these condominiums are usually foreigners , spending only 2% of their time in New York. This number has grown rapidly and explains why so many windows dotting the imposing facades of Fifth, Madison and Park Avenue apartment buildings are pitch dark every evening. These buildings are often referred to as zombies, as they are buildings without life.

Especially in the history of the development of Manhattan, within its gridded logic of property development, architecture has always been the expression of capital due to its increase of land value by densification of building mass. Thus, architecture can be read as the outcome of vertical expressions based on its relationship to its land. Manhattan therefore is uniquely equipped as a site to speculate on asset architecture and develop innovative architecture and urban proposals that are unprecedented in the ways they link to global capital. Nowadays increments of architecture (units, buildings, parcels of land, etc.) increasingly operate primarily as financial investment assets, which is in direct contradiction to the performance criteria typically associated with any building in an urban context. Architects and architecture have not responded to this issue in any way.

Under the current logic of speculative high-rise development, the question then becomes how to conceptualize a Manhattan skyscraper that, as a speculative object to draw investors, outperforms standard high-end residential pencil towers while giving something back to the surrounding city and thus acting as a social or cultural catalyst within its urban context. The thesis taken within the studio is that the architecture of New York City is able to increase its value as a commodity by fusing urban elements into a new form of architectural interiority to the mutual benefit of both. The building and the city, thus avoid the detrimental impact of zombie architecture on Manhattan’s urban structure. The site on 432 Park Avenue, currently the location of New York’s most famous pencil tower, becomes the testing ground for this speculative endeavor.

Student teams in this year’s studio responded in different, innovative ways to that challenge. On the one end of a wide spectrum of different design proposals, students took on Manhattan’s tradition of infrastructural buildings, such as Carl Warnecke’s 1974 AT&T Long Lines Building, in order to speculate on the provision of imminent and future public services and how these could start to shape the program, structure, materiality, and visual nature of the city tower.

On the other end of the spectrum, students explored the role that refined aesthetics and restlessly technique-driven formal differentiations within the framework of a consistent part-to-whole relationship can play as an urban catalyst.

Some teams investigated how contemporary, highly profitable services and provisions for the public could be structured, expanded, combined, and reorganized three-dimensionally to, at the same time, create a strong asset argument and investigate the formal, spatial, and aesthetic consequences of these typological changes.

Others read the contemporary tower as a green tower with its own complex ecological system, that not only provides public recreational green spaces, such as a vertical spiraling version of the Highline or elevated parks and green facades, but would also dramatically improve the local climatic conditions in the city and create new and interesting micro-ecologies within Manhattan’s dense urban fabric.

Looking at the wide range of programmatic solutions and their spatial, formal, and aesthetic implications, another important issue arises: the question of architectural style. Since the studio’s agenda was to push New York’s recent pencil tower typology beyond its current boundaries, it has also developed its own distinctive and novel aesthetic, driven by techniques and processes.

High-rise building typologies have developed considerably since William Le Baron Jenney’s Home Insurance Building in Chicago, and so have their compositional principles, facades, and ornamentations. In today’s architecture production we can identify various design strategies operating well within the modernist paradigm, yet still ambitiously contrasting the predominantly featureless and sleek modernist facades of most of New York’s international style skyscrapers.

On one end of the spectrum, Norman Foster’s 700-foot ultra-thin condominium tower on 610 Lexington Avenue, just behind Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building, for example, appears to be another attempt to push high-tech architecture well beyond its reasonable limits. On its other end, for his 41 West 57^th Street pencil tower, Mark Foster Gage reverts to a building design that seems to be a contemporary version of last century’s Art Deco style, replacing gargoyles with articulate figurative balconies to provide the building’s wealthy residents with individual computer-controlled outdoor environments.

But how can the advanced formal vocabularies of this studio be located within contemporary architectural discourse? The work is seemingly positioned at a point of intersection between the two major antitheses in today’s architectural discourse: a recently materialized persuasive digital sensibility—which it is definitely part of—and an explicitly socially oriented and environmentally conscious architectural agenda, which it follows by addressing the issue of New York’s Zombie towers.

Design research in the wake of new digital design and production strategies, with their clear predilection for soft, undulating, and malleable architectural forms, has opened up new perspectives for both the spatialization of complexly interwoven with social and environmental specifications and its articulation in the form of a new structural ornamentation.

However, while the use of the ornament has become more widespread recently, there still seems to be a lack of rigor in intellectually pursuing its underlying concepts, and, as Marjan Coletti puts it – “… a generative logic and morphological syntax is nowadays being embraced by parametric and scripted generative techniques to produce myriads of complex, patternised, ornamental topologies, although the endeavor…usually drifts towards the generic and the dogmatic, and away from the phenomenological and the experimental.” ^vii.

Coletti identifies two different conceptual strands within the pursuit of digital ornamentation, “one [propelling] towards ‘pure form’ through abstraction, [one] towards the purely figural through sensation.” (Coletti, ibid.). Both distinguish the results of contemporary digital form finding processes from representational digital visualizations in the same way a modern painting “[escapes] from the figurative in art.” (Coletti, ibid.). Both of them pursue the rationalization of the contemporary ornament as a systematic, abstract, and theoretical endeavor, that, though intellectually driven, first and foremost speaks to the sensorial and atmospheric qualities of a spatial configuration.

The technique-driven, methodical development of these deep surface systems aims towards the generation of tightly controlled complex geometries, which are highly adaptive and open for multiple connectivity. Variation and continuous differentiation of initially simple elements reflect the mutually influential forces within a system’s different layers in order to eventually articulate a complex architectural system that ties together a spatial organisation, its complex program, its environment, its inhabitants, and their constantly changing patterns of use.

This implies a controlled and simultaneous development of function, form, structure, and material, and also requires attention to the associative qualities of all single constituents, their semiological properties, and to their part-to-whole relationship.

The act of design is no longer framed by “a singular aesthetic end, but by the multiple constraints and ambitions of each project, as negotiated by the architect.”^viii. The result displays a contemporary elegance that is supported by articulated complexity rather than by minimalism or simplicity.

Successful complex building structures are able to develop a descriptive architectural language that visually reduces the underlying complexity and helps to order, frame, and organize the varying patterns of use. “An elegant building or urban design should [...] be able to manage considerable complexity without descending into disorder.”^ix.

On the other hand, the recent general shift of contemporary architectural practice towards a more political, social, economic, or environmental agenda has not yet resulted in the development of a novel formal language that is able to coherently reflect its ideas and ambitions. Discarding what Peter Sloterdijk calls “Euro-American technical titanism” we see architects all over the world reverting to a material practice that favors the vernacular, makeshift solutions, and thriftiness. But is this really what we want our future built environment to look like? Is this kind of prospective nostalgia capable of generating the forms, materials, and spatial organizations that we will need to frame our social interactions in the 21^st century?

At its best, architecture is the result of a simultaneous advancement of agenda, program, typology, tools, and innovative digital techniques, that need to be developed in parallel within a very specific contextual framework, and thus result in the emergence of unprecedented formal, aesthetic, and spatial solutions. It provides clues and anticipations about what lies behind its currently visible layers and the type of communication and interaction it houses. And it has the potential to generate nuanced architectonic articulations within its multi-layered building configuration that reflect the different patterns and intensities of its interaction with its urban environment.

In this sense, the student work in this book – speculative and radical as it may be – opens up new ways of synchronizing novel program ideas with advanced formal design and construction sensibilities, calibrating a high-rise building’s geometric ecology with the affective and effective qualities that connect it with its urban environment.

Endnotes:

 i Barr, Ferree. Economic Conditions of Architecture in America. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects. Inland Architect, Chicago: 1893; 231

Symbiotic Strategies

Abstract

The concept of symbiosis, particularly parasitism, has been used quite extensively in 20^th century architecture, but mainly on an allegorical or symbolic level. This simplistic approach, however, fails to explore the intricate and multifaceted nature of various symbiotic strategies that one can find in other fields of research, such as biology, from which different symbiotic strategy within the fields of architecture and urbanism can be developed.

This paper investigates into the various forms of symbiosis, that can be found in different natural environments and speculates on how these can be adapted and operationalized as meaningful architectural and urban placement- and co-habitation strategies.

The goal is to computationally derive novel urban occupational models that operate within existing city conditions and that densify, synthesize and complement the urban fabric. Areas of interest encompass distributional logics, structural optimization, deduction of circulation patterns, programmatic distribution etc.

Suitable sites in Vienna serve as hosts for the proposed agents, whether it is an open field condition, voids in between buildings or buildings themselves, always depending on the symbiotic model chosen. Using Rhino’s Grasshopper’s genetic algorithm engine, computational models are derived from architecturally meaningful analogies to biological symbiotic models in order to develop performatively sensible, yet typologically surprising results through the rigorous application of this method. (Proto)architectural symbiotic agents are developed to swarm and infiltrate the existing cityscape (field of existing hosts). In the process of ongoing symbiosis, the symbiotic agents as well as the hosts evolve and undergo considerable changes, resulting in a changing morphogenetic cityscape.

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope of Research

The concept of symbiosis, and for that particularly parasitism, has been used quite extensively in 20^th century architecture, but mainly on allegorical or symbolic levels, essentially interpreting the relationship of buildings that sit on top of or next to other, older buildings, complimenting or contrasting them in style or material.

This rather simplistic approach, however, fails to explore the intricate and multifaceted nature of various symbiotic strategies that one can find in other fields of research, such as biology.

In contrast, this paper investigates into the various forms of symbiosis, that can be found in different natural environments, on different scales and sizes, and researches how these can be adapted and operationalized as meaningful architectural and urban placement and co-habitation strategies, with the aim to computationally derive novel urban occupational models that operate within existing city conditions in order to densify, synthesize and complement the urban fabric.

It is the working hypothesis of this line of research, that performatively sensible, yet typologically surprising results can be derived by discovering, abstracting and rigorously systematizing biological symbiotic models that show the potential for meaningful architectural or urban application within their own logic and subsequently – after having developed a precise computational growth model – by transferring and applying these abstracted models within the domain of architecture and urbanism.

1.2 Academic Research Environment

The design research documented in this paper was done within the academic environment of the Institute of Architecture at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna by students and staff of editingEIGHT – experimentarium, a design studio run by Jens Mehlan and Robert R. Neumayr, teaching advanced experimental digital design strategies. The two design projects discussed in this paper are the work of groups of students.

2. Background

This research is conducted particularly in light of the recent crucial shift within the architectural paradigm, affecting both – architectural and urban design strategies and architectural theory and education alike. The growing inability of modernism to address or let alone resolve contemporary society’s increasingly complex problems has forced architects, urbanists, theoreticians and scholars to look for radically different approaches.

This lead on the one hand to the re-evaluation of supposedly still hidden potentials of the modernist project within its own logics, a tendency, that Svetlana Boym coined “off modern”, as “[...] it makes us explore slideshadows and backalleys rather than the straight road of progress.” [1].

On the other hand, however, the then recent renunciation of linear and binary systems of perception, which for a long time had been dominating our world view, has opened up totally new areas of scientific research, changing the conception of architecture considerably and propelling the profession into a completely new paradigm. Rather than as a series of independent, absolute objects, architects have come to understand the built environment as a continuous field of interconnected elements, as one spatial organization that is able to negotiate and interpolate between those elements, which are subjected to the changing forces and currents that guide their use. As Stan Allen remarks, “Field conditions move from the one toward the many, from individuals to collectives, from objects to fields.” [2].

Within the paradigm of Parametric Design, the built environment, as we perceive it, can be read as the constructed result of a number of different layers of internal or external forces and parameters, which constantly interact and negotiate with each other in order to form the urban and architectural framework we live in. These layers can be straight forwardly architectural (e.g. functional, programmatic or typological), contextual (e.g. topographical, geographical, or orientation) or more abstract, even pertaining to different systems (e.g. political, economic, or societal). In order to be able to integrate these influences into one coherent digital design process, the aim of contemporary digital design strategies is it, to develop a dynamic, complex, and multi-layered parametric model that as accurately as possible reflects its layers’ intricate connections and relations to produce a set of malleable interconnected geometries, that consequently can be iteratively tested and refined to at some point become architectural and urban organisations.

The strength of this parametric approach lies in its understanding of architecture as a system of correlations and differentiations seeking adequate and complex articulation. As Patrik Schumacher puts it: “Just like natural systems, parametricist compositions are so highly integrated that they cannot be easily decomposed into independent subsystems – a major point of difference in comparison with the modern design paradigm of clear separation of functional subsystems.” [3].

This normally also includes the shift away from traditional platonic shapes, orders and techniques, towards a higher formal complexity, as advanced, spline-driven geometries in general have proven more adaptive to systematic adaptation.

3. Symbiotic Strategies

 3.1 Nature’s Complexity

Architectural organisations in general and urban structures in particular have frequently been described to have an intrinsic complex nature. Manuel de Landa describes them as being organized primarily around currents and lines of exchange where people, services, ideas and goods are collected, organised and redistributed in a multitude of different ways [4]. These dynamics can be analysed and described using models from various other scientific disciplines, such as mathematics, physics or biology. All these systems are to a certain extend characterized by the following properties:

Complexity: the system builds up complexity out of a series of single components. However, their interaction according to a set of simple rules and their initial condition give rise to a high level of complexity.

Emergence: the emergent properties of a system are generated by the recurring iteration and superimposition of interactions of its single components, which add up to the complex state of that system. Consequently, the result of such a non-linear process can – due to its complexity – not be predicted. This is also known as a “bottom-up” process, as opposed to a “top-down” process, in which the overall form is determined first.

Gradient transitions: a field is seen as one continuous organisational unit, which organises and modulates a series of entities, that are subjected to the same set of internal and external rules. As the parameters that drive these sets of rules vary gradually across the field, no binary conditions occur, rather gradient transitions from one state to another.

Coherence: due to their strictly rule-based generative process, resulting field conditions show a high level of coherence, not primarily (or only) in aesthetic terms, but rather in the sense that consistent conceptual and abstract logics necessarily become embedded into the system. A formal or visual coherence needs then to be understood as the result of such a process.

Modulated field conditions: a system is able to create a modulated field of different yet gradually changing densities and/or other properties that are held in a dynamic equilibrium. Emerging and receding patterns (of geometry) resulting from this system are always understood as modulations of an in itself continuous system of changing dependencies, where each modulation becomes an environmental condition (i.e. an agent of change) to their adjacent entities.

All these processes primarily and foremost show an individual capacity to give rise to emergent solutions for specific problems within their own scientific domain, but potentially also in respect to their potential to successfully operate within an architectural or urbanist context.

3.2 Symbiosis in Nature

Within this thread of research the focus lies on the field of biology, in particular on the phenomenon of symbiosis. Various forms of symbiosis can be found in different natural environments, in different scales and sizes. In biology, symbiotic strategies can be differentiated and developed according to different types and parameters [5]. The types of classification are already selected with regards to possible potentials for architectural or urban applications. For the purpose of this exercise a rather general classification as a starting point for further non-biological investigations is more than sufficient:

Differentiation according to physical interaction:

Exosymbiosis: a symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host (including the inner surfaces).

Endosymbiosis: a symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other.

Differentiation according to type of (biological) interaction:

Mutualism:a symbiotic relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit.

Comensalism:a symbiotic relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped.

Parasitism: a symbiotic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.

Amensalism: a symbiotic relationship that exists where one species is inhibited or completely obliterated and one is unaffected.

Synnecrosis: a rare type of symbiosis in which the interaction between species is detrimental to both organisms involved.

Differentiation according to degree of dependency (and duration):

Protocooperation: a (temporary) symbiotic relationship, where two species cooperate with each other with mutual benefit, but without the need to do so.

Obligate Symbiosis: a symbiotic relationship that is vital to at least one of the participants.

3.3 Symbiotic Strategies

These various forms of symbiosis, that can be found within the field of biology, are studied, investigated and exemplified in their natural environments, in order speculate on how these can be adapted and operationalized as meaningful architectural and urban placement and co-habitation strategies. These relationships can be of different nature: conceptual, spatial, typological, programmatic, infrastructural or energy based, but also constructive or structural. They form the starting point of each of the students’ design research projects.

However, as these generic processes in themselves have arguably no capacities to solve problems outside their own domain of biology, they need to be appropriated, enhanced and transferred into the field of architecture and urbanism.

To this end the properties and potentials of a symbiotic process are at first analysed, abstracted and catalogued in order to be able to speculate about their potential to solve architectural and urbanistic problems. In a next step students try to understand and describe the process in a mathematical way, allowing them to simulate and reproduce its results in a scripted or parametric process they set up.

When transferring the process to architecture, students develop an architectural model, indicating which contextual internal and external requirements will then determine the values of the parameters that drive the emergence of these configurations. Results can then be evaluated and optimized in terms of their architectural qualities.

3.4 Microclimatic Growth Patterns

To develop valid growth strategies, that follow computable distribution logics, natural growth patterns of plants, spores, fungi, bacteria, lichens and similar biological systems are analyzed and systematized in respect to their internal logics and external microclimatic conditions. The conditions in question can be of different nature, for example climate, temperature, orientation, etc., but also distribution and/or quality and quantity of existing host elements. These logics are to be adapted for architectural and urban development strategies, focusing on the question, what would constitute favourable microclimatic conditions for distribution and proliferation of the abstracted symbiotic agent in a specific architectural or urban context?

3.5 Morphogenetic City Scapes

Based on the specific type and nature of symbiosis and the individual growth and proliferation patterns chosen by each team of students earlier on, (proto)architectural symbiotic agents and elements are developed that are able to cluster and swarm to build up field-like formations that start infiltrating the existing cityscape (field of existing hosts) or existing building structures. In the process of ongoing symbiosis, the symbiotic agents as well as the hosts might evolve and undergo considerable changes, resulting in a changing morphogenetic cityscape within the logic of diverse local microclimatic urban conditions.

3.6 Methodology

It is the goal of this design research to computationally derive novel occupational models. Apart from the interpretation and development of a specific symbiotic model as described above, a suitable site in Vienna is chosen by each group. Whether that is an open field condition, an existing brown-field, a series voids or spaces in between existing buildings or the buildings themselves largely depends on the symbiotic model chosen. In any case the existing city (or specific parts thereof) will serve as hosts for the proposed symbiotic agents.

After having discovered an architecturally meaningful analogy to the symbiotic model of their choosing, students derive a computational model of the discovered processes. For this step they are required to use Rhino’s Grasshopper’s genetic algorithm engine (i.e. Karamba! or Galapagos).

It is the working hypothesis of this research, that performatively sensible, yet typologically surprising results can be derived through the rigorous application of this method. Areas of interest may encompass distributional logics (based on solar exposure, orientation or other internal or external qualities that can be found throughout a city fabric), structural optimization (by co-relating individual units in favour of volumetric zoning etc.), deduction of circulation patterns, programmatic distribution, etc.

3.7 Structure

The design research is divided into three consecutive phases:

Abstraction:

In a first step a symbiotic process is discovered, that, once translated into architecture, still maintains its performative intelligence. As this is research in architecture, not in biology, an architectural or urban relationship between different parts that exhibit symbiotic properties needs to be extracted. At least two key parameters are identified, that subsequently must be broken down into abstract input in order to be effectively operationalized within the algorithm. Some parameters may prove to be too difficult to implement later on, therefore, it is strongly recommended to rule out those parameters that may well be of interest but will not serve the purpose of this design research exercise.

Application

In this phase the focus lies on establishing a sophisticated computational setup, finalizing the input parameters and clarifying how they can be fed into a genetic algorithm, be it Karamba or Galapagos. The aim is to find an effective way of assessing the exploratory design’s performance in order to evaluate how well it depicts the discovered benefits of the underlying symbiotic model. Adjusting the input parameters and/or starting hypothesis may well be necessary during this stage.

Rationalization

The third phase is dedicated to rationalizing the geometric output towards a credible architectural solution. The resulting geometry is not be considered as a finished architectural piece, but rather as a spatial setup of proto-architectural elements, that are assessed in terms of their performative and transformative capacities rather than in respect to their formal qualities.

4. Projects

4.1 “Siedlung Symbiosis”. Students: A. Fung, S. Ritzer and A. Staskevits

This research investigates the Banyan Tree as a parasitic symbiotic model. The tree’s seeds are dispersed by birds and germinate in the cracks and crevices of a host tree. The Banyan tree starts to grow from the top of the host tree and develops roots as it reaches the ground, finally becoming self sufficient and killing the host tree in this process (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Stages of growth of the Banyan tree

Consequently this work speculates about the spatial, infrastructural and structural implications such a symbiotic strategy can have, when applied to an existing building structure. An existing large-scale social housing block is selected as a testing ground for implementation.

In a first step additional program is distributed within different areas of the existing structure. Then Karamba! is used to simulate the areas of force flows resulting from these additional loads, subsequently culling out the unaffected parts of the structure (fig. 2).

Figure 2. Structural analysis

Superfluous structural elements are eliminated and replaced with three-dimensional continuous parasitic elements, that can serve as structure, circulation and “opportunity spaces” for the residents at the same time. Their growth is defined within void regions dictated by program addition and structural reduction. Load regions and support regions are defined within the host for the support of added program (fig. 3).

Figure 3. Algorithmic development of the parasitic structure

In a next step, following the extracted lines of force flow, a topologically optimized structure is iteratively developed through the use of finite element analysis. Branching from the primary force flow, the symbiotic structure is latched onto the periphery of the void regions, thus establishing a polyvalent connection to the existing building, forming structure, new enclosing surfaces and connection between the new programs, the void ‘oportunity spaces’, and the existing structural grid of the housing block (fig.4, fig. 5).

Figure 4. Topological optimization

Figure 5. Proto-architectural articulation

4.2 “Mycoheterotropism”. Students: M. Giradi, R. Karaivanov and M. Piaseczynska,

Sarcodes is a single springtime flowering plant commonly called the snow plant or snow flower. It is a parasitic plant that derives sustenance and nutrients from fungi that in turn attach to roots of trees. Lacking chlorophyll it is unable to photosynthesize. The snow plant takes advantage of the in itself parasitic relationship between the fungi and the tree by tapping into its network.

The research interest here lies in the phenomenon of a multi-leveled parasitic relationship and its possible implications for innovative urban strategies. The hierarchical parasitic organisation between a host (tree roots), a primary parasite (fungi) and a secondary parasite (flower) serves as the starting point to speculate about the relationship of three interdependent and interconnected urban layers, namely the urban mass, the urban void (understood here as an active agent rather than a passive space) and urban program.

The dense structure of the Viennese urban block becomes a field of experimentation where varying, quasi “micro-climatic” external parameters, such as location within the city fabric, connectivity, orientation, sun exposure and shading, accessibility, privacy and spatial qualities are played against internal parameters, such as increase of population density, transportation needs, and vertical growth strategies, in an iterative optimization process.

In the beginning existing points of transportation become nodes that start to describe the outline of a networked urban void that then in turn is populated with auxiliary programmatic functions (fig. 6).

Figure 6. Basic algorithmic setup

Within the given internal and external parameters the existing urban fabric is subsequently and iteratively altered in a digital optimization process, integrating newly introduced urban elements and resulting a considerably changed volumetric cityscape (fig. 7 and fig. 8).

Figure 7. Iterative optimization process

Figure 8. Computational result compared to initial urban fabric

In this process the current homogeneous urban massing is transformed in order to create an irreducible, smooth and continuous field, that provides higher density and interesting spatial relations between the different interwoven urban layers. The exisiting division between the different separate urban blocks gives way to a continuous mutli-layered urban fabric, that reacts to its environmental conditions (fig. 9 and fig. 10).

Figure 9. Diagram of the resulting interwoven urban layers

Figure 10. Visualization of Result

5. Conclusions

The systematic investigation of the multi-faceted and divers symbiotic relationships that exist in biology, beyond their merely allegorical use, in order to be abstracted, adapted and operationalized as meaningful architectural and urban placement- and co-habitation strategies, produces performatively sensible, and typologically surprising, yet highly experimental architectural and urban results.

Making use of contemporary digital design strategies, such as algorithmic engines, computational models can be developed and tested that operate on different scales, ranging from building scale to urban scale.

Logics derived from biological symbiotic strategies can be transferred into the domain of architecture and urbanism and give rise to solution for a multitude of different fields of interest, such as structural optimization, dynamic spatial configuration or urban distribution logics.

Acknowledgements

This paper documents one semester of design research conducted in editingEIGHT – experimentarium, a design studio run by Jens Mehlan and Robert R. Neumayr, that teaches advanced experimental digital design strategies within the academic environment of the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. All design projects discussed in this paper are the work of groups of students, who successfully completed this course. Project credits therefore also go to A. Fung, S. Ritzer and A. Staskevits, and to M. Giradi, R. Karaivanov and M. Piaseczynska.

6. References

1. Boym Svetlana. The Future of Nostalgia. First Trade Paper Edition. New York: Basic Books , 2001.

2. Allen Stan. Points + Lines. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

3. Schumacher Patrik. Parametricism as a Style – Parametricist Manifesto. 2008. Published on: http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/. Last visited 09.13.2015.

4. de Landa Manuel. A Thousand Years of Non Linear History. New York: Zone Books, 1997.

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Abstract

In a complexly networked society the architect’s core competency is the task of articulation in order to establish the built environment as a communicative frame for its users (Schumacher [9]). A such purposefully designed environment is more legible and navigable than the modernist order of repetition, thus offering a suitable framework for contemporary societal patterns of use.

The adaptation of load bearing structures following different load cases in conjunction with their differentiation according to semiological aspects afford many opportunities for differential tectonic formations, exploiting structural necessities as an instrument of semiotic articulation. Numerous examples of this phenomena can be found in pre-modernist architectural history, from simple structural ornaments and subtle surface articulations to intricately devised surface structures.

Embedded in the studio’s continuous agenda of Parametric Design Research, the project “Parametric Semiology” investigates the semiological capacity of parametrically generated architectural forms and calls for the development of radically innovative and speculative spatial models for the sport venues and their related auxiliary programmes for Rio de Janeiro’s 2016 olympic park.

Buildings are understood as highly integrated complex systems, that are inter-articulated and correlated in order to fulfil urban, architectural, structural, functional, spatial, semiotic and atmospheric criteria.

Using this setup as a testing ground, performance and semiotic aspects become the driving layers of a parametric model in order to test valid tectonic articulations for their semiological potentials. To fully exploit the concept of tectonic articulation the studio closely collaborates with structural engineers, evaluating and orchestrating suitable options. This leads to the development of a series of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be organized and differentiated within their own structural logics as well as according to urban and architectural semiological criteria.

Results of this design research and their underlying theories, concepts, logics and strategies are presented and discussed in this paper.

Keywords: design research, parametric design, semiology, semiotics, shell structures, tectonic articulation.

Introduction

Contemporary post-fordist network society is characterized by an unprecedented level of complexity and intensity of communication. Within the context of an ongoing urbanisation process, the ability to navigate dense and complex urban environments is an important aspect of overall societal productivity today. This is facilitated best, if the visual field presents a rich, ordered scene of manifold offerings and also provides clues and anticipations about what lies behind the currently visible layers. The speed and confidence with which one can make new experiences and meaningful connections is decisive. The design of environments that facilitate such hyper-connectivity must be very dense and complex and yet highly ordered and legible. This sets the task set for the semiological project under conditions of variety, density and complexity. (see Schumacher [11])

The core competency of architecture therefore is the task of articulation. Consequently, “The relationship between the technical and the articulatory dimensions leads to the concept of tectonics.” (Schumacher [9]), meaning that technical forms, that are based on engineers’ calculations, are absorbed and further articulated by architects, aiming for increased architectural legibility within the built environment’s framework of social interaction.

At the same time, the development of sophisticated computational design tools – both within architecture and within the engineering disciplines – has opened up the field for nuanced architectonic articulation and multi-layered building configurations. Also, simpler interfaces, common programme platforms and scripting languages make parametric design and engineering technologies alike more tangible for architects, facilitating information interchange and fostering a close collaboration between different disciplines that would have been impossible a few years ago. As a consequence, it has become impossible to conceive architectural design separated from its related disciplines, such as energy design, material science, construction technologies, production techniques, and structural engineering.

In this sense, lately buildings have come to be understood as highly integrated complex systems, sub-systems and components, that are inter-articulated and correlated, complementing each other in order to fulfil architectural, structural, functional, spatial, semiotic and atmospheric criteria. Our built environment is a series of complexly interwoven layers, where a building’s structure is only of them. Functions and programmes can also be integrated by systematic differentiation of one pivotal system, which makes one system work on multiple functional layers, i.e. one series of building components might have structural and atmospheric – or semiotic – properties at the same time.

Within this development, the consequent and strategic adaptation of load bearing structures following different load cases in conjunction with their differentiation according to semiological aspects afford many opportunities for differential tectonic formations, exploiting structural necessities as an instrument of semiotic articulation.

The Structural Ornament

Numerous examples of this phenomena can be found in pre-modernist architectural history, from simple structural ornaments to subtle and intricately devised surface articulations, as structural issues have always had profound impact on a building, not only in terms of its actual form, but also in terms of its ordering elements and surface articulations. Initially facades were ordered and subdivided (and eventually signified) by structural necessities (such as pillars, columns, plinths, beams, or round, pointed or triangular arches) or material formations and patterns (such as stone or ashlar masonry). As a consequence resulting facade articulations were essentially structural.

However, over time most of these elements of ornamentation became part of an historically evolving semiotic system that allowed for an intuitive understanding of the building’s societal functions, its horizontal stratification and the processes and interactions that could take place in them. They were subject to a process of abstraction detaching them from their initial significance and thus becoming mere surface decoration.

This can be exemplified by looking at the ordering principles that were developed for the facades of the typologies of the Italian Renaissance Palazzi. Antique elements were re-contextualized and arranged according to a strict set of abstract rules in order to create a complex system of interwoven semiological elements that enabled contemporaries to unreflectingly understand the buidling’s use and program distribution.

The ground floor’s channeled rustication, for example, alludes to ancient buildings’ massive foundations and suggest a commercial use, the choice of order of columns and the height of each of the subsequent floors hint at the different social strata occupying the respective floors.

Figure 1: Palazzo Rucellai (Source: Wilhelm Lübke, Max Semrau: Grundriß der Kunstgeschichte. Paul Neff Verlag, Esslingen, 14. Auflage 1908)

Alberti’s Palazzo Rucellai was one of the first and most important palazzo types, and the ornamental organization of the Italian palazzi in general remained the dominating model for the composition of all types of representative building typologies throughout the centuries until modernism prepared itself to supersede historicism as the predominant architectural ideology, invalidating its semiological and representational concept of ornament and decoration.

As historicism could no longer find adequate answers to the societal problems of that time, within the wake of the modernist project new and different theories emerged, addressing the very same issue but suggesting totally different solutions. This era of contending ideas might be illustrated best by the famous dispute between Josef Hoffmann and Adolf Loos about the function of the ornament.

Matthias Boeckl points out that during this process “[the] erstwhile comprehensive job description holding the architect to be responsible for the concept, structural design, and form of a building disintegrated into its component parts in the process of moderinsation, which could also be construed to be a process of specialisation; Loos claimed the basic cultural idea, Hoffmann the form – but who was concerned with structural design?” (Boeckl [1]).

Beyond Modernism …

It was precisely this deconstruction of the architectural ideal into its constituent parts on the one hand, and the modernists call for establishing close conceptual connections between architecture and industrially assembled products, like ships, aircrafts or automobiles on the other hand, that gave way to an engineers’ approach to the relationship between form, force and material. First dominated by aesthetic perception (in Le Corbusier’s programmatic book ‘Towards A New Architecture’, a whole chapter ‘Eyes Which Do Not See’ (LC [3]) is dedicated to the description of the aesthetic qualities intrinsic to industrialized products), as industrial objects seemed to be able to transfer a new, much desired machine-like aesthetics to architecture, the adoption of industrial production techniques was soon to give way to a whole range of new powerful materials and technologies that would introduce “more technical beauty” (LC, ibid.) into architecture.

The beginning of the 20^th century also saw the rise of reinforced concrete as one of the most influentual building materials. Initially imitating the structural logic and appearance of the iron- or steel framed buildings of that time, engineers soon started to see the enormous morphological potential of the new material, as new elegant double-curved shell structures, started to emerge. Remo Pedreschi describes this period as being marked by the designers’ ambitions to “[incorporate] a strong desire for structural expression and structural efficiency – to make virtue out of economy. Thus they drew together form, force and architecture.” (Pedreschi [4]).

In relation to the idea of structural semiotics, this early 20^th century development however has some other interesting aspects: These structures were carefully derived from constructed physical models or based on newly developed mathematical concepts (previously structures were designed in empirical ways, mainly relying on tradition, experience and observation) that helped to explain and understand the flow of forces. That lead to an economy of means where structures were optimized according to structural necessities, allowing for an intuitive understanding of the flow of forces through the building. Shell structures allowed the user for the very first time to establish a perceptual relationship between the inside space of a building and its exterior space, as the inner space and the outer form are close to identical. The form could be understood from the inside and the outside alike.

Felix Candela, Heinz Isler, and Eladio Dieste are among the protagonists of this era, as well as Pier Luigi Nervi, whose repetitive, partly precast, yet elegant and delicate rib constructions can be read as first predecessors of today’s differentiated surface articulations.

… and Elegance.

Design research in the wake of new digital design and production strategies with their clear predilection for soft, undulating and malleable architectural forms, has only recently opened up new perspectives for both, the appreciation for shell structures and their potential for optimization and the concept of the ornamental, eventually starting to bring these two strands of research closer together.

Easily accessible software interfaces and ready-to-run scripts as well as the proliferation of advanced fabrication technologies have lead to the widespread generation of sophisticated and differentiated fields of ornamental surface articulations, that due to the increasingly seamless integration of design and production techniques finally start to blur the now long held separation between tectonics and ornamentation. However, while the use of the ornament has become more widespread, there still seems to be a lack of rigor in intellectually pursuing its underlying concepts, or – as Marjan Coletti puts it – based on historic non-figurative ornamentation “[...] a similar generative logic and morphological syntax is nowadays being embraced by parametric and scripted generative techniques to produce myriads of complex, patternised, ornamental topologies, although the endeavour […] usually drifts towards the generic and the dogmatic, and away from the phenomenological and the experimental.” (Coletti [2]).

Almost as if alluding to the inadvertent compartmentalization of the historicist idea of architecture as an all-encompassing effort by Loos and Hoffmann, Coletti identifies two different conceptual strands within the pursuit of the synthesis of digital ornamentation and tectonics, “one [propelling] towards ‘pure form’ through abstraction, [one] towards the purely figural through sensation.” (Coletti, ibid.). Both distinguish the results of contemporary digital form finding processes from representational digital visualizations in the same way a modern painting “[escapes] from the figurative in art.” (Coletti, ibid.). At the same time though, both of them pursue the rationalization of the contemporary ornament as an abstract and theoretical endeavour, that – although intellectually driven – first and foremost speaks to the sensorial and atmospheric qualities of a spatial configuration. While conceptually bridging the gap between tectonic and ornament, it still neglects – following modernism’s threefold distinction – the subject of construction and structure within architectural production. In the context of tectonic articulation it seems to be more productive to develop the underlying logics of surface articulation not as an abstract concept but rather as a goal-oriented process that starts to gradually integrate different systems and subsystems of a building into one coherent and articulate spatial configuration.

The strength of this parametric approach lies in its understanding of architecture as a system of correlations and differentiations seeking adequate and complex articulation. As Patrik Schumacher puts it: “Just like natural systems, parametricist compositions are so highly integrated that they cannot be easily decomposed into independent subsystems – a major point of difference in comparison with the modern design paradigm of clear separation of functional subsystems.” (Schumacher [8]).

The methodical development of these systems aims towards the generation of complex and parametrically controllable geometries, which contain highly adaptive potentials and connectivity (soft patterns). Variation and continuous differentiation of simple elements reflect the changing and mutually influential forces within a system’s different layers in order to eventually articulate a complex architectural system that ties together a spatial organisation, its environment, its inhabitants and their constantly changing patterns of use. This implies controlled and simultaneous development of function, form, structure and material, and requires attention on the associative qualities of all single constituents.

Thus the act of design is no longer framed by “a singular aesthetic end, but by the multiple constraints and ambitions of each project, as negotiated by the architect.” (Rahim A. and Jamelle H. [6]). Nevertheless the result still displays elegance, a contemporary elegance that is supported by articulated complexity rather than by minimalism or simplicity. Successful complex building structures are able to develop a descriptive architectural language that visually reduces the underlying complexity and helps to order, frame and organize the varying patterns of use of their users groups. “An elegant building or urban design should therefore be able to manage considerable complexity without descending into disorder.” (Schumacher [7]).

To design such an ordered architectural and urban environment has become the architect’s core competency in an increasingly complex networked society. Such a clearly articulated environment is more legible and navigable than the modernist order of repetition, thus offering a suitable framework for contemporary societal patterns of use.

Tectonic Articulation

“If we define tectonics as the strategic detournement of an element’s technically induced morphology in order to address substantial functions in the articulatory dimension, then tectonics can be redeemed and integrated within contemporary notions of handling form-function relationships. We might call this strategy of opportunizing on technical details techtonic articulation.” (Schumacher [10]).

If a building’s structure, and consequently its optimization, is understood to be only one layer of its complex and multi-layered organization, then structural expression can not be understood as an end in itself but rather as a means to differentiatedly articulate the substantial social function of the space in question. In this line of thinking, the elegant accentuation of structural elements does not hold any ideological, metaphorical, theoretical, abstract, or sensational value in itself.

Also buildings are not materialized solely to the concerns of technical and structural efficiency, which would be the structural engineer’s approach, but with the clear aim to interarticulate the building’s different systems and subsystems to form one coherent spatial organization, to achieve tectonic articulation, as it is “[the] relationship between the technical and the articulatory dimensions [that] leads to the concept of tectonics” (Schumacher, ibid.)

The Semiological Project

Studio Hadid‘s recent design research project Parametric Semiology – Olympic Park Rio de Janeiro 2016 studies the development of a series of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be arranged, clustered, organized and differentiated according to the semiological criteria and that are further articulated within their own structural logics. Semiology and structure become the driving layers of a parametric model in order to test tectonic articulations for their semiological potentials. The Olympic Park’s complex programme, that demands structures of various sizes from large scale stadia to smalll scale auxiliary buildings lends itself to be structurally articulated through a series of related shell structures. At the same time, the vast overall scale of the Olympic Park asks for semiological articulation in order to facilitate orientation, navigation and circulation by meaningfully cohering the builidngs to form a differentiated yet continuous urban field.

In the same way that semiology and a building’s structure become one of the many different interacting layers that all together form what we today consider to be our built environment, “… the architectonic code is one of several fundamental panhuman sign systems which in concert provide individuals and groups with a multi-nodal and multi stereoscopic template for the creation of humanly meaningful realities” (Preziosi [5]).

As a consequence the goal is neither to design a structurally optimised building nor to conduct an exercise in semiological form finding, but the extension of architecture’s formal repertoire through investigation into architecture’s morphogenetic potential within a multi-dimensional solution space that is clearly delineated by previous structural research, which sets the limits for a wide range of possible forms. Parametric design aims towards the exploitation of its generative capacity rather than merely developing a method of discovering inspiring shapes.

Seen from a structural engineer’s point of view on the other hand, these processes might be used to gradually approach “a balance between aesthetic intrigue, innovation and efficiency in new structural forms” as Kristina Shea puts it (Shea [12]).

However, the resulting formal and spatial articulations always remain tectonic, i.e. they remain structurally or technically motivated, rather than being conventionalized and thus becoming ornamental articulations.

Urban and architectural shell prototypes are designed with regards to their semiological readability, based on urban, spatial, programmatic, or social parameters, that were deducted from the specific programme for Rio’s Olympic Park, developing ideas on how semiologic operations can be systematized and intensified in order to be interrelated and tectonically articulated within the framework of the different structural shell systems, that the large span constructions in question require.

Parametric Semiology

During the preparation phase students start to systematically investigate and analyze diffferent structural shell systems, evaluating and cataloguing them according to their architectural, formal, spatial, structural, material, typological, affective and effective properties and their potential to be differentiated according to semiological parameters.

At the same time they try to develop a clear understanding of the project brief and the programmatic and typological components of the Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro, identifying a series of crucial relations of varying intensities between two or more different components or elements in the brief, that can be described using semiological differentiations.

Subsequently the objective is the development of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be arranged, clustered and differentiated according to the semiological relations, that were identified earlier on and that will in turn drive the generation and differentiation of these elements.

During design research phase these proto-architectural shell structures are further developed. Students are required to investigate, if the intended differential qualities actually work in a small scale cluster of buildings. To that end a series of different types in different scales from the list of typologies (i.e. 1 stadium type, 1 housing type, 1 circulation type, …) is selected, arranged and differentiated within the scope of every group’s semiotic concept. The goal of this exercise is a first proof of concept of the group’s architectural hypothesis.

Students are also encouraged to look into the further differentiation of construction, surface articulations, edge conditions, perforations, openings, and ground conditions. Different semiological parameters might affect different components of the shell systems in various ways.

Figure 2: design research phase: devaulting: Testing different column formations.

Figure 3: design research phase: twoFold. Testing different folded surface formations

Figure 4: design research phase: creasedField Testing different surface articulations

During the urban research phase students develop generative strategies to arrange and further differentiate the shell structures according to the urban semiological logics that have been developed through the analysis of site, context and boundary conditions. These strategies might include: aggregation and variation (repeating, multiplying, scaling), packing, flocking, massing, orientation and direction, extremities of scale, hierarchy, sequencing, field conditions, different degrees of transparency, informed grid logics, phenomenological effects, or exploitation of perspective views. In this process organizational and navigational logics, that have been incorporated earlier on, are not discarded but further appropriated and synchronized with the site’s contextual parameters.

Finally all the research and design results are evolved into one coherent semiological design proposal, that simultaneously operates on the urban, architectural, structural, and component level.

The following student projects presented in this paper are selected from design research conducted at Studio Hadid at the Institute of Architecture at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. Professor: Zaha Hadid. Assistant Professors: Mario Gasser, Christian Kronaus, Jens Mehlan, Robert R. Neumayr, Patrik Schumacher, and Hannes Traupmann.

Selected projects of the studio’s design research were on display at the 13^th Architectural Biennale “Common Ground” in Venice.

Project: devaulting

Students: Tudor Sabau, Jakob Travnik, Matthias Urschler

The project aims at redefining the typology of vaults as a means of creating a complex semiotic system, by which its signified content is expressed through the relationship between two fundamental layers of communication: one layer represented by a unified yet continuously differentiated ground condition based on a strict grid logic, which is working in parallel with a second layer of homogeniously differentiated shell typologies.

The project operates semiotically in various scales. On a global scale the masterplan consists of three parts: a housing zone (grided shells), a non-sport venue zone (full shells) and a sporting venue zone (cracking shells). On a local scale these zones are subdivided into ”islands” on which groups of relevant programs (shell types) are further differentiated according to their intrinsic logics. In between the islands it is the landscape that is subjected to contextual differentiation.

The programs are articulated through systematic shell manipulation, such as cracking logics, structural differentiation, material differentiation, formal operations and the adaption of figure-ground relationships. Ultimately, the resulting hierarchies result in a complex yet clear matrix of semiotic readings, which serves as direct as well as indirect guidance to inform the user of the locally, programmatically and socially relevant use of a particular space.

Figure 5: devaulting: Continuous urban field of differentiated shell structures

Project: Semantic Fields

Students: Elena Krasteva, Emanuele Mozzo, Daniel Zakharyan.

Starting off with the research of shells in nature the team decided to concentrate on mushroom structures as they offer an incredible diversity within a single type of species. Grouping Principles, structural behavior and morphological properties were analyzed, abstracted and translated into proto-architectural shell structures.

Semiologically three different layers of intervention were identified:

On the Grouping Layer the main driving force of differentiation is the application of packing principles. Depending on regulatory parameters and based on behavioural patterns different types of deformed agglomerations and necessary strategies for a controlled shell deformation are developed.

On the Shape Layer different morphogenetic parameters (height, size, inclination, …) are exploited to form a differentiated yet semiotically coherent field of shapes. To that end parametric particle spring simulation systems are used, allowing the students to create physically correct curvatures in real time interaction.

On the Surface Layer the key aspect was the transformation of different natural surface articualtions into architectural yet structurally valid components. Several types of gills (linear, additive, branching) were identified and translated into a structural system that establishes a tectonic connection between a surface’s curvature and its level of detail resolution, thus allowing for a structurally efficient and curvature-dependant distribution throughout the entire system.

Site implementation: As any activity can be defined by two main aspects, the activity itself and the connections it establishes within its surrounding, the project explores these connections and emerging relationships between the program and surrounding field and reflects them through the superimposition of these three layers. It studies how the appearance of a particular program triggers certain behaviors and reactions in the field. It examines how the field can capture programmatic identities, propagate them as a system of visual clues and articulate their presence.

Figure 6: Semantic Fields: Development stages of a proto-architectural shell structure with increasing differentiation.

Figure 7: Semantic Fields: One of the final shell strcutures housing a series of different programmes.

References

[1] Boeckl M., Form follows …?, in Ways to Modernism. Josef Hoffmann, Adolf Loos and Their Impact, Thun-Hohenstein C. et al. (eds.), Birkhäuser, 2015. ISBN 978-0356-0377-4.

[2] Coletti M., Ornamental Pornamentation, in Exuberance. AD 02/2010 March/April 2010, Coletti M. (ed.), Wiley, 2010. ISSN 0003-8504.

[3] Le Corbusier. Ausblick auf eine Architektur. Braunschweig: Vieweg & Sohn Verlag, 1982. ISBN 3-528-18602-X.

[4] Pedreschi R., Form, Force and Stucture – A Brief History, in Versatility and Vicissitude. AD 02/2008 March/April 2008, Hensel M. and Menges A. (eds.), Wiley, 2008. ISSN 0003-8504.

[5] Preziosi D., Architecture, Language and Meaning – The Origins of the Built World its Semiotic Organisation. Mouton Publishers, The Hague/Paris/New York: 1979.

[6] Rahim A. and Jamelle H., Elegance in the Age of Digital Technique, in Elegance. AD 01/2007 January/February 2007, Rahim A. and Jamelle H. (eds.), Wiley, 2007. ISSN 0003-8504.

[7] Schumacher P., Arguing for Elegance, in Elegance. AD 01/2007 January/February 2007, Rahim A. and Jamelle H. (eds.), Wiley, 2007. ISSN 0003-8504.

[8] Schumacher P., Parametricism as Style – Parametricist Manifesto. London 2008. Presented at 11th Venice Biennale 2008. http://www.patrikschumacher.com/ (last visited 27 04 2015).

[9] Schumacher P., The Autopoiesis of Architecture. A New Framework for Architecture. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2011. ISBN 789-0-470-77298-0.

[10] Schumacher P., The Autopoiesis of Architecture Vol. II. A New Agenda for Architecture. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2012. ISBN 978-0-470-66616-6.

[11] Schumacher P., Architecture’s Next Ontological Innovation, in Not Nature, tarp – Architectural Manual, Pratt Institure (ed.), New York, 2012.

[12] Shea K., Directed Randomness, in Leach, Neil et al. (eds.) digital tectonics. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2004. ISBN 0470857293.

STRUCTURAL SEMIOLOGY is the title of my latest article, that is going to be published in the forthcoming issue 05/2014 of Time +  Architecture, one of China’s most inflluential architecture magazines. As it is going to be published in Chinese only, the English version can be found here.

Structural Semiology – The Semiological Potentials of Tectonic Shell Structures

Abstract

In a complex networked society the architect’s core competency becomes the task of articulation in order to establish the built environment as a communicative frame for its users. The adaptive differentiation of load bearing structures according to different load cases or to semiological aspects afford many opportunities for tectonic articulation. A thus differentiated environment is much more legible than the modernist, isotropic order of repetition. To fully exploit this, architects need to closely collaborate with engineers, orchestrating the most suitable options.

Buildings have to be understood as highly integrated systems, that are inter-articulated and correlated, complementing each other in order to fulfil architectural, structural, functional, spatial, semiotic and atmospheric criteria. Studio Hadid Vienna has – within their agenda of Parametricism – been striving to integrate these systems’ different layers seamlessly into the digital design process.

Researching the semiological capacity of parametrically generated architectural forms, the project Parametric Semiology – Olympic Park Rio de Janeiro 2016 calls for the deveopment of radically innovative spatial models for the sport venues and their related programme. To that end semiology and structure become the driving layers of a parametric model to test tectonic articulations for their semiological potentials. This leads to the development of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be organized and differentiated according to semiological criteria, that are further articulated within their own structural logics and subsequently contextualized on site.

Results of this design research and its underlying theories, concepts, and strategies are discussed in this paper.

Introduction

Traditionally the delineation between structural engineering and architecture relies on the clear distinction of the built environment’s technical necessities from its social requirements. While the technical necessities include stability, physical integrity, performance or constructability in realtion to its users, architecture considers a buiding’s social functions, i.e. its performance as an ordering communicative frame, that mainly works via its appearance and legibility for its users within their social context.(i)

The core competency of architecture therefore is the task of articulation. Consequently, “The relationship between the technical and the articulatory dimensions leads to the concept of tectonics.” (Schumacher, 2012:19), meaning that tecnical forms, that are based on engineers’ calculations, are absorbed and further articulated by architects, aiming for increased architectural legibility within the built environment’s framework of social interaction.

In order for architects to exploit tectonic articulation they need to guide and orchestrate the engineer’s investigations, evaluating and selecting the engineering options most suited to their primary task, namely to fulfil the posed social functions via framing communications.

The adaptive differentiation of load bearing structures according to different load cases and varying geometries, the adaptive differentiation of volumes and envelopes according to the building’s environmental performance (with respect to its exposure to sun, wind, rain etc.), and their differentiation according to semiological aspects as well as issues of circulation and navigation, afford many opportunities for differential tectonic articulation. A thus lawfully differentiated built environment is much more legible and navigable than the modernist, isotropic order of repetition.

With the development of sophisticated computational design tools – both within architecture and within the engineering disciplines – the scope for nuanced tectonic articulation has much increased. The adaptation of structural morphologies to the force distribution within a structural system offers new opportunites for architectural articulation. In turn the more complex architectural orders proposed within contemporary architecture are reflected and potentially accentuated by sophisticated, adaptive structures.

Simpler interfaces, common programme platformes and scripting languages make engineering technologies more tangible for architects and facilitate information interchange and foster a close collaboration between these two disciplines that would have been impossible a few years ago.

Studio Hadid Vienna therefore closely collaborates with engineers and integrates both, analytic and generative engineering tools wihtin its design research methodology, while maintaining a clear understanding of the distinct agendas and core competencies of architects and engineers but at the same time encouraging students to develop reliable intuitions about the repective logics and concepts.

From Space To Field

Furthermore our conception of architecture has changed considerably, as the renunciation of linear and binary systems of perception, which for a long time have been dominating our world view, has only recently opened up new areas of scientific research. Rather than seeing the built environment as a number of independent entities, we have now come to understand it as a continuous field of diverse elements, as a spatial organisation that is able to negotiate and interpolate between those elements, which are subjected to the changing forces and currents that guide their use.

As Stan Allen remarks, “Field conditions move from the one toward the many, from individuals to collectives, from objects to fields.” (Allen, 1999: 92).

Complex architectural configurations like urban structures in general and buildings in particular can be perceived to have an intrinsic networked nature, as they are organized primarily around currents and lines of exchange where people, services, ideas and goods are collected, organised and redistributed in a multitude of directions (for an account of these phenomena see: de Landa: 2000). They consist of a multitude of different layers (some of which are not even architectural), that react and interact with each other, that are influenced by internal and external forces, and that all together form what we observe as our built environment.

In this sense, buildings have to be understood as highly integrated complex systems, sub-systems and components, that are inter-articulated and correlated, complementing each other in order to fulfil architectural, structural, functional, spatial, semiotic and atmospheric criteria. All systems stay associative to each other and adaptive to their internal and external conditions, that drive their differentiation. Functions and programmes can also be integrated by systematic differentiation of one pivotal system, which makes one system work on multiple functional layers, i.e. one series of building components might have structural and atmospheric properties at the same time.

As a consequence it has also become impossible to conceive architectural design separated from its related disciplines, such as energy design, material science and structural engineering. Understanding our built environment as a series of complexly interwoven layers, where a building’s structure is only of them, Studio Hadid Vienna has been striving to integrate them more seamlessly into the digital design processes.

Parametricism – Integration and Inter-articulation

For more than ten years now, Studio Hadid Vienna has been developing and exploring advanced digital design concepts in an attempt to expand the architectural repertoire and to find appropriate architectural answers to today’s societal complexity. Working within the agenda of Parametricism architecture is seen as a system of correlations and differentiations seeking adequate and complex articulation. As Patrik Schumacher puts it: “Just like natural systems, parametricist compositions are so highly integrated that they cannot be easily decomposed into independent subsystems – a major point of difference in comparison with the modern design paradigm of clear separation of functional subsystems.” (Schumacher, 2008)

The methodical development of these systems aims towards the generation of elaborated and parametrically controllable geometries, which contain highly adaptive potentials and connectivity (soft patterns). Iteration (as in opposition to simple repetition), variation and continuous differentiation of basic elements are crucial aspects in this process, as the respective driving forces are applied in order to articulate complex architectural systems. According to their scale, all evolved systems and their subsequent components are designed to eventually form integral parts of an overall system, ranging from large urban schemes down to precisely defined functional architectural elements. This implies controlled and simultaneous development of function, form, structure and material, and requires attention on the associative qualities of all single constituents.

In this way, working in constant feedback loop, iteratively reorganising and expanding the parametric model becomes an important issues of the design process. Slowly building up a system of high complexity starting from a rather simple logic leads to increasingly elaborated, unpredictable yet controlled results, thus shifting the research focus beyond the point of mere digital representation.(ii)

“Only if virtual evolution can be used to explore a space rich enough so that all the possibilities cannot be considered in advance by the designer, only if what results shocks or at least surprises, can genetic algorithms be considered useful visualisation tools.” (Manuel de Landa: 2002)

“Aesthetics link the strutural, formal and political and social. What is more political and cultural than aestethics?” (Greg Lynn)

Architecture always encompasses a concurrent series of complex design problems, which require an architectural solution. However most scripted and parametric systems can not but produce one aspect of architecture’s underlying systematics and logics, which then guide the generation of project-specific geometries and shapes. This additional architectural layer, which is designed to cohere and operate with all the multiple systems and sub-systems, will vary according to the designer’s capacities, needs to be understood as an integral part of the overall design process.

Parametric tools produce, when applied, a series of possible outcomes and enhance responsiveness between the designer and his design project. However, they can neither substitute creative potential nor are they capable of producing viable architectural results without the constant intervention of the designer, who in the end still holds responsibility for the project’s aesthetic qualities, that emerge out of the complex digital design processes.

Tectonic Articulation

“If we define tectonics as the strategic detournement of an element’s technically induced morphology in order to address substantial functions in the articulatory dimension, then tectonics can be redeemed and integrated within contemporary notions of handling form-function relationships. We might call this strategy of opportunizing on technica details techtonic articulation.” (Schumacher, 2012: 21).

If a building’s structure, and consequently its optimisation, is understood to be only one layer of its complex and multi-layered organisation, then structural expression can not be understood as an end in itself but rather as a means to differentiatedly articulate the substantial social function of the artefact/space in question.

In this line of thinking, the elegant accentuation of structural elements does not hold any metaphorical value in itself, such as one might be able to detect in late modernist or structuralist buildings, where the pointed display and over-articulation of structure stems from long held ideological positions rather than tectonic considerations.

Also buildings are not materialized solely to the concerns of technical and structural efficiency, which would be the sturctural engineer’s approach, but with the clear aim to interarticulate the building’s diffferent systems and subsystems to form one coherent spatial organisation, to achieve tectonic articulation, as it is “[the] relationship between the technical and the articulatory dimensions [that] leads to the concept of tectonics” (Schumacher, 2012: 19)

The Semiological Project

Following up on previous research on the semiological capacity of parametrically generated architectural forms, Studio Hadid‘s recent design research project Parametric Semiology – Olympic Park Rio de Janeiro 2016 calls for the research and deveopment of radically innovative spatial models for the sport venues and their related auxiliary programmes. The future Olympic Park in Rio is used as a testing ground because the complex programme, that demands structures of various sizes from large scale stadia to smalll scale auxiliary buildings lends itself to be structurally articulated through a series of related shell strcutures, while at the same time, the vast overall scale of the Olympic Park ask for semiological articulation in order to facilitate orientation, navigation and circulation by meaningfully cohering the builidngs to form a differentiated yet continuous urban field. To that end semiology and structure become the driving layers of a parametric model in order to test tectonic articulations for their semiological potentials. This leads to the development of a series of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be arranged, clustered, organized and differentiated according to the semiological criteria and that are further articulated within their own structural logics.

The design of these proto-architectural elements is based on the thorough research of different shell structures, their formal properties and their multiple potentials for parametric differentiation.

In the same way that semiology – and a buidling’s struture – is one the many different interacting layers that all together form what we today consider to be our built environment, “… the architectonic code is one of several fundamental panhuman sign systems which in concert provide individuals and groups with a multi-nodal and multi stereoscopic template for the creation of humanly meaningful realities” (Preziosi, 1979: 3).

Creative Potential

As a consequence the goal is neither to design a structurally optimised building nor to conduct an exercise in semiological form finding, but the extension of architecture’s formal repertoire through investigation into the multitude of architectural possibilities within a multi-dimensional solution space that is clearly defined by previous structural research, which sets the limits for the wide range of possible forms.

Investigating the morphogenetic potential is one of the most intriguing aspects of parametric design. The distinct difference between form-generating and form-finding should be clearly understood, as the parametric design aims towards the exploitation of its generative capacity rather than merely developing a method of discovering inspiring shapes. A systematic variation of intrinsic and extrinsic forces results in an immense range of possible outcome whereas the range of parametric values determines the capacity of generating unexpected results.

Seen from a structural engineer’s point of view on the other hand, these processes might be used to gradually approach “a balance between aesthetic intrigue, innovation and efficiency in new structural forms” as Kristina Shea puts it (Shea, 2004: 89).

However, the resulting formal and spatial articulations always remain tectonic, i.e. they remain structurally or technically motivated, rather than being conventionalized and thus becoming ornamental articulations.

Urban and architectural shell prototypes are designed with regards to their semiological readability, based on urban, spatial, programmatic, or social parameters, that were deducted from the specific programme for Rio’s Olympic Park, developing ideas on how semiologic operations can be systematized and intensified in order to be interrelated and tectonically articulated within the framework of the different structural shell systems, the large span constructions in question require.

Parametric Semiology

Studio Hadid Vienna always operates as a “vertical studio”, meaning that students of different years and experience form teams to work together on one year-long studio briefs. In this specific learning environment new students get directly exposed to innovative design techniques and the studio’s digital culture, whereas more experienced students can profit from new ideas floating into the studio from all over the world.

During the preparation phase early in the semester students start to systematically investigate and analyze diffferent structural shell systems, evaluating and cataloguing them according to their architectural, spatial, structural, material, typological, affective and effective properties and their potential to be differentiated according to semiological parameters.

At the same time they try to develop a clear understanding of the project brief and the programmatic and typological components of the Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro, identifying a series of crucial relations of varying intensities between two or more different components or elements in the brief, that can be described using semiological differentiations

Subsequently the objective is the development of proto-architectural shell structures, that hold the potential to be arranged, clustered and differentiated according to the semiological relations, that were identified earlier on and that will in turn drive the generation and differentiation of these elements.

During design research phase these proto-architectural shell structures are further developed, Students are required to investigate, if the intended differential qualities actually work in a small scale cluster of buildings. To that end a series of different types in different scales from the list of typologies (i.e. 1 stadium type, 1 housing type, 1 circulation type, …) is selected, arranged and differentiated within the scope of every group’s semiotic concept. The goal of this exercise is a first proof of concept of the group’s architectural hypothesis.

At this point students are also encouraged to look into the further differentiation of construction, surface articulations, edge conditions, perforations, openings, and ground conditions (i.e. how do the shell structures meet the ground and how does the ground react/interact semiologically with them). Different semiological parameters might affect different components of the shell systems in various ways.

During the urban research phase students develop generative strategies to deploy, arrange and further differentiate the proto-architectural shell structures according to the urban semiological logics that have been developed through the analysis of site, context and boundary conditions. These strategies might include: aggregation and variation (repeating, multiplying, scaling), packing, flocking, massing, orientation and direction, extremities of scale, hierarchy, sequencing, field conditions, different degrees of transparency, informed grid logics, phenomenological effects, or exploitation of perspective views. In this process organizational and navigational logics, that have been incorporated earlier on, are not discarded but further appropriated and synchronized with the site’s contextual parameters.

Finally all the research and design results are evolved into one coherent semiological design proposal, that simultaneously operates on the urban, architectural, structural, and component level.

The following student projects presented in this paper are selected from design studio work done at Studio Hadid, Institute of Architecture, University of Applied Arts, Vienna. Professor: Zaha Hadid. Assistant Professors: Mario Gasser, Christian Kronaus, Jens Mehlan, Robert Neumayr, Patrik Schumacher, Hannes Traupmann, Mascha Veech.

The results of the studio’s design research was on display at the 13^th Architectural Biennale “Common Ground” in Venice.

Project: TwoFold. Students: Marie Drescher, Min Yin.

At the core of this design research are three contrasting folding patterns, discovered during experimentation with paper models. The flexible, semi-flexible and rigid fold enrich not only the structural capabilities of the designs, but also their ability to communicate their varying functions to the visitor. Sport venues use a single row of the flexible fold, manipulated in various ways in order to create prototypes for the different types of sports. Buildings containing accommodation facilities are created with a variety of scales within the folding pattern, resulting in a readable system informing the user about the spacial qualities in the interior. Service buildings are characterized by the semi-flexible fold. The individual functions are distinguished by differences in the placement of openings. The rigid fold creates various types of support buildings. Subtle differences within the folding pattern are used to distinguish functions such as transportation, information and administration. A unique systemof distribution and differentiation is constructed in order to translate the catalog of proto-shells into an intelligent semiological urban field.

Project: Semantic Fields. Students: Elena Krasteva, Emanuele Mozzo, Daniel Zakharyan.

Starting off with the research of shells in nature the team decided to concentrate on mushroom structures as they offer an incredible diversity within a single type of species. Structural behavior and morphological properties were translated into the architectural domain.

Semiologically three different levels of intervention were identified:

On Group Level the main driving force of differentiation is the application of packing principles. Depending on regulatory parameters and based on behavioural patterns different types of deformed agglomerations are developed.

On Shape Level different morphogenetic parameters (height, size, inclination, …) are exploited to form a differentiated yet semiotically coherent field of shapes. To that end parametric particle spring simulation systems are used, allowing the students to create physically correct curvatures in real time interaction.

On Surface Level the key aspect was the transformation of different natural surface articualtions into architectural components. Several types of gills (linear, additive, branching) were identified and translated into a structural system that establishes a tectonic connection between a surface’s curvature and its level of detail resolution, thus allowing for a structurally efficient and curvature-dependant distribution throughout the entire system.

Site implementation: As any activity can be defined by two main aspects, the activity itself and the connections it establishes within its surrounding, the project explores these connections and emerging relationships between the program and surrounding field through the superimposition of these three levels. It studies how the appearance of a particular program triggers certain behaviors and reactions in the field. It examines how the field can capture programmatic identities, propagate them as a system of visual clues and articulate their presence. Finally it investigates, how visitors can learn from this environment and navigate through established systems of signification.

Project: devaulting. Students: Tudor Sabau, Jakob Travnik, Matthias Urschler

The project aims at redefining the typology of vaults as a means of creating a complex semiotic system, by which its signified content is expressed through the relationship between two fundamental layers of communication: one layer represented by a unified and continuously differentiated ground condition based on a strict grid logic, which is working in parallel with a second layer of continuously differentiated shell typologies.

The project operates semiotically in various scales. On a global scale the masterplan consists of three parts: a housing zone (grided shells), a non-sport venue zone (full shells) and a sporting venue zone (cracking shells). On a local scale these zones are subdivided into ”islands” on which groups of relevant programs (shell types) are further differentiated according to intrinsic logic. In between the islands it is the landscape that is subjected to contextual differentiation.

The programs are articulated through systematic shell manipulation, such as cracking logics, structural differentiation, material differentiation, formal operations and the adaption of figure-ground relationships. Ultimately, the resulting hierachies result in a complex yet clear matrix of semiotic readings, which serves as direct as well as indirect guidance to inform the user of the locational, programatic and socially relevant use of a particular space.

Notes And References

All images are (c) studio HADID vienna and respective students.

(i) For an introduction to the theory of The Autopoiesis of Architecture please refer to (Schumacher: 2011).

(ii) For a short introduction to the basic ideas of parametric design please refer to (Neumayr, Budig: 2009).

Allen, Stan. Points + Lines. Princton Architectural Press, New York: 1999. ISBN 1-56898-155-4.

De Landa, Manuel. A Thousand Years Of Non Linear History. Zone Books, New York:1997. ISBN 0-942299-32-9.

De Landa, Manuel. Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture in Leach, N. (ed.) Designing for A Digital World Wiley Academy, London: 2002. ISBN 0-470-84419-1.

Lynn, Greg in An Aesthetics Of Calculus in Leach, Neil et al. (eds.) digital tectonics. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2004. ISBN 0470857293.

Neumayr, R. and Budig, M., 2009: Generative Processes – script based design research in contemporary teaching practice, in Paoletti, I. (ed.) Innovative Design and Construction Technologies Maggioli S.p.A.. Milano: 2009. ISBN 978-88387-4369-X

Preziosi, Donald. Architecture, Language and Meaning – The Origins of the Built World its Semiotic Organisation. Mouton Publishers, The Hague/Paris/New York: 1979.

Schumacher, Patrik. Parametricism as Style – Parametricist Manifesto. London 2008. Presented at 11th Venice Biennale 2008. http://www.patrikschumacher.com/ (last visited 18 06 2014).

Schumacher Patrik. The Autopoiesis of Architecture. A New Framework for Architecture. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2011. ISBN 978-0-470-77298-0.

Schumacher Patrik. The Autopoiesis of Architecture. A New Agenda for Architecture. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2012. ISBN 978-0-470-66616-6.

Shea, Kristina. Directed Randomness in Leach, Neil et al. (eds.) digital tectonics. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2004. ISBN 0470857293.