An online forum inviting comments and critique for two temporary installations to be designed and built by students enrolled in a Parametric Design Elective taught at NYIT's School of Architecture and Design.
(1 of 2) Critique of “Just Curve It” -Scott Steffes
Design Parameter One: Optimizing Human Scale - I understand you are trying to manipulate the surface of this element based on two different views. I think you need to further evaluate the shape and placement of the red nodes that create the undulating surface. Is the undulating surface a reaction to the human body or to the view? If simply to the human body, then I think the vertical one (for the person standing up) is affective, but the one for the person kneeling is not accurate. The shape you have would be appropriate for someone lying down. If you are basing it on views, then you should manipulate the shape to be from eye level and do an analysis of view angles (based on ideal rotation angles of our neck). I understand why you are interested in two different node locations and orientations… it offers an intriguing shape, etc. The point attractor of the person standing is relatively straight forward but I think you should re-evaluate the merit of the kneeling position. It does not seem like a natural movement for a person to walk up to that exact spot and kneel down. Even if a person walks up to that point they more than likely will tilt their head down. In which case, the node shape would be different. What is going to influence a person to get into that exact attraction point you are trying to achieve? If you put a chair there, someone may sit down and achieve that point. You could also achieve that view angle if you dug a hole, placed a peep hole in a surface, or hung something from the ceiling to influence a person to kneel down, but simply placing an arbitrary point in space is not as convincing to me. Also note the distance of the undulating surface from the node. From what I can see, it does not seem consistent. The “standing node” seems closer to the surface and the “kneeling node” seems further away (and not consistent from top to bottom. Was this intentional? What determines the “optimized” distance? I assume that optimal distance would be consistent and the same for both scenarios.
Design Parameter Two: Optimizing for View - I like the idea of varying the slat depth and distance between slats but you need to further study what is achieved (and not achieved) with the dimensions you currently have. You state that the “slats at eye-level are more dense to focus attention on the exhibited models and the spacing above and below is manipulated to optimize views to the sky and ground”. If you look in your transverse section though, it is clear that the opposite is happening. You will be able to see right through at eye level, but both the upper sky view and the lower ground view are completely blocked by the depth of the shelves. You either need to add much more distance between shelves or reduce the depth of the shelves. Your “optimal human scale” and “optimal view” are fighting each other for depth and spacing of your shelves. That’s the beauty of grasshopper… you can put both parameters in and try to find a happy medium. Right now it looks like Grasshopper designed the human scale and a 2d line elevation designed the spacing. It would be nice if you also took into account the sun coming in. Do you want the light or not? If you want light, then the large top shelf can act as a light shelf to promote indirect light. A bright, shiny surface would help. The rest of the shelves below should be much less so the sun can reflect into the space. Again, a light colored, shiny material on both the top and underside will assist. As you get to the lower shelves, there is no light so these can be deep. If you are trying to block light, then you have achieved this with your deep shelves and dark cardboard material. Unfortunately the solar gain is already inside the space so you do not get an added benefit of this. In your statement “eye-level is more dense”, you have two eye levels based on your point attractors, but only one density change (and that is not really associated with either point attractor).
(2 of 2) Critique of “Just Curve It” -Scott Steffes
….continued from previous posting)
Design Parameter Three: Optimizing for Model Size and Placement - The placement of these voids seem completely arbitrary to the optimized human scale and the optimized views. Shouldn’t the exhibit voids be focused around the point attractors and the ideal “eye-level” views?
Construction: - I suggest you do more sectional studies. The two way cantilever on the cable system does not seem feasible. Unless you have it perfectly balanced, you will either need two connection points or a very rigid connection at the cable. I don’t think a strong rigid connection is possible with the single cable system (you can try burying a rigid connection between the layers of cardboard but it seems unlikely?). A logical solution may be to add a connection point at the back side (along the wall) and cantilever from the cable to the undulating surface. Some of the depths seem very long though. Mock it up and see if the cardboard will support the cantilever. You will also need additional support to hold up the exhibits.
Your graphics are good and overall it’s a clean, simple idea. Now you just need to adjust your design to make it work and you’ll be all set!
(1 of 1) Critique of “A Tailored Fit” –Scott Steffes
“A tailored fit” seems like an interested project with a strong concept of ergonomically adjustable seating (and leaning) based on optimal daylighting scenarios. It also seems as though a good deal of effort was put into ‘what’ the project will look like and ‘how’ it will be built. What is not clear to me is how the idea is actually carried out. What makes the undulating shape ideal for the three specified daylighting times? How were the Ecotect charts translated into the optimized form”? What makes it optimal? Is more heat gain really achieved by the different configurations (they seem to block one another?) Is there a significant difference in heat gains between the different daylighting positions? Ecotect is a strong tool and can validate every move you make (if that is the intention). How are the fins moved to the ideal positions and how do they stay in that position? How does a person know where the optimal position is at a specific time? How was the project optimized for the human form? What/who determined what the optimal human shape is… and how was that carried out in conjunction with the different adjustable daylighting conditions? I think your concept is strong, but you owe it to yourselves to analyze the merit of the concept more and carry it out through your final design.
The condition at floor level is the least resolved. The series of shelves suspended with cables should be hung from the ceiling, not resting in a very curious condition on the floor.
Additional cables will be needed at the front of the cardboard shelves that project out almost 36" or the shelves that will hold models.
After resolving the basic structural logic, I think the spacing of the shelves needs a second look. I believe you are trying to do too much with them. Using grasshopper you will be able to recalibrate around the following parameters: 1) voids in the shelves are located to hold models 2) shelf location should be driven by sun parameters, not view parameters. These two things will always be at odds with one another. 3) it might be interesting to instead design the voids to also direct views, so that when one replaces a model one sees a view OR the model is "set" within a view.
Finally, I suspect the big cantilever will not really have a spatial affect on one's interaction with the wall. If the cantilever is less deep, it will be easier to suspend from the ceiling.
First of all, I want to commend the team for a very thorough presentation with clear diagrams and images.
The aspect of this project that I feel is strongest is its simplicity in components: effectively this project is attempting to program several functions at once (display, interaction with view and light, response to the human body, and interface with the window apertures on beyond) using the single primary element of the shelves. It appears to be quite reasonable to fabricate although there are some details that need attention (see more comments below).
Identifying the performative effects of the shelf proximity, depth, and contour was a plus in this team's process.
My main critique deals with the architectural/tectonic aspects of the project and I will be very direct about this. But don't feel bad because I find this is common for projects of this type to do very well meeting digital criteria at the expense of architectural issues...this is something all who use this technology deal with.
So - regarding these issue - the first issue I will raise is that of basic visibility. The shelves themselves have a way of disappearing in your renderings, and I believe this may also happen in real life. The thinness of your primary system, and the lack of any additional expressive secondary systems or details, reduces the project's experiential potential. My recommendation is to introduce more vertical vs. horizontal dialogue in the design, or think of the design as more solid, or having more layers/depth. Part of this could happen by celebrating the depth of each shelf more so they are more apparent to the viewer, and that pulling the shelves back or pushing them forward is more noticeable. This modification would enhance the potential constructability of the project too, since something as thin as you proposed will be difficult to keep straight.
Secondly, and closely related to the experience, is the projects relationship to view and to the sun. I don't know how these properties of the form were actually tested but I don't see very much evidence in the presentation that you actually know what this would do. A scale model in the sunlight, or a serious computer simulation (i.e. radiosity using ecotect or 3Dstudio) might show us how the surfaces actually control light...part of this control would be reflecting it back up to the underside of each fin, which could be quite striking. But we don't see this yet. I am also not convinced about the placement of the display areas relative to the windows either...it seems that the pattern of windows in the elevation beyond did not entirely inform the project, although there is some correspondence in the upper openings. Again, I would wonder how the two work together.
My last and final point regarding architectural issues is the overlay of 'performance driven design' in the design process. I believe that when a designer makes this claim, we should expect to see in the process an effort to optimize (whether by something systematic like a computer program, or just simple trial-and-error) in response to the performance criteria that are set. THIS IS ACTUALLY EASY TO DO, and I wonder if maybe you did this but did not show this process. What is actually MORE CRITICAL and MORE CHALLENGING is to decide how to discern an improvement in performance from one design iteration to the next. This sounds like a very dumb thing but this is my litmus test when I see projects with performance claims. What kind of feedback are the designers using to make decisions? How do the designers know if their design was successful or not?
This part of the 'performance' is not apparent in this project yet, and again, maybe it is not presented explicitly and I've missed it. But just looking at what i have to see, I would say the two objectives the project calls for -- view/display and light control -- are pretty flaky right now, and the cross section makes this clear. Why is this configuration any better than any other possible configuration? Actually, a great way to do this is to show a few iterations that DON'T work next to the final scheme, so that the criteria for design can be demonstrated clearly.
I'm not saying there is only one possible way to design this project; I would say instead this project's objectives relative to performance could and should have been more explicit, and this would make the issue of performance more defensible.
Otherwise, there are some good parts to this project and I thank you again for a clear and accessible presentation. I will definitely share this with some of my colleagues!
“Just Curve It” Great presentation everyone. I found your graphics, drawings and renderings to be very clear, and informative, allowing me to make an accurate critique.
I would like to get right into what needs to change. For this installation you began using a performative software that produced some interesting findings. The plan and section spoke to that work, but the elevation was deeply lacking.
The openings for models don’t want to be found by this “hole punched” method, they should happen gradually and appear to be much more organic. You need to work within this performative language that you have set up for yourself, and continue to use it as you make design changes to the project. Understanding how the spaces can be made, how they want to be made, and not just where their location should be is crucial for this design. (see my sketch) The sizes and shapes of those spaces are also incorrect if you are designing for the DF1 class. For example, there should be spaces where an intersecting planes model can be hung, maybe with finishing wire, on an angle so that light can move around it and more than one side can be seen at the same time. There are also sectional models that are very vertical that need a particular lighting condition that the author has designed for them. So please do your research, because any designer that does not spend the time understanding what and whom they are designing for will not have a successful project. You should catalog all the types of conditions of these models and their relationship to each other. I would be happy to supply you with pictures/drawings/info, so let me know.
Overall, I think you should see this installation as an opportunity to change the way students think about how each of their models conveys a unique idea for display.
8 comments:
Sample Comment. Please remember to sign your name at the end of your critique. Thanks!
Farzana Gandhi
(1 of 2) Critique of “Just Curve It” -Scott Steffes
Design Parameter One: Optimizing Human Scale
- I understand you are trying to manipulate the surface of this element based on two different views. I think you need to further evaluate the shape and placement of the red nodes that create the undulating surface. Is the undulating surface a reaction to the human body or to the view? If simply to the human body, then I think the vertical one (for the person standing up) is affective, but the one for the person kneeling is not accurate. The shape you have would be appropriate for someone lying down. If you are basing it on views, then you should manipulate the shape to be from eye level and do an analysis of view angles (based on ideal rotation angles of our neck). I understand why you are interested in two different node locations and orientations… it offers an intriguing shape, etc. The point attractor of the person standing is relatively straight forward but I think you should re-evaluate the merit of the kneeling position. It does not seem like a natural movement for a person to walk up to that exact spot and kneel down. Even if a person walks up to that point they more than likely will tilt their head down. In which case, the node shape would be different. What is going to influence a person to get into that exact attraction point you are trying to achieve? If you put a chair there, someone may sit down and achieve that point. You could also achieve that view angle if you dug a hole, placed a peep hole in a surface, or hung something from the ceiling to influence a person to kneel down, but simply placing an arbitrary point in space is not as convincing to me. Also note the distance of the undulating surface from the node. From what I can see, it does not seem consistent. The “standing node” seems closer to the surface and the “kneeling node” seems further away (and not consistent from top to bottom. Was this intentional? What determines the “optimized” distance? I assume that optimal distance would be consistent and the same for both scenarios.
Design Parameter Two: Optimizing for View
- I like the idea of varying the slat depth and distance between slats but you need to further study what is achieved (and not achieved) with the dimensions you currently have. You state that the “slats at eye-level are more dense to focus attention on the exhibited models and the spacing above and below is manipulated to optimize views to the sky and ground”. If you look in your transverse section though, it is clear that the opposite is happening. You will be able to see right through at eye level, but both the upper sky view and the lower ground view are completely blocked by the depth of the shelves. You either need to add much more distance between shelves or reduce the depth of the shelves. Your “optimal human scale” and “optimal view” are fighting each other for depth and spacing of your shelves. That’s the beauty of grasshopper… you can put both parameters in and try to find a happy medium. Right now it looks like Grasshopper designed the human scale and a 2d line elevation designed the spacing. It would be nice if you also took into account the sun coming in. Do you want the light or not? If you want light, then the large top shelf can act as a light shelf to promote indirect light. A bright, shiny surface would help. The rest of the shelves below should be much less so the sun can reflect into the space. Again, a light colored, shiny material on both the top and underside will assist. As you get to the lower shelves, there is no light so these can be deep. If you are trying to block light, then you have achieved this with your deep shelves and dark cardboard material. Unfortunately the solar gain is already inside the space so you do not get an added benefit of this. In your statement “eye-level is more dense”, you have two eye levels based on your point attractors, but only one density change (and that is not really associated with either point attractor).
(critique continued on next posting…
(2 of 2) Critique of “Just Curve It” -Scott Steffes
….continued from previous posting)
Design Parameter Three: Optimizing for Model Size and Placement
- The placement of these voids seem completely arbitrary to the optimized human scale and the optimized views. Shouldn’t the exhibit voids be focused around the point attractors and the ideal “eye-level” views?
Construction:
- I suggest you do more sectional studies. The two way cantilever on the cable system does not seem feasible. Unless you have it perfectly balanced, you will either need two connection points or a very rigid connection at the cable. I don’t think a strong rigid connection is possible with the single cable system (you can try burying a rigid connection between the layers of cardboard but it seems unlikely?). A logical solution may be to add a connection point at the back side (along the wall) and cantilever from the cable to the undulating surface. Some of the depths seem very long though. Mock it up and see if the cardboard will support the cantilever. You will also need additional support to hold up the exhibits.
Your graphics are good and overall it’s a clean, simple idea. Now you just need to adjust your design to make it work and you’ll be all set!
Best of luck,
Scott Steffes
scottsteffes@gmail.com
(1 of 1) Critique of “A Tailored Fit” –Scott Steffes
“A tailored fit” seems like an interested project with a strong concept of ergonomically adjustable seating (and leaning) based on optimal daylighting scenarios. It also seems as though a good deal of effort was put into ‘what’ the project will look like and ‘how’ it will be built. What is not clear to me is how the idea is actually carried out. What makes the undulating shape ideal for the three specified daylighting times? How were the Ecotect charts translated into the optimized form”? What makes it optimal? Is more heat gain really achieved by the different configurations (they seem to block one another?) Is there a significant difference in heat gains between the different daylighting positions? Ecotect is a strong tool and can validate every move you make (if that is the intention). How are the fins moved to the ideal positions and how do they stay in that position? How does a person know where the optimal position is at a specific time? How was the project optimized for the human form? What/who determined what the optimal human shape is… and how was that carried out in conjunction with the different adjustable daylighting conditions? I think your concept is strong, but you owe it to yourselves to analyze the merit of the concept more and carry it out through your final design.
Best of luck,
Scott Steffes
scottsteffes@gmail.com
The condition at floor level is the least resolved. The series of shelves suspended with cables should be hung from the ceiling, not resting in a very curious condition on the floor.
Additional cables will be needed at the front of the cardboard shelves that project out almost 36" or the shelves that will hold models.
After resolving the basic structural logic, I think the spacing of the shelves needs a second look. I believe you are trying to do too much with them. Using grasshopper you will be able to recalibrate around the following parameters:
1) voids in the shelves are located to hold models
2) shelf location should be driven by sun parameters, not view parameters. These two things will always be at odds with one another.
3) it might be interesting to instead design the voids to also direct views, so that when one replaces a model one sees a view OR the model is "set" within a view.
Finally, I suspect the big cantilever will not really have a spatial affect on one's interaction with the wall. If the cantilever is less deep, it will be easier to suspend from the ceiling.
Matthias Altwicker
Just Curve It (comment 1 of 2)
First of all, I want to commend the team for a very thorough presentation with clear diagrams and images.
The aspect of this project that I feel is strongest is its simplicity in components: effectively this project is attempting to program several functions at once (display, interaction with view and light, response to the human body, and interface with the window apertures on beyond) using the single primary element of the shelves. It appears to be quite reasonable to fabricate although there are some details that need attention (see more comments below).
Identifying the performative effects of the shelf proximity, depth, and contour was a plus in this team's process.
My main critique deals with the architectural/tectonic aspects of the project and I will be very direct about this. But don't feel bad because I find this is common for projects of this type to do very well meeting digital criteria at the expense of architectural issues...this is something all who use this technology deal with.
So - regarding these issue - the first issue I will raise is that of basic visibility. The shelves themselves have a way of disappearing in your renderings, and I believe this may also happen in real life. The thinness of your primary system, and the lack of any additional expressive secondary systems or details, reduces the project's experiential potential. My recommendation is to introduce more vertical vs. horizontal dialogue in the design, or think of the design as more solid, or having more layers/depth. Part of this could happen by celebrating the depth of each shelf more so they are more apparent to the viewer, and that pulling the shelves back or pushing them forward is more noticeable. This modification would enhance the potential constructability of the project too, since something as thin as you proposed will be difficult to keep straight.
Secondly, and closely related to the experience, is the projects relationship to view and to the sun. I don't know how these properties of the form were actually tested but I don't see very much evidence in the presentation that you actually know what this would do. A scale model in the sunlight, or a serious computer simulation (i.e. radiosity using ecotect or 3Dstudio) might show us how the surfaces actually control light...part of this control would be reflecting it back up to the underside of each fin, which could be quite striking. But we don't see this yet. I am also not convinced about the placement of the display areas relative to the windows either...it seems that the pattern of windows in the elevation beyond did not entirely inform the project, although there is some correspondence in the upper openings. Again, I would wonder how the two work together.
- Michael Gibson
Just Curve It (comment 2 of 2)
My last and final point regarding architectural issues is the overlay of 'performance driven design' in the design process. I believe that when a designer makes this claim, we should expect to see in the process an effort to optimize (whether by something systematic like a computer program, or just simple trial-and-error) in response to the performance criteria that are set. THIS IS ACTUALLY EASY TO DO, and I wonder if maybe you did this but did not show this process. What is actually MORE CRITICAL and MORE CHALLENGING is to decide how to discern an improvement in performance from one design iteration to the next. This sounds like a very dumb thing but this is my litmus test when I see projects with performance claims. What kind of feedback are the designers using to make decisions? How do the designers know if their design was successful or not?
This part of the 'performance' is not apparent in this project yet, and again, maybe it is not presented explicitly and I've missed it. But just looking at what i have to see, I would say the two objectives the project calls for -- view/display and light control -- are pretty flaky right now, and the cross section makes this clear. Why is this configuration any better than any other possible configuration? Actually, a great way to do this is to show a few iterations that DON'T work next to the final scheme, so that the criteria for design can be demonstrated clearly.
I'm not saying there is only one possible way to design this project; I would say instead this project's objectives relative to performance could and should have been more explicit, and this would make the issue of performance more defensible.
Otherwise, there are some good parts to this project and I thank you again for a clear and accessible presentation. I will definitely share this with some of my colleagues!
- Michale Gibson
“Just Curve It”
Great presentation everyone. I found your graphics, drawings and renderings to be very clear, and informative, allowing me to make an accurate critique.
I would like to get right into what needs to change. For this installation you began using a performative software that produced some interesting findings. The plan and section spoke to that work, but the elevation was deeply lacking.
The openings for models don’t want to be found by this “hole punched” method, they should happen gradually and appear to be much more organic. You need to work within this performative language that you have set up for yourself, and continue to use it as you make design changes to the project. Understanding how the spaces can be made, how they want to be made, and not just where their location should be is crucial for this design. (see my sketch)
The sizes and shapes of those spaces are also incorrect if you are designing for the DF1 class. For example, there should be spaces where an intersecting planes model can be hung, maybe with finishing wire, on an angle so that light can move around it and more than one side can be seen at the same time. There are also sectional models that are very vertical that need a particular lighting condition that the author has designed for them. So please do your research, because any designer that does not spend the time understanding what and whom they are designing for will not have a successful project. You should catalog all the types of conditions of these models and their relationship to each other. I would be happy to supply you with pictures/drawings/info, so let me know.
Overall, I think you should see this installation as an opportunity to change the way students think about how each of their models conveys a unique idea for display.
-Michelle Cianfaglione
Post a Comment