Ben Howard_iaac

Here is thepanel for my final presentation. Forgive me, but I am a bit tired to write a meaningful analysis just yet!

Here is the latest development. Much of my time has I felt involved with battling the software to do what I want and not crash. Each time I come up with a new variation, I feel, the complexity of operations also increases!

This week, the variations looked at hybrid conditions:

-what happens when the setout points for the blocks are moved outside the central axis.

-using sun cutoff angles to determine the setout of the street space in front of the buildings

-looking at a makeup of public spaces, that will eventually relate to the specific density of the spaces directly around.

The progress is encouraging and whilst we are not wildly changing the form, I feel the reasons behind the decisions are becoming more sound.

From the previous post, I have been very systematic in outlining the variations possible in form, shape and orientation. In that sense, parametric software is very good for allowing one to insert multiple iterations of the one component and see their comparative worth over a line of variation. In this sense, this is a very good exercise in rigorously questioning what is the right variation to pick (out of the hundreds possible), like a photographer, examining a ‘contact sheet’ for the best photo.

Secondly, I have been thinking about the specific design of the campus and looking more specifically at the references of Cambridge and Oxford. Also, I am intereted in how my initial research into Canberra, could be continued, so that the model of the campus as a microcosm for the city, could be re-applied to the city for Mauritania.

My initial thoughts at the beginning of the thesis process. I wanted to take from the work done in DS1, S2, that had a system of variation to begin with. The idea being that the thesis would be an opportunity to improve on some of the criticisms of the studio (the sense of sameness to the blocks) and to try and work in the infrastructure more.

From my thesis proposal however, I thought the questions of density and public space to be of most interest, and the questions of how do the variations in the two create a city image?

The last two images are my first iterations of variation to the existing module, though I was criticised for ‘taking the cookie-cutter’ to the plan!

Here are some of the images from our final presentation. We were very pleased in the end with it, being able to combine all the ideas generated through the semester, the multiscaler approach, energy, tourism and water research from the I&Out seminar and developing the Parametric stuff, without being totally caught up in the program. In brief, it was a process of going back and forward between parametric, CAD and photoshop that helped us to get to the final design. We will also try and publish photos of the model / booklet soon!

A few slides from our presentation today. We have two varied approaches of analysing passages and flows around the various areas on the site. We then took two approaches, one of analysing the various functions and placing them in conjunction with an analysis of the flows. Second was a parametric analysis of existing waterfront conditions, plugged back into a flow model between the nodes of the city. The Parametric model is linked into a spreadsheet and able to update. We are thinking that the final model would be a combination of the two, allowing for both predictability and ‘the accident’ of overlap.

Some exerts from the final presentation.

A link to our presentation on the above article can be found here:

A link to the latest weeks development can be found here:

We have moved between the scales of XL, L & M, analysing the connectivity of the site and the region, though to the actualization and first attempts at planning on the site. The image below from Andy Goldsworthy represents our thoughts on creating a dynamic structure that is flexible and dynamic in its nature.