Posts Tagged ‘Response’

∏-raeus rippling waves feedback system

The feedback system is production-oriented. In the first phase, a set of water textures of different scales and blur are used to generate different facades. The influences of the scale and blur factors are evaluated according to:

1) The visual effect of the results: it is important that the pattern is able to create an interesting image both seen from the outside (at the building scale) and from the inside (scale of one floor).

When the pattern is too complex, the reading of the façade as an image of rippling water is lost.

When the pattern is too simple, the variations are not easily perceptible from the inside of the building.

2) The range of different twisting angles needed to create the pattern and the possibility of introducing modules of different twists as well as the repercution of this regularization on the former visual effet of the façade.

Research on effects and inspirations

Daniel Rozen: Wooden mirror

Playing with the brighness of the material depending of the exposition to the light.

Daniel Rozin

Wooden mirror Video

Anish Kapoor Reflection work

C-Curve – Anish Kapoor – Corner Contraflow from Dominic Alves on Vimeo.

Deformation of the reflection.

ID-LAB Interactive Mirror

Interactive mirror

Interactive facade

Interactive facade at interactive

Marilena Skavara – Adaptive Fa[ca]de

The video is really inspiring for the effect i want to create: click here

wrapped around facade, response

My intentions for this critic were to make a coherent system that works well and that represents the intentions I had to start with. After the critic I realized that my system was proposing no variations, I didn’t show a range of possibilities. I did propose a system that works, now I have to see which are the elements that can vary and that can make my façade be influenced by outside factors, try to look at a wider range of possibilities in general. Also, try to determinate the influencing parameters that would make the whole less uniform. As well as redefining my intentions is one of the next steps.

Main intentions:

-      Piraeus is a skeleton that need to be covered, so in some way wrapped around : which leads to a will to have a continuous façade with no sharp angles,

-      keep the two distinct volumes working together and articulate them eventually with  outside spaces;

-      the upper part should be a strong vertical object;

-      work on density to create more or less transparency;

-      use the same material for the over all but at different scales and different treatment of the same material; (e.g. : glass : transparent, transluside, printed)

response_cristal facade

One infinity of hexagons dimensions defined by changes of the context.

response_growing parasite structure

In response to the mid-term crit on the 15th of April 2010 and as continuation of my very first esquisse, I take the following conclusion:
The deformable skin doesn’t cover the whole tower anymore, but rather uses it at certain points as a host. This parasite structure covers the existing structure only where public interaction or attraction would take place. This aims as well to push the idea of phasing the tower’s life and let it change over time. Starting with taking in account the immediate context, interacting wiht it, providing an enclosed safty staircase and a lookout point on the top, the Piraeus Tower will be covered more and more as its value rises and the indoor space gets occupied.

For clarifing reasons the attraction maths and creation of the structure, used in the GH definition, will be reworked and demonstrated in diagrams.

Response: Performant Icon

Moving forward I will have to explore the potential that lies in a system composed of two autonomous layers in terms of their performance as a climatic device. Simultaneously, it has to be clarified what kind of iconic appearance is desired  and how it can be achieved using this double layered system.