Alice_In-between process after mid-term

Learning from the mid-term, now I am trying to turn what I developed before into architecture. This needs precision (exact dimension and scale). I think there are 2 key aspects to be figured out:

1 - how does my component really work
The previous exercises, I tried to find out different 'patterns' for agglomerations in both 2-D and 3-D. However, that can't help to work out as a building if I don't move back to the basic and understand how two or more of my components really are fixed together. I could say there are 3 fundamental goals.
i. It should be a flexible joint allows for not just one way of connection/arrangement

ii. It should be simple enough to be prefabriacted

iii. Strong structure Logic (understanding the forces in the members - compression and tension) (In most of the cases, when iii. can be done, i and ii will just happen naturally)

Instead of starting from nothing again, I observed the component I have again. The first feeling was that - it is too complicated and it is hard to understand 'why' it has to be like that. I tried to subdivided into smallest part, which is not reducible anymore. Testing with physical model, although it can't fully represent the real situation, I can still see that it doesn't have much advantage for taking loads and carrying forces. Deformation can esaily happen becoz of the twisted and looping and interlocking framework.

As a result, I take the same 'unreducible part' to construct '3 arms' components. From the pictures, you can see, other than forming a tetrahedron component (the one I had developed before in Topmod), it could also form surfaces with different densities, with weaving pattern. I also can construct 3-dimensional surfaces which could form a spatial structure that can stand on it own. In fact, I think the '3 arms' component is more interesting to be developed than the rigid and complicated tetrahedron component. It's simpler, more flexible in arrangement and with structural sense. Moreover, I think it still keep the essance of the orginal one. The tetrahedron could be seen as just one of the results. The next step will be to see if these different ways of agglormerations (surfaces, spatial structure or tetrahedron) can actually be combined into the architecture....creating various spaces...

2. - how to work out the concept with the site and programme
Vague ornamentation has been part of the concept of my project. Again, for a building, this is not enough. I take a further step to really draw the section and plan of the site. Meanwhile, I try to take my component as an abstract form which is - just a tetrahedron. Therefore, it is easier for me to see how components occupy the space, the solid and void relationship (although the solid part may turn to be just wireframe later), and become a volume.

The site model (1:200 scale) I built is an attempt to see how different scales of the same components can fill up together, with gradual changes/movements according to the programme situable for the site. My ambition is that people inside will not just see the ornament becomes the floor, wall, roof, but really as a deep ornament space. The model is not yet finished, and I also realize that I shouldn't stick with tetrahedron. More operations have to be done and considered in order to break the regularity/repeated type of space within each zone formed by the same scale of components - then gradually becomes vague again.

After the above explorations, followings are the latest images of my building developed so far using the new 3-arms components with different scales for different spaces. Because my computer was broken during the holiday, I used another software but soon I will move back to Maya for rendering and animation. 

Top view

South Elevation

Entrance

Exhibition Space

Library/Offices

Cafe

 

Staircase formed in-between structure