Patricio

Simbana Escobar. Arch.MSc.

Teacher at Universidad Tecnolgica Equinoccial.

COMPLEXITY THROUGH COMPUTATIONAL PARAMETRIC TYPOLOGY AND PHENOMENOLOGY

The use of computers in architecture has not only become

a technological advantage in design and construction, but
also modified the epistemes of typology, making hard to
determine the compositional ideas behind some buildings.
A smart combination of computational technology with
logical sense apply in phenomenological epistemes could
result in thoughtful and coherent design strategies.

INTRODUCTION

In the current days Architecture has experienced a vast convergences of theories, styles technologies and
experimentations. This epistemological confrontation has created many currents of design strategies as
well as criticism. More than ever, especially with globalize architecture, every architecture needs to
determine its own approach towards his designs and be aware of the different styles. For that, Charles
Jencks states that several epistemes function at once within architecture culture. They are simultaneous
and complementary. It can be argued that with the use of technology, many epistemes are, intertwining,
even maybe merging, making hard to separate them and understand completely the intentions of many
architects. Therefore, an episteme that could not be easily manipulated by computers should become the
main element in the design process. In fact, phenomenological episteme, this sensorial design method
could develop thoughtful buildings that can easily be understood. Using the model of Imre Lakatos, the
Phenomenological Episteme would be positioned as the hard core, always in accordance to the specific
necessities of the client. In fact, if the client tells you specifically how he envisions or what he wants in the
space it will never be a false premise, and through the strengthened of sensorial emotions with his desires
the result will be a thoughtful and strong concept per see. If then, computational architecture, or any other
episteme are added as the protective belt, by default complexity and deepness in the project are also
incorporated. Finally, an understanding of computational architecture and different epistemes such us
typology, semiology, morphology, materiality and phenomenology are explained to determined whether
computational technology or phenomenology are more representative in the architectural design.

TYPOLOGY

The first episteme is typology, and was mentioned by Jean Nicolas Louis Durand. He did not start through a
programmatic analysis, as the tendency of that time and instead was focused on grouping building by its
type. For instance, he explored the different typology of churches and classified them according to the
similarities they shared. In fact, typology then became the main design strategy in the 20th century, with the
main contribution of Aldo Rossi, in where he attacked functionalism and mentioned that the only way to
create architecture is through compositional Design techniques as the only research approach.

In the same way, computational architecture even when could not necessarily be catalogued as an
episteme, started as a negation of the conventional Architecture in the quest for new typology episteme
and architecture building that would adapt to the new life style of people. However, instead of looking for
new design ideas in functionalism it explores the advantages of using data and computer software in order
to create new organic spaces through algorithms. For instance, through the program Grasshopper, some of
these new design techniques had switched from geometric forms displayed on the screen, to dragging
components into a canvas; the output of these components would then be processed by the computer and
would generate an organic geometric form. Meaning this new typological epistemes come from processing
algorithmically equations which generate architecture spaces.

SEMIOLOGY.

Secondly, the process of design itself has switched from conventional 2d design, drawing in two-
dimensions, which was going along with the design process that since Palladio has been implemented. The
use of plan, section and elevations (faades) to design and represent a building still occurring nowadays,
however, they were more popular before. Within the next years, more and more programs were developed
and three-dimensional design software became the main source of composition. Furthermore, the last
years, the use of diagrams have become the new way of researching and communicating concepts in
architecture, almost replacing the methods of volumetric compositions or even physical models. Famous
firms have made diagrams their trends and emblem with Bjarke Ingels Group as the most famous one.
Although, diagrams are a good story tellers and easy to assimilate for the clients, there might be a lot of
information that is not being presented and just can only be understood through physical models and
spatial representations such as perspectives and renders.

In contrast, in Grasshopper the main design process switched from a visual three-dimensional geometry
design process into an algorithmically equations and data development; the 3d model becomes a
secondary element because it is just the result of the connections and parameters created in the canvas.
Every time the parameters are adjusted, new components introduced, or any connection between the
components broken, the whole 3d model changes. Sometimes due to a different equation or a new link
between parameter is created, the initial geometry changes completely, meaning different models appear
every time a simple change is done in the canvas. (Van den Heuvel & Komosa, 2013, p. 235).

However what makes this approach valuable is the real grasp of space reality because it centers in the
constant evolving 3d volume. This means that the building is not a compilation of sections plans and
elevations that all together bring to life the building but instead a design made from a whole three-
dimensional mass that architects start manipulating until the desired volumetry is reached. Only afterwards
are floor, sections and plans from the frozen 2d image of model is obtained. This in addition, is one of the
justifications of the use of parametric software in where when you change one parameter the whole
building changes and adapts to the new set of data, even when that data is just the change in dimensions.
Something that really does not happens in conventional architecture in where changing one dimension or
changing something my just affect a particular part in the building or in just one axis of it but not the entire
building. (Van den Heuvel & Komosa, 2013, p. 241-242
MORPHOLOGY

Thirdly, parametric architecture in his search for new buildings identity looks to connect directly buildings
to nature through curves and meshes instead of straight sharp angles. In addition, buildings should not
have different systems layers such as installations, structure or finishes; instead, this new architecture tries
to have entities that are organism, buildings that have the faade the structure and the details all combined
in one geometry, as in a mammal species where the skin is connected with bones and tissues all along with
the veins conforming the limbs. (Oosterhuis, 2011, pg. 22). This is a radical position against the vision of Le
Corbusier, where as a machine, buildings were conformed by different and separable elements
prefabricated by distinct factories. In the same context, Mathias Ungers mentioned that modern cities are
no longer uniform systems, the complexity of them can be understood by analyzing their different layers
such us: transport, green spaces, water, sewage, electricity, public spaces, and pedestrian routes. It is
important the isolation of each layer for operational proposes. In the same spectrum, a building is a
zooming of a component of the city, meaning it can also be analyzed through layers: such us structure,
installations, walls, finishes, among others. The isolation of layers could be important in the design process
and especially in the adaptation of the building in the future if the owner requires it, in contrast with
parametric buildings where is almost impossible to made adaptations to a fix entity.

MATERIALITY.

Despite the advantages of using computers in parametric architecture were noticeable at the beginning, it
is becoming more and more controversial with the years because the abstract models are hard and
expensive to build or still need optimization to acquire a more rational and living volumetry. However, one
of the main advantages is the customization of materials in Grasshoper and its directly production on the
factories. In fact, the construction could greatly benefit from this by the easy manipulation of any
parameter in the computer, in where the real-time virtual changes can be applied and immediately appear
in the factory file; meaning that any piece is monitored from the office and the factory at the same time
and can be produced with 100% accuracy. This will result in less production time and waste due to any
mistake found could be corrected immediately right after a quick review from the technicians involved..
(Oosterhuis, 2011, pg. 13). However, one of the downside of this is the lack of essence of materials,
because they all have the same texture.

On the other hand, a more subtle but consistent approach is the materiality explored by Peter Zumthor, in
fact he continues the vernacular approach and focused on trying to highlight the essence of the material.
Even, taking in a poetic way, he says: Materials reacts with each other and have their radiance, so that the
material composition gives rise to something unique (Zumthor, 2006, 25). He mentions the importance of
letting a material become what it needs in a building; letting the age of material appears and the patina of
them become a signature for building. In fact, he also mentions :I have seen it again and again, that
atmospheric energy you find in Palladio especially. And Ill just mention that all the same, because Ive
always had the feeling that as an architect, as a master builder, he must have had an extraordinary sense of
the presence and weight of materials. (Zumthor, 2006, 28). Therefore this simpler but more thoughtful
approach can give a real distinction and identity to a building and not become jusf one of the many
buildings using the same customize material.

PHENOMENOLOGY

One of the main developers of phenomenology episteme is Auguste Choisy and his studies of the acropolis
of Athens, in where he was not focused on the actual built form, but instead in the perception of the
approach towards the site, and how you experience the buildings. (Avermaete, 2014. 3). The main
elements of compositions were not the form but the whole journey; how people move through space and
perceive it, feel different things. In this context, Peter Zumthor has become an important phenomenology
architect not only for his modest and thoughtful projects, but also for his writings in where he describes his
way of seeing architecture and designing through the spectrum of senses. In fact in his book Atmospheres
he mentions: Architecture is a spatial art, as people always say. But Architecture is also a temporal art. My
experience of it is not limited to a single secondthat means thinking about the way people move into a
building. As in his project thermal baths in where he induced this sense of freedom of movement, seducing
people to go from one space to another (2006, pg. 28). This phenomenological episteme gives a deeper
feeling of appropriation of the space to people and not only a feeling of being in a cold boring room.
Describing sensorial experiences depends on every person and more than that on being present in the
space. Therefore, this episteme would be unique for every project and also different for every client or
user.

CONCLUSION

As Thomas Kuhn stated, Science progresses through cycles of scientific revolutions, alterned to periods of
consolidation that are called calm science. I consider nowadays architecture is on a crisis in where the
modern style or postmodern style are on decay and new tendencies such us Parametric Architecture is on
the rise. However, the use of computers and data should not become the center of the design. It could be
use as tool as the protecting belt that complement the main concept in the design but should not replace or
contaminate the core which should be an episteme that has its own identity and its different for every
project. Therefore the importance of phenomenology episteme becomes this pure core as the basic
concept in design. I could conclude that the design of every architect should not only combine different
epistemes but also add some logic with technology at the end. I could even say it is not anymore Less is
more but instead, phenomenological technology is more.

REFERENCES:

Zumthor, Peter. (2006). Atmospheres, Architectural Enviroments, Surrounding Objects. Barcelona

Oosterhuis, Kas. (2011). Towards a New Kind of Building. Rotterdam, Nai Publishers.

Van den Heuvel, Dirk; Komosa Susanne (2013). Towards a new kind of building. Delft lecture
series on Architectural Design. 2 : 233

Bibliography:

Jabi, Wassim. (2013). Parametric Design for Architecture. King.

Oosterhuis, Kas. (2002). Programmable Architecture. Arca Edizioni.

Jones, J.C. (1992). Design Methods. New York, 2nd Ed.