56
Chapter 4
Learning Parametric Designing
Marc Aurel Schnabel
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
Parametric designing, its instruments, and techniques move architectural design education towards novel
avenues of deep learning. Akin to learning and working environments of engineering and manufacturing, it offers similar advantages for architects. Yet it is not as simple as using another tool; parametric
designing fundamentally shifts the engagement with the design problem. Parametric designing allows
architects to be substantially deeper involved in the overall design and development process extending
it effectively beyond production and lifecycle. Leaning parametric design strategies enhance architects’
critical engagement with their designs and their communication. Subsequently, the computational aid of
parametric modelling alters substantially how and what students learn and architects practice.
INTRODUCTION
Parametric design techniques offer obvious
advantages for engineering and manufacturing
processes, now architects have emerged to apply
these methods in their working environment suggesting solutions and novel designs at an earlier
stage of the process. Through the coupling of
architectural design with parametric modelling
methods, the chapter presents techniques that
enhance students’ learning and knowledge about
designing and architectural building processes.
This allows a deeper comprehension of the design
objectives and aids architectural designers in their
decisions to find solutions.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-180-1.ch004
A dilemma of semester-based teaching is that
students reach their highest level of skills and experience at the end of a term, after which they leave
for their break and are therefore unable to apply
their freshly gained knowledge immediately. At
the beginning of the next following term, however,
the knowledge and skills they had gained earlier
are likely to be either inactive or not employed,
and learning foci may have shifted to other aims.
The architectural design studio presented here
addressed these issues by integrating the learning
experience from the beginning by focusing on
parameters that create or inform about the design.
The objective of this ‘parametric designing’ was
to allow students to understand the impact each
step and variable has on the design and follow the
impact it has onto the project. Students developed
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Learning Parametric Designing
Figure 1. Right: Pieter Bruegel’s ‘Tower of Babel. Right: Archigram’s Plug-in City
and communicated their design parameters by
utilizing their knowledge throughout the designstudio environment. Because of this, students
began to think about design problems in different ways. The studio explored design by basing
it on parameters and their connecting rules. In
order to build up a philosophy around parametric
dependencies and relationships, the participants
used digital instruments that aided them to create
and express their designs. With these instruments,
they could develop expertise to engage creatively
in designing. The studio cumulated in an architectural art exhibition highlighting the coupling
of architectural design with digital modelling and
fabrication methods. Students presented architectural solutions that challenged and addressed
environmental and programmatic issues, dimension, space and volume, as well as theoretical and
conservational topics, resulting in novel designs
created with freedom of innovation, interpretation, and definition some of which without any
boundaries. The notion of non-conformity added to
the core of this collection of works, held together
by the idea of spatial concepts and parametric
designing in architecture.
BACKGROUND
Pieter Bruegel, a Netherlands’ Renaissance
painter, depicted a representation of the ‘Tower of
Babel’ as a building that is constantly redefining
its needs, as it grows larger and more complex
(Figure 1). The painting shows a tower nearly
reaching the clouds and illustrates all the problems then associated with cities, buildings and
life within and the constant change and reaction
to new situations during the process of building.
The exploration of the relationship between
human beings and the natural world, and the
subsequent implications of interactions between
them, has deep roots in our social and cultural
understanding of society. Cities, therefore, are
direct reflections of their inhabitants, as their
architectural expressions directly influence the
living conditions of their people. In recent practice,
architects have designed and described buildings
through the means of (master-) plans, sections,
elevations, or descriptions of render-perfect,
complete architectures in which change was not
part of the picture. A few, however, have tried
different approaches to communicate architecture.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, Archigram already presented an idea that reacted against the
permanence of houses in what it called the “Plug-in
City” (Figure 1, right). They proposed architecture
that is ever changing and adaptable to different
57
Learning Parametric Designing
social and economic conditions (Karakiewicz,
2004). Their proposal did not develop further
than a conceptual stage, yet it lays in contrasts
to the common practice that also Le Corbusier
describes as non-intelligent building machines,
whereby these machines would not think, and
would therefore be unable to adapt to change.
More recently ‘LAB Architecture Studio’translated planning codes of Beijing’s ‘Soho Shang-Du’
into series of parametric design rules whereby the
outcome both complies with and confounds the
rigid regulations (Davidson, 2006). As a result,
the architects did not prescribe a fixed definition
of architecture, but a set of rules and instructions
that inform about and can generate the outcome.
This allows a reaction on a variety of site-specific
variables that can be modified according to the
need, yet fit into the overall design intents of the
architects.
These samples point out the constant demand
for architecture to adapt and react to a variety of
parameters that are driven by its use and context. The gap between the architectural design
conceptions and the translation of these designs
into the real built environment can be addressed
fundamentally differently by an intersection of
process and outcome (Eastman, 2004). Parametric
design and digital fabrication techniques suggest
controllable and adaptable solutions at an earlier
stage of the process that react to the given situations and the outcomes.
PARAMETRIC DESIGN STUDIO
Architectural design studios are an essential learning experience for architectural students. Their
traditions and proceedings are well established.
Studios go beyond pure skill training and require
reflection upon, and the creation of, knowledge.
These studios are, additionally, informed and
supplemented by courses and seminars that contribute to the overall learning goals. Yet there can
be a gap between skill training and application
58
of knowledge. At the end of the studio, students
may not be able to identify how they arrived to
their solution and solves a given problem, or what
were the individual contributors that made their
design successful.
In computational architectural studios, the
same phenomena can be observed. These studios
present the underlying concepts of architectural
design using computational instruments, and have
at the same time to provide for software skills and
other technical knowledge (Kvan, 2004A). The
integration of digital media into design studio
curricula often fails, because the compound acquisition of skills prevents a deep exploration of
design and the theoretical aspects involved at the
same time. Participants can employ computational
instruments within a studio context only after
they have learned subject matters and acquired
proficiency in their skills. By then, the studio may
consider these skills no longer valid or has ended.
Parametric applications have inherited two
crucial elements. These are that all entities start
in a multi-dimensional space and allow the study
of architectural conditions in a cloud of data
and variety of representations, rather than the
conventional two-dimensional or layered design
environment. The underlying notion of parametric
designing is based on the contextual construction of a formal and spatial systemic intelligent
simulation; or in other words data, variables, and
their relationship to other entities, which can then
respond to variations of necessities (Ambrose,
2009). Students learn about cause and effect in
both abstract environments as well as at specific
situations of their design task. This is where architectural education is in the process of changing
fundamentally. Design studios and courses are
now increasingly reacting to the quantum leap
architectural computing has presented to design
education, and introducing computational parametric tools to the design studios that go beyond
Computer Aided Design (CAD) (Picon, 2010).
Yet one has to be careful that novel technologies
and learning methodologies offer current pedago-
Learning Parametric Designing
gies to address certain known issues and cannot
eliminates all problems connected with learning
and education.
PARAMETRIC DESIGNING
Architecture in general can be expressed and specified in a variety of ways. Commonly, drawings
describe geometric properties that can explain,
depict, and guide the construction of buildings
or streets. Alternatively, performance specifications can describe observed behaviours. It is also
possible to describe properties as relationships between entities. Spreadsheets, for instance, specify
the value of each cell as the result of calculations
involving other cell entries. These calculations or
descriptions do not have to be explicit. Responsive
materials change their properties in reaction to
the conditions around them. A thermostat senses
air temperature and controls the flow of electric
current, and hence the temperature of the air supplied. Using such techniques, artists have created
reactive sculptures and architects have made
sentient spaces that react to their occupants or
other relevant factors. Streetlights turn on if light
levels fall below a threshold; traffic flow can be
regulated according to need; walls can move as
users change location.
Links to a variety of data can be established
and subsequently serve as the bases to generate
geometric forms using parametric design instruments. When designing spaces, it is usual to collect
some data of the type of architectural qualities
desired. These are then, for example, translated
into master plans, which are themselves specific
spatial descriptions. Performance requirements for
spaces can then be written, linking the description of the architecture to experiential, financial,
environmental, or other factors (Picon, 1997).
Design studios mimic the typical working
processes of the architectural profession and are
the essential learning experience for architectural
students. Research is now looking into how the
framing of design problems using parametric
methods enhances the overall process (Schnabel
et al., 2004). The here presented studio, therefore,
couples parametric methodologies within the
generation of architectural design, ultimately reframing the problem and proposing new answers
to design thinking and learning. Participants in
this study solved a typical architectural design
problem using computational applications that
focused on the parametric dependencies of spatial
entities, generative scripts, and form finding. The
re-representation of the design intent sharpens
the question at its centre (Gao and Kvan, 2004),
while taking full advantage of available parametric
modelling software to explore it. This approach
tested the limitations set by conventional, designonly methods. The cognitive aspects of the design
generation and their relationships to parametric
design methods operated as an influential factor
for the understanding of the projection of design
intent, framing, generation of spatial knowledge
within architectural design and the reflection about
the outcome produced in this process (Ambrose,
2009).
Problem Framing
The studio engaged the participants in design
processes by using sets of variables and series
of relations to question, create, and define the
form and function of the resulting designs. Thus,
the students examined interaction techniques
between their design intent, their framing of the
design problem, their subsequent generation and
reflection on their development by testing the
rules and parameters. Participants engaged in a
collaborative architectural design studio involving
the creation and fabrication of architecture. This
formed the basis for a transfer of knowledge to the
larger context of the issues ahead in their future
professional careers (Riese and Simmons, 2004).
The studio took a distinctive neighbourhood
within the larger urban context of Sydney, Australia as its base of exploration. The specific site
59
Learning Parametric Designing
Figure 2. Four phases and exhibition of the design studio with learning reflections and projections
surrounding, a mix of residential, public and
commercial buildings, offered a medium dense
area with a variety of architectural languages.
Driven by a fast growing population, an architectural strategy that steers further development
was sought. The city’s scale, its growth through
migration and the need for new housing have
an impact on its inhabitants’ sense of place and
sense of community. Earlier urban planning did
not anticipate the changes that arose over years
of population growth. Hence, a new strategy for
development that could address these issues was
sought to create a new identity for the place and
the city itself (Forrest et al., 2002).
The site of the studio had typical architectural
characteristics and requirements. Located at a riverbank, in close proximity of a parkland, cultural-,
office- and residential buildings, the site offered
a variety of inspiration as well as constrains for
an architectural design exercise. Students had to
address and responded to the local and overall
conditions of open space, city, work, living and
environment.
The studio built upon design studios where
participants explored design methods and tools
beyond their original definitions and perceived
limits (Schnabel et al., 2004). To allow the students both to acquire skills and training within
their studio and to apply this knowledge to their
design, the studio had an integrated digital media
component that addressed parametric modelling
in architectural design.
60
Two groups of fifteen students of the postgraduate architectural program each joined this
studio, which was guided by two design tutors
and one architectural consultant in digital media.
The studio was structured in four phases that
related to and built upon each other (Figure 2).
The aim was to acquire and integrate parametric
design knowledge and to use it as the base of the
design creation of their architectural proposal. As
a result, the final design could be modified and
manipulated based on the parameters and their
dependencies, allowing the students to gain a
deeper understanding of their design processes
and outcomes as well as the reaction of their
proposals with the various influences of the site.
Creating
The project’s first component included the collection and understanding of data that arrived from
the site. In order not to overwhelm the students,
the tutors asked them during this first stage to
limit them to investigating only two points of
interests, which became their key-parameters.
Hereby the students could focus on the selections
of parameters that they believed would influence
their building proposal or their site’s perception,
this parameter could be a real or abstract item
(Figure 3).
The parameters they chose informed them
about the variables and correlation of their guiding design principles that formed their initial rules.
These provided them a description based on de-
Learning Parametric Designing
Figure 3. Two parameters (floor-heights) used by a student team (R Beson & N Minasian)
pendencies and interconnected relationships of
relevant information. The chosen parameters
helped the students to understand what impact
certain variables may have on a design strategy
and the design itself. This component concluded
after two weeks with presentations of data, parameters, and individual interpretations of the site.
Learning
The program’s second component focused on the
understanding and creation of parametric concepts
and the acquisition of design-application skills
that allow rule-based three-dimensional design.
Participants were trained intensively during studio
time in the use of Digital Project TM (2004). This
software allows users to not only create threedimensional models, but also to establish rules,
create parameters and their dependencies on a
variety of entities (Figure 4).
Parametric functions require a different understanding of the conceptual approaches to design. Creating rules and dependencies, which then
create the design, involved the students in a
higher level of problem framing and definition of
the concept of design. It allowed the visualization
and modelling of highly complex forms that may
result from non-traditional design data, such as
noise data or spatial requirements.
The students focused on their own parametric
and rule-based design analyses from the first component and subsequently studied mainly only the
aspects relevant to these in relation to the use and
operation of the software, the creation of rules,
and parametric and generative design. During this
phase, they used the time allocated to the design
studio to establish a basic understanding of the
software in its relationship to the design intent
developed during the first phase. After three weeks
of intensive training in architectural computing,
the students reached a sufficient level of skills
that enabled them to use the parametric software
as an aid for the creation of their own designs.
Scripting
‘Script’ is derived from the term for written dialogue in the performing arts, where actors are given
directions to perform or interpret. Subsequently,
‘scripting’ is a creative process that describes the
artistic intent of the designer. Scripts can define a
set of rules that combines parameters in the named
way. Software applications can be programmed
and adjusted by scripts allowing for example
repetitive tasks to be automated or to generate
solutions that fit to a range of parameters (Biloria
et al., 2005). Instead of using only compositional
methods for designing, the students utilized scripts
to form their own generative properties and base
for their design exploration (Figure 5). Sourcing related or suitable general available scripts
students quickly learned how to edit and control
their design by amending the parameters or rules
to fit their design intent (Celani, 2008). This phase
differs greatly from conventional studios because
students are engaging in software training and skill
61
62
Figure 4. Development of parameters, dependencies and rules within software analogue (left) and digitally (right) (Beson & Minasian)
Figure 5. Variations generated by a script to modify facade-tiles (Beson & Minasian).
Learning Parametric Designing
Learning Parametric Designing
acquisitions of how to generate and manipulate
instructions for computer programmes that can
aid their design process.
Designing
The program’s third component, scheduled for
seven weeks, concentrated on design creation,
reflection, and the communication of architectural
design proposals. Using the data of the first component and the skills of the second, the students
then started to establish and visualize their designs
in three-dimensional forms that created spatial
expressions of their findings and explorations.
Due to the emphasis on parameters, the studio
was in particular interested in describing a building form by creating dependencies of parameters
that defined the relationship of data to architectural expressions. With the use of a parametric
modeller, it was easy to create geometric entities,
solids and voids, and relate them to the context
of the design task. This method made it obvious
how one can learn about design and understand
the various steps and elements through the logical
steps laid out by the chosen parameters, variables,
rules or scripts.
Fabricating
Another stage in the creative process is the fabrication of the digitally created designs. Recent
computational applications and digital fabrication
technologies have allowed architecture to take
novel directions. The combination of architectural
computation with computer-controlled machinery
has nearly made it possible for shapes, however
complex or irregular they seem to be, to be rationalized and created as physical entities with the
ultimate aim to result in a buildable architecture
(Oxman and Oxman, 2010). The studio subsequently made extensive use at all stages to explore
the transformation of virtual design conceptions
to physical objects via the use of computer-aided
manufacturing (Figure 6).
Merging
The program’s next following component brought
together the various aspects and results of the
earlier modules. Within two weeks, the students
merged their individual designs into larger cluster
files. This synthesis created compound descriptions and dependencies that were highly complex
and interrelated, yet both the content as well as the
tool allowed seamless communication to a larger
Figure 6. Facade details from the digital model fabricated by rapid-prototyping (Beson & Minasian)
63
Learning Parametric Designing
Figure 7. A joint model that combined facade, interior spaces and atrium details
audience by describing the rules and parameters
(Figure 7). This phase created a design with
shared authorship of all participants and allowed
the students to study and understand the complexity and the interrelationships of architectural
designing that they normally would have been
unable to perceive immediately. Through their
collaboration and exchange the students built up
a collective intelligence that was driven by the
individual contributions. The change of a single
variable modified the whole design. Participants
understood therefore the complex dependencies
that one variable has in a large building and the
impact it can have on the design.
Exhibiting
The design explorations culminated in an exhibition displaying the designers’ engagement with
parametric designing and fabrication (Figure 8).
To mark the distinctive final stage in a celebrative conclusion of design development, the event
Figure 8. Exhibition of final designs at Brand Smart Centre (left) & Tin Shed Gallery, Sydney (right)
64
Learning Parametric Designing
exemplified how digital architectural design
can conceptually and artistically engage with a
particular site, where a variety of solutions to
problems in architectural design were developed
from a diversity of multi-faceted and eccentric
approaches (Schnabel and Bowller, 2007). The
participating designers pushed creativity to new
boundaries in definition of their artwork and
cultural contexts, setting the direction for poetic
viewpoints on innovation in architecture and
spatial design. The exhibition forms a crucial
learning experience whereby both processes and
outcomes are presented in a formal way that is
self-explanatory to a wider audience.
The compiling of all projects into a single
exhibition removed the designers from the context
of individual ownership, providing them with the
invaluable opportunity to reflect on both, their
own and their colleagues’ proposals as a coherent
collection of contributions towards one common
engagement of design.
OUTCOMES
Participants of the parametric design studio were
able to employ digital media skills from very early
on throughout the studio and expand on these with
their understanding and communication of design
issues from there.
The students had already acquired a very high
level of skills in using a specific parametric instrument within the first half of the studio. This enabled
them to employ the instrument as an amplifier to
learn about their designs. Subsequently, they were
not limited by their knowledge or level of skills
in order to be able to express themselves. The
students produced a variety of individual design
proposals as well as one large design-cluster. They
created rules, scripts and parameters that allowed
complex and interrelating designs to emerge.
These representations could not be generated
or communicated using traditional architectural
design methods or instruments.
For example, one proposal related street
lighting, neon-signs and display-windows with
human activity around the building site. These
parameters provided the engaging surface for the
building mass. Subsequently they controlled the
use, orientation and appearance of the building.
The author took references to Japanese inner cities,
where innovative ways of spaces are created by
the means of lights, advertising and projections.
Void, volume and density is controlled and created by the rhythm and intensity of lights. The
student transferred this concept into parameters,
which redefined the spatial understanding of the
site and used these variables to create an architectural proposal.
Other results used parameters that related to
the relationships between people and attraction to
spaces with responsive structures. Students created self-opening canopies that reacted to people,
activities, ferry schedules, weather conditions and
the possibilities to collect rainwater to provide
a comfortable environment in all conditions.
One team reacted with different floor-heights to
various needs of public and private programme
of their building and related their spaces to vista
and light penetration of their building (Figures
3-6). These explorations then were merged with
parameters controlling the interior space, atrium
and program to form an overall design of a mix
use building (Figure 7).
In the studio’s last component, all students
presented in-depth clusters of multifaceted architectural design proposals for the site. They
demonstrated a high level of thinking processes
resulting in the generation of compound rules and
dependencies that finally create the architectural
design schemes. Each student contributed simultaneously to create a variety of design proposals.
The participants gained a high level of expertise
with digital parametric tools as part of their development at the studio, and used this knowledge
to design parametrically. The outcome clearly
showed that thinking, learning and creating within
parametric designing requires a novel and deeper
65
Learning Parametric Designing
understanding of the overall design goal and its
anticipated outcome. The studio also showed that
a social engagement with team members created a
common knowledge to which everyone not only
contributed but also benefitted. Students subsequently build up a social intelligence that allowed
them to address both skills and design problems.
Students reported of the step learning curve of
understanding how parametric software is structured differently to conventional software. They
reported that they could not just design intuitively
as they would do in conventional studios and had
to stick to the rigour process of the parametric
design methodology. The skill training in the
software and the translation of the design intent
proved not always to be straight forward. Some
students only gained the full understanding of the
potential parametric modelling offers at the end
of the studio where all solutions were presented.
While others had difficulties in developing a logic
string of design steps that relate to the parametric
approach, they preferred or felt back to intuitive
or conventional designing.
Parametric modelling subsequently does not
solve all issues connected with design-learning.
It allows however, an alignment of cause and
effect and a reflection of the design intent, the
process and outcome. This differs from conventional design studios where these dependencies
only seldom can be established. The studio allowed participants to learn about designing and
problem framing. They were able to theorize
and reflect on design creation for this and other
design tasks. Consequently students engaged in
a deeper learning that allows them to transfer and
adapt their knowledge to new situations. Results
can be explored at: www.parramatta.tk and www.
disparallelspaces.tk.
DISCUSSION
In the early stages of computational architecture,
designing in layers was a popular enrichment to
66
conventional designing because it allowed architects to deal with problems that are more complex,
with each different layer playing a specific role.
It singled out issues and allowed dealing with
them one at a time. Items that are more complex
were divided into separate issues and dealt with
one by one. Parametric design opens up a novel
set of opportunities. It enables architects to study
causes of problems and their relationships to, and
dependencies on, other elements directly within
a three-dimensional environment.
This shift of design thinking and creation needs
to be addressed in the teaching and learning of
design. Additionally, parametric designing provide for unpredictable events in connection with
an overall architectural framework. Architects
and architecture itself can respond to unplanned
changes and their resulting consequences. The
outcomes of this design studio showed that parametric dependencies allowed for such a level of
ambiguity that is desired and required in creative
and learning environments.
One objective of the studio was to frame an intellectual question that created design descriptions
based on rules, scripts and parameters. The more
interesting outcomes resulted from the ability to
redefine and reframe the problems themselves by
stepping out of preconceptions based on experience and exploring sets of unpredictable answers
and then reflecting back on the starting point.
Hence, in certain ways, parametric designing
act at a higher level of the problem framing. The
establishment of meta-rules has instituted a form
of problem framing that demands the reference of
one problem or parameter with other ones.
The learning outcomes of the parametric design studio demonstrate how non-linear design
processes led to architectural design understandings that differ from conventional approaches to
design learning due to their different nature of
design thinking, framing, creation, and intuition.
Despite three-dimensional representations of an
architectural space being only a medium aiding
the understanding and communication of spatial
Learning Parametric Designing
arrangements, the designers’ comprehension of
complex spatial qualities was enhanced by the
parametric design environment, partly due to the
logic structure and dependencies of one step to
the next. The steep learning curve and the time
needed to adjust to the parametric and sometimes
stringent or seemingly limiting methodology of
parametric designing shows that conventional
designing is the pre-dominant approach to design and deeply routed in the design-thinking of
students. Yet despite these difficulties students
unanimously reported that the here presented
studio helped to understand how to design and
they highly valued the approach to thinking about
and executing designing.
The use of parametric instruments allowed all
students to design within an environment based
on rules and generative descriptions, amplifying
their understandings of creative processes and
their learning outcomes. Each designer bridged
the rift between their knowledge and ambition,
creating architectural designs and learning about
the act of architectural designing.
NEXT STEPS
The increasing marginalization of architects in
the building industries (Bennetts, 2008) suggests
that professional and educational ideals and professional work are poorly aligned. Unlike other
professions, architects are trained in a variety of
fields of knowledge and skills that are not directly
related to the daily routine of the architectural
praxis. Subsequently architecture students have
an increasing amount to learn following graduation. Architects have discovered how digital
instruments alter any aspects of their routines of
working. However, academic and educational
environments are not able to follow in the same
speed. Learning designing has shifted from the
single learner to a collective engagement with a
variety of learners, novices, experts and instruments that aid, analyze, generate, design and
review. Less than a decade ago many schools
of architecture did not allow students to deliver
CAD drawings for design projects assuming that
would limit the exploration and understanding of
design. In fact, the early experiments in using the
computer in the design process quite often failed
only because of the restrictions of the available
infrastructure, facilities and skills. Today, students
are familiar with architectural computing even
before they enter the university (Dokonal and
Hirschberg, 2003).
Still many questions remain unanswered and
new questions arise in the relationship between
architectural design and architectural computing. Architectural design is both an imagination
and the ability to convey this idea. The learning
of architectural design has to make use of the
advantages that complex architectural computing offers without loosing the qualities of the
established conventional methods. The current
‘Net-Generation’ (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005)
of learners, who are more conversant in using
computational instruments than their teachers, are
changing the dynamics of architectural education.
This is a challenge to established curricula and
institutions.
The herein presented studio is a successful
attempt to integrate architectural computing into
the learning environment by aligning skills and
knowledge of the students with the objective to
generate knowledge about designing, computation, architecture and realization.
Akin to Maver’s (1995) comments, parametric designing and for that matter, architectural
computing is certainly far from being resolved
and offering the perfect solution. As the needs,
goals and problems are rapidly developing architectural design and its learning needs to facilitate
the evolution and progress. Synergies between
the different realms, media and technologies are
constantly evolving and adjusted to foster the
evolution of architectural praxis and the building
industry (Eastman et al, 2008).
67
Learning Parametric Designing
CONCLUSION
The parametric design studio method presented in
this chapter addressed computational concepts of
architectural designing that influence the recent
learning environment of architectural education.
It coupled the setting of studio-learning with an
in-depth digital media training in order to close
the gap between acquisition of skills and the reflection of knowledge, as well as to explore new
avenues of framing and integrating compound
design issues. The use of digital parametric instruments allowed the participants to design within
an environment based on rules and generative descriptions, amplifying their design understanding
and their own learning. The students connected
their knowledge with their ambition to create their
own design proposals.
The synthesis of all individual projects removed the students from individual ownership
of their designs, but allowed them to reflect on
both their own and their colleagues’ designs as a
complete cluster of contributions (Kvan, 2004B).
This related to earlier research into design studios
based on the same principle, in which media
were applied outside their normal pre-described
purposes, and innovative design methods were
deployed by interplaying digital media and design
explorations (Schnabel et al., 2004).
With the employment of parametric design
methods that allowed students to experience the
dependencies and rules of the various individual
contributions spatially, as well as the overall common proposals, the design was communicated
using digitally controlled manufacturing processes
and digital representations.
The studio was phased in such a way that each
section built upon the next and became an essential
part of the overall design learning and creation.
They addressed and expressed certain aspects of
the process. A holistic discussion about design,
form, function, and development is consequently
established - a significant venture not only within
68
the architectural realm, but also in all other dialogues involving spatial representation.
REFERENCES
Ambrose, M. A. (2009). BIM and comprehensive
design studio education. In Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Computer Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia (pp. 757760). Yunlin, Taiwan: CAADRIA.
Bennetts, R. (2008). Reasserting the architect’s
position in pursuit of sustainability. In S. Roaf
& A. Bairstow (Eds.), The Oxford Conference:
A re-evaluation of education in architecture (pp.
11-16). Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
Biloria, N., Oosterhuis, K., & Aalbers, C. (2005).
Design informatics. In Smart Architecture: Integration of Digital and Building Technologies (pp.
226–235). Savannah, GA: ACADIA.
Celani, M. G. C. (2008). Teaching programming
to architecture students. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia de Projetos, 3(2), 1–23.
Davidson, P. (2006). The regular complex. Paper
presented at the NSK Wolfram Science Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 10, 2010,
from http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/ 2006/presentations/davidson.html
(2004). Digital Project TM. Los Angeles, California: Gehry Technologies.
Dokonal, W., & Hirschberg, U. (Eds.). (2003).
Digital design. Graz, Austria: eCAADe and Graz
University of Technology.
Eastman, C. (2004). New methods of architecture and building. In Fabrication: Examining
the Digital Practice of Architecture (pp. 20–27).
Cambridge, Canada: ACADIA & AIA Technology
in Architectural Practice Knowledge Community.
Learning Parametric Designing
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston,
K. (2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building
information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons.
Forrest, R., La Grange, A., & Yip, N.-m. (2002).
Neighborhood in a high rise, high density city:
Some observations on contemporary Hong
Kong. The Sociological Review, 50(2), 215–240.
doi:10.1111/1467-954X.00364
Gao, S., & Kvan, T. (2004). An analysis of problem
framing in multiple settings. In Gero, J. (Ed.),
Design computing and cognition (pp. 117–134).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Karakiewicz, J. (2004). City as a megastructure.
In Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (Eds.), Future forms
for sustainable cities (pp. 137–151). Oxford, UK:
Architectural Press.
Kvan, T. (2004A). Collaborative design: What is
it? Automation in Construction, 9(4), 409–415.
doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00025-4
Kvan, T. (2004B). Reasons to stop teaching
CAAD. In Chiu, M.-L. (Ed.), Digital design
education (pp. 66–81). Taipei, Taiwan: Garden
City Publishing.
Maver, T. W. (1995). CAAD’s seven deadly sins.
In M. Tan & R. The (Eds.), The Global Design
Studio, Proceedings CAAD Futures (pp. 21-22).
Singapore: Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, National University of Singapore.
Monedero, J. (2000). Parametric design: A
review and some experiences. Automation in
Construction, 9(4), 369–377. doi:10.1016/S09265805(99)00020-5
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005).
Educating the Net generation. Washington, DC:
Educause.
Oxman, R., & Oxman, R. (Eds.). (2010). Special
issue: The new structuralism: Design, engineering and architectural technologies/ Architectural
Design, 80(4).
Picon, A. (1997). Les annales de la recherche
urbaine. Le Temps du Cyborg dans la Ville Territoire, 77, 72-77.
Picon, A. (2010). Digital culture in architecture:
An introduction for the design professions. Basel,
Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Riese, M., & Simmons, M. (2004). The glass
office - SCL office and showroom in Brisbane,
Australia. In Fabrication: Examining the digital
practice of architecture (pp. 28–33). Cambridge,
Canada: ACADIA & AIA Technology in Architectural Practice Knowledge Community.
Schnabel, M. A., & Bowller, N. (Eds.). (2007).
Disparallel spaces. Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney.
Schnabel, M. A., Kvan, T., Kuan, S. K. S. & Li,
W. (2004). 3D crossover: Exploring - Objets
digitalise. International Journal of Architectural
Computing – IJAC, 2(4), 475-490.
ADDITIONAL READING
Derix, C. (2009). In-Between Architecture Computation. International Journal of Architectural
Computing – IJAC, 7(4), 565-586.
Iwamoto, I. (2009). Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing,
G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is
there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
69
Learning Parametric Designing
Karakiewicz, J., Shelton, B., & Kvan, T. (2010).
From Vertical to Volumetric: prototypical Hong
Kong. Routledge.
Rahim, A., & Jamelle, H. (Eds.). (2007). EleganceArchitectural Design AD. 77(1). London: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Schumacher, P. (2010). The Autopoiesis of Architecture. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sterk, T., & Loveridge, R. (Eds.). (2009). reForm()
Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the
Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture. Chicago, Illinois: ACADIA
Tidafi, T., & Dorta, T. (Eds.). (2009). Joining
Languages, Cultures and Visions/Joindre Langages, Cultures et Visions - CAADFutures 2009.
Montréal, Canada: Les Presses de l’Université
de Montréal.
Wang, X., & Schnabel, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Mixed
Reality Applications in Architecture, Design, and
Construction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: SpringerVerlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9088-2
70
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Architectural Computing: Architecture that
is aided or generated by computational means.
Computational Architecture: Architecture
and its design that arrived from or in collaboration
with computational means, instruments or aids.
Design Education: The pedagogical approach
to teach and learn to design.
Design Learning: Learning of how to design
with the aim to become a good designer.
Design Process: The elements that contribute
to the making of a design.
Parametric Designing: Designing using a
parametric methodology that employs parameters,
rules, and systems.
Parametric Design Studio: Design Studio
that employs parametric designing as core method
of enquiry.