POSITION STATEMENT

Building relations [in real time]

Associative Modelling | While everything we do at the innovation studio ONL [est. 1989] and everything we did at the Hyperbody Chair at the TU Delft [2000 - 2016] is fundamentally parametric [and interactive], I am not a fan of the term parametricism. I have never considered parametric design to become a style. I will explain why. To me parametric design is an inclusive thinking and working method, not related to specific aesthetics. Parametric design equally well applies to simple geometry as to complex geometry. Parametric design is building relations between components of any shape at any time. In his lecture at the symposium Artificial Intuition [1990] which I organized at the Faculty of Architecture TU Delft Robert Aish showed us that parametric design was something he was doing back in the seventies while working for a Polish shipbuilder. Aish coined it Associative Modelling, establishing associations between the constituting building components. Associations are a form of dynamic entanglement. An associative relationship does not necessarily mean that the neighboring part is similar in its shape or dimensions. Entangled parts can be of a different family and of a different order [fig. 1]. When one part changes its values, the associated parts change with it.

LIWA tower | In a parametric design all openings are unique in their shape, any sameness would be a pure coincidence. Components may be similar, but not the same. ONL’s LIWA tower [fig. 2] is fully parametric and associative, linking the curved folding lines to the Gross Floor Area [GFA] calculations, to the steel structure and to the skin in one coherent relational system. One building, one detail ! All windows of the LIWA tower are unique in shape and size, all structural X-crosses are unique in shape and size, and both systems are synchronized with each other. Changing the position of one reference point on the curved folding line immediately changes all windows and steel components on at least two ruled surfaces of the body wrap, while maintaining the set value for the GFA.

Working Method | I don’t like -isms, I wrote to Alvin Boyarsky, the then head of school of the Architectural Association in London, where I was appointed unit master [1988 - 1989]. I wanted something new and innovative, which was back then the intuitive use of  computers [Intergraph workstations] in the earliest phases of the design process. The container term parametricism seems fit for designs that look parametric but not necessarily are parametric. The term parametricism might help to win the popular vote, but to me it is counter-productive to describe the underlying logic, as is the problem with all -isms, which put designers in a category where they do not feel comfortable. At the front end building components are actors in a dynamic design system, while at the back end the design must be directly linked to data driven robotic production of the parts [file to factory], and / or to actuators in real time behaving constructs. Only when having a comprehensive associative design system one can establish such direct links from design to production and from built environment to user. Parametric design is not a style but an inclusive working method. It is perfectly reasonable to popularize parametric design systems, not as something it looks like, but as something that works to connect things and people [in real time], innovating the building industry and the profession of architecture from within.

– Kas Oosterhuis

Keywords:

Building relations | Associative modeling | Hyperbodies | Interactivity | Artificial Intuition | Entangled components | Synchronized structure and skin | One building one detail | Inclusiveness | File to factory