4.2 Technical documentation and examples
4.2.3 Example 2: Office building
The second example demonstrates the utilization of the prospective design tool while designing a small office building. After coping with the restricted scale of the residence, this case study aims at providing some insight into the usage of the software during the design process of a slightly larger and more complex building.
The fictional plot is situated into the corner of a dense urban area and has general dimen- sions of 19 meters by 29 meters (Figure 423_01). A 2-meter-wide sidewalk extends beyond the open edge of the plot while the side facades of existing 6-story office buildings define the rest of the borders. The plot is accessed through an 8-meter-wide low traffic bi-directional road on the other side of which there is an open green public space. In this example, there has been a con- scious effort to emulate contextual surroundings with strong architectural character that would be impossible to ignore during the design workflow. The selected modernistic office buildings (built during the 1960s and 1970s) offer a plausible testing background, especially since their presence is ubiquitous in the city centers of Athens and Thessaloniki. At the same time, the presence of an open public space provides a necessary spatial respite that balances the volumetric density of the rest of the area.
figure 423_01.
Aerial view of the site.
160
The building program is quite simple and calls for the successful configuration of various spaces which total about 1000 square meters in as many as 5 floors. More specifically, these spaces in- clude the following:
Entrance and reception: 100-150 sq.m.
Ground floor offices or shop: 200-250 sq.m.
Open plan offices: 2-3 spaces 150-200 sq.m./each Single offices: 4-6 spaces 12-20 sq.m./each
Meeting rooms: 2-3 spaces 40-60 sq.m./each Restrooms: 2-3 spaces 10-15 sq.m./each Total: 900-1100 sq.m.
From the above list it becomes apparent that the building program concedes a considerable degree of flexibility to the intentions of the designer. The decision to insert such functional elastic- ity into this case study stems from the realization that most real-life design challenges have similar malleable programmatic needs. Therefore, it would be quite interesting to investigate as well as demonstrate how the proposed plugin would incorporate them into its design workflow. Apart from the sizes of the various spaces, the number of floors is also flexible as the requirements do not define a fixed number but indicate a range of 3 to 5 levels.
Within the 3ds Max software, the first step of the process is to model the plot as well as the urban contextual environment. In general, the amount of detailing that is appropriate for the sur- rounding buildings depends on their proximity to the plot and the type of visualization that would be required. In this specific scenario, since the existing office buildings are adjacent to the new one, it was decided to enhance the simplistic building volumes by adding maps with flattened ortho- photo bitmaps of the facades of the buildings (Figure 423_02). An alternative approach would be to meticulously model each building but that would be more time consuming and would only be necessary if there were no available bitmaps.
161
figure 423_02.
The 3D model of the environment.
162
figure 423_03.The Event Platforms outside of the plot.
After the modeling of the context, the next step is the creation of the Event Platforms through the appropriate creation rollout. One by one, each space on the programmatic list is translated into a single autonomous platform. In order to better understand their size and characteristics, all platforms are initially placed outside of the plot, aligned in a simple grid (Figure 423_03). As it pertains to the creation parameters, all platforms are Rectangular and their Length, Width and Area spinners are set to Flexible so as to properly adjust to the programmatic needs. The same option (Flex) applies to the Height parameters of the platforms as well. By starting the creation process outside of the plot, the designer has the opportunity to familiarize himself with the basic parameters of the platforms and to adjust the Length/Width ratio of each one prior to engaging in complex configurations. All in all, 13 platforms are created including one that corresponds to vertical circulation.
163
figure 423_04.
View of the contextual Event Platforms.
Apart from the platforms representing the new interior spaces of the building, the designer should also create contextual Event Platforms. In this case, the public spaces that have a direct visual and physical relationship with the plot are identified: the sidewalk next to the border of the plot and the green public space on the other side of the street. Consequently, three new plat- forms (with the Contextual parameter enabled) are created and placed accordingly. In contrast to the other platforms, their size parameters are “Fixed” as their main functionality involves being visualization placeholders and, as such, they are not expected to alter their configuration and/or dimensions during the design process (Figure 423_04).
164
After the creating the platforms, the designer has the option of enhancing and refining their pa- rameters. One important category of parameters that is responsible for transforming the platforms into activity containers is the Events group parameters. Depending on the complexity of the pro- ject, as well as the time constrains, the designer can selectively insert events into the platforms that are deemed more important. In this example, however, all the platforms have been ameliorated with activity patterns, although each one of them has only one Event Scenario (for computational simplicity). The single offices have one avatar, manually placed in a logical location and assigned a .mocap file of “Sitting and working on a PC”. The larger open plan spaces have multiple ava- tars manually dispersed within the platform and assigned various activities (“Sitting and working”,
“Walking” and “Standing and conversing”). Those that involve physical movement have had their initial spline adjusted to a more plausible pattern based on the interior design intentions of each space. The contextual platforms have 2-4 avatars randomly inserted and assigned “Walking” and
“Standing” activities. The rest of the platforms have been parametrically adjusted in a similar man- ner (Figure 423_05). After completing this process, the designer can play the animation in any 3ds Max viewport and inspect all the inserted activities. If there is any kind of correction or alteration necessary, he can easily fine tune the parameters of each platform before proceeding to the next phase of the process.
After the inserting the events, the designer can start to manipulate the individual platforms and position them into the plot. This process could be greatly intuitive, rational or sporadic, depending on the design tendencies and habits of each architect that uses the plug-in. In any case, the goal of this tool is not to pinpoint and endorse a unique, universal design method but to become useful in various incremental ways within the existing architectural composition techniques. One of these useful additions during the process of the modeling of the activity containers is the ability to gradu- ally transform the Event Platforms from autonomous elements to parametrically interconnected entities through the usage of connections. Through the Connections Group of parameters of each platform, the architect has the option of establishing physical and visual connection with neighbor- ing platforms, as detailed in the technical documentation chapter. In this specific example, within the initial configuration, every platform is parametrically adjusted by creating one or two physical connections and keeping their placement flexible (“Flex” option selected) but near the corners of the rectangular platforms (“Near Corner” option checked).
It is important to mention that extra attention has been given to verifying that the Vertical Cir- culation platform is adequately connected with various other platforms in each level. Although in
figure 423_05.
165
The Event Platforms after the creation of the various events.
166
figure 423_06.
The first manual platform configuration (A).
this case study the usage of the physical connections is extensive, in general their presence should be considered more like an option used sporadically than a mandatory universal parameter. The software works equally effectively with as many physical connections as the designer is comfort- able of declaring. Apart from the physical connections, each platform should be configured with regards to its visual connections. Again, the flexible connections are the preferred choice as they can facilitate more diverse configuration patterns. The reception area, for instance, has one “Flex”
side visually and physically connected to the contextual platform of the sidewalk (with opacity 30- 50%), another “Flex” side only visually connected to the ground floor offices (20-30% opacity) and a third “Flex” side only physically connected to the vertical circulation. By keeping the designa- tion of each connection “Flex”, the designer has the leeway to move and rotate this platform while the connections reconfigure themselves after each transformation. After the process of modeling and adding the connection parameters is complete, the architect has completed a first version of the new building’s activity skeleton (Figure 423_06).
At this point in the process, the designer has the option to utilize the compute tab of the con- trol panel of the plug-in in order to automatically create more iterations of the configuration of the Event Platforms. In this example, 6 new iterations are computed and conveniently placed in new, separate layers. The software takes into account all the existing connections between platforms and attempts to calculate new configurations that adhere to all the connections, physical and visual.
However, depending on the complexity and multiplicity of the connections, this might turn out to be unattainable. In that scenario, the algorithms of the tool keep the iterations with the most com- pleted connections. Out of the 6 new versions of the model, only two adhere to all the intended connections while the rest are missing a small amount of connections (from 1 to 3). Despite this, the introduction of new iterations in an automated manner provides the designer with a new per- spective on the model and enables him to productively compare his own manual model with the algorithmically generated ones. In this case study only two new models are deemed satisfactory and are retained after minor modifications (Figures 423_07 - 423_08). At this stage, the architect has prepared multiple configurations of the parametric activity containers without creating the shell of the building.
170
figure 423_09
The five chosen panels.
The next step of the process involves introducing the geometric elements that will be draped around the Event Platforms. As mentioned before, the ultimate goal is to use a third party tool dur- ing this process. However, for technical reasons, in this experiment the custom-made Parametric Panels plugin is utilized. Without delving into the details, it is sufficient to explain that this tool has the ability to create parametric panels with different characteristics. There are two main param- eters that can be adjusted for each panel type: opacity typology and materiality. Opacity typology refers to the manner in which openings are distributed within the panels while the property of ma- teriality is self-explanatory. Through the careful manipulation of the settings of the plugin, 5 distinct parametric panels were created (Figure 423_09).
A. This panel is a glass façade that is defined by metallic mullions that form a semi-arbitrary rectangular pattern.
B. The second panel has rectangular horizontal openings of fixed height (40 cm) and flexible length (from 150 cm up to 400 cm) that are positioned in an unaligned fashion. It has a final finish of horizontal wooden strips.
C. This panel has circular openings of various diameters (from 50 cm up to 200 cm) arranged randomly. It is made from exposed concrete with horizontal formwork.
D. The fourth panel has the same materiality as the third one but with square openings of vari- ous sizes (from 40 x 40 cm up to 200 x 200 cm) instead of circular ones.
E. The final panel has a finishing of white plaster and a minimal amount of rectangular open- ings. It is mainly intended for the interior sides of the Event Platforms.
It is important to mention that apart from the initial settings of the panels, the designer has the option of either making minor adjustments to the parameters or completely redefining any panel based on the compositional needs of the design process.
17 1
172
figure 423_10.
View of the final skin of configuration A.
After defining the panels, the next step is to start creating connections between them and the platforms. This is achieved through the “Links with Geometry” group of parameters that is located at the bottom of the Event Platforms creation rollout. By using the available drop down menus, every side of each platform is linked with one of the four available panels. Consequently, the software positions the panel in the corresponding sides and calculates their openings based on the opacity settings of the visual connections as well as the locations of the physical connections.
At this stage, the designer has an inaugural impression of the geometric characteristics of the three versions of the new building which can be further calibrated by modifying individual platform sides (Figures 423_10 - 423_12).
During the process of evaluating and critiquing the three models, the designer has the option of utilizing the control panel of the plug-in in order to create visualization animations and data dia- grams. Because there are three prospective models, the process is repeated three times with only the Event Platforms of one model included in the settings of the Common tab. Before pressing the Render Sequence button, the image resolution is set to 1500 x 900 pixels, the number of cameras is set to 9 while the rest of the settings remain at their default values. This allows the inclusion of cameras from all three available types (POV, Character and Pan Shots). Each sequence requires about 7 minutes to be completed on a fairly new Lenovo E30 workstation and is automatically saved in the folder of the 3ds Max file (Figures 423_13 - 423_15). After completing the animations, a similar procedure is repeated for the data diagrams. Without any change on the default settings, the tool requires about 3 minutes to produce and save in the same location a JPG data image for each model (Figures 423_16 – 423_18). As with the previous example, a fourth comparative dia- gram is created manually (Figure 423_19).
176
177
figure 423_14.
The animation matrix of configuration B.
figure 423_15.
The animation matrix of configuration C.
178
Area (m2) Lighting Level (lx) Env. (%) Avat. (%) POV Depth (m)
Corridor A Corridor B Entr./Reception Gr. floor shop Meeting room A Meeting room B Office space A Office space B Restrooms A Restrooms B Single office A Single office B Single office C Single office D Vertical circ.
Sidewalk A - Cntx Sidewalk B - Cntx Sidewalk C - Cntx
978.90 1806 6.95 7.43 23.37
2_A
InteriorExterior
Event Platforms
Interior Totals
18.2 18.2
150.0 227.5 55.0
54.0
170.0 170.0 12.0
12.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.0
6368 6689 1952
2810 2298
2863 648 652 87 81
1121 960
1049 804
1291
15.5 9.7 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.1
13.5
13.5 4.0
14.3 19.2 16.1 1.4
2.4
0.1
0.0
22.7 33.6 11.3 11.5 14.9
16.5
54.3
76.0
200.0 87.5 43.8
48582 48466 23797
80.5 89.4 43.3 0.1
0.0 0.2
110.9 221.8 76.5
figure 423_16.
The data diagram of configuration A.
179
Area (m2) Lighting Level (lx) Env. (%) Avat. (%) POV Depth (m)
Corridor A Corridor B Entr./Reception Gr. floor shop Meeting room A Meeting room B Office space A Office space B Restrooms A Restrooms B Single office A Single office B Single office C Single office D Vertical circ.
Sidewalk A - Cntx Sidewalk B - Cntx Sidewalk C - Cntx
1001.50 1207 6.13 7.82 17.66
2_B Event Platforms
InteriorExterior
Interior Totals
27.0 30.0
150.0 227.5 55.0
55.0
170.0 170.0 12.0
12.0 20.0 21.0 20.0 20.0 12.0
242
3300 1571 1326 973
1954 508
836 21
256 1226 1062
4613 1459
378
9.6 10.7 6.2 3.7 1.4
4.0
0.2
0.0 2.8
15.4 19.2 18.7 1.7
2.8
0.0
0.0
35.2 14.7
10.4 22.4 11.3
16.7
3.6
2.4
200.0 87.5 43.8
48316 48444 22921
71.4 86.6 69.9 0.1
0.1 0.1
210.3 210.3 153.5
figure 423_17.
The data diagram of configuration B.
180
Area (m2) Lighting Level (lx) Env. (%) Avat. (%) POV Depth (m)
Corridor A Corridor B Entr./Reception Gr. floor shop Meeting room A Meeting room B Office space A Office space B Restrooms A Restrooms B Single office A Single office B Single office C Single office D Vertical circ.
Sidewalk A - Cntx Sidewalk B - Cntx Sidewalk C - Cntx
1002.00 1637 12.33 6.54 23.98
2_C Event Platforms
InteriorExterior
Interior Totals
27.0 30.0
145.0 228.0 55.0
55.0
175.0 170.0 12.5
12.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.0
0 0
2147 1276
2340 2044 1680
1739 153
1455 3046 544
2675 1755
2206
12.2 17.4
32.2 16.5 4.2
9.1
0.0
1.3 1.1
14.7 11.7
16.6 1.5
1.9
0.0
0.3
39.4 16.6
41.7 13.0
26.8 20.6
1.7
4.3
200.0 87.5 43.8
48460 48471 23225
88.578.3
77.7 0.2
0.1 0.1
238.8 216.5 170.2
figure 423_18.
The data diagram of configuration C.
181
figure 423_19.
Comparative diagram of configurations A, B and C.
Comparison Solution A Solution B Solution C
Comparison Solution A Solution B Solution C
1806 1207 1637
7.0 6.1
12.3
7.4 7.8 6.5
23.4 17.7 24.0
Lighting Level (lx) Env. (%) Avat. (%) POV Depth (m)
1806
1207
1637
7.0 6.1
12.3
7.4 7.8
6.5 23.4
17.7
24.0
Lighting Level (lx) Env. (%) Avat. (%) POV Depth (m)
182
figure 423_20.
Perspective of the second iteration of model B.
The evaluation of the animations is usually a pleasant procedure for the architect. In this case each animation exhibits a wide range of cameras but it is quite effortless to navigate through them since each one is appropriately labeled. Model A has a quite monolithic presence that opens up the corner towards the public sidewalk. However, the backside volume has insufficient lighting as it is being pushed on the back edge of the plot. Model B exhibits a more interesting exterior im- age due to its volumetric complexity but both cameras from the contextual platforms reveal visual weaknesses stemming from the selection and placement of the panels as well as the relationship with the left neighboring building. Model C emerges as the most appealing alternative as its overall stature and appearance within the urban context seems more balanced. Moreover, the interior animations reveal spaces that are too well-connected and free-flowing, characteristics that are de- sirable for this specific project. The main issue is the questionable choice of the circular windows for this specific context. The evaluation of the data diagrams is a more intricate process since most designers are not familiar with similar information charts. By comparing the three solutions, it be- comes apparent that model B and C are quite similar regarding the view of the environment and the other avatars whereas model A is far behind. On the contrary, regarding the parameter of spa- ciousness, model A is ahead followed by models B and C respectively. After combining the evalua- tion of the animations and data with the general impression of the viewport images of the models, the decision to abandon model A and to focus on improving the other two models is made.
The feedback from the visualizations and the diagrams led to various modifications of the mod- els. In model B most of the changes focused on the assignments of the geometric panels, both in terms of their typology and their specific alignments with the platform sides. In addition to that, the opacity of the upper level platforms was increased by about 10% and the positioning of the avatars in the large office spaces was slightly modified in order to be more plausible. Model C had minor exterior deficiencies that had to be properly addressed. There was a re-alignment of the corner meeting room in order to achieve more volumetric clarity and all the panels with circular openings were replaced with identical ones which had rectangular ones. (Figures 423_20 – 423_21).
185
After the completion of the modifications, a second batch of visualization animations and data diagrams was created. A comparison of the new renderings with the previous ones reveals a no- ticeable improvement for both models. Nevertheless, since some new camera angles are included into the animations for the first time, more spatial shortcomings have been brought to light. Ideally, the 25-camera option would be more informative and all-encompassing for a building of this size but it was avoided for computational reasons. In this example, both models need fine-tuning of their interior geometric panels as well as resizing of the Event Platforms that are located on the back of the plot (Figure 423_22 – 423_23). The data diagrams also exhibit positive progress in the environmental visibility percentage while showing stability in the other categories (Figures 423_24 – 423_25). The feedback from the plug-in, combined with the overall three-dimensional presence of the models in the 3ds Max viewports, enables the designer to make additional minor improve- ments to both versions of the proposed building. Since both models possess different but equally valid spatial qualities, it has been decided to present both iterations to the prospective client.
The final stage of the example focuses on preparing the design material for a potential client meeting. Typically, the presentation material for such a meeting would involve plans and render- ings of the proposed design solutions. Without taking anything away from the standard visualization methods, the prospective design software enables the architect to significantly enhance his pres- entation outcome with minimal effort. Just by maximizing the resolution settings and re-rendering the animation sequences as well as the data diagrams, the client presentation is augmented in two ways. On the one hand, the animations provide a much more dynamic and vivid visualization of the building. The presence of the avatars, in combination with the cinematic camera angles, offers a completely different perspective from the static renderings. Clients who are not particu- larly familiar with the two-dimensional drawings are usually much more inclined to understand a building proposal through moving images. Moreover, instead of having to commission an external visualization studio, the designer can produce these animations effortlessly, almost instantaneously and without any additional cost. On the other hand, the data diagrams might be more difficult for the client to comprehend but, with the proper guidance, could lend much needed scientific cred- ibility to the project. In general, architectural decisions are frequently intuitive and spatial qualities cannot be quantified. These diagrams could infuse an otherwise visual presentation with numbers and values that could partially justify some design decisions. All things considered, the proposed software offers, with minimal effort, additional presentation techniques which could greatly assist the designer during the client meeting.