To investigate a barring process which operates in a constant way.
To maximize, minimize depth gain
To investigate the outcome.
In doing these experiments, it is unrealistic to imagine that a building could ever be created from this. However, it is possible that within a building, a series of experiments in creating a cellular arrangement would lead to form of learning of the typology we are interested in.
These experiments captures the logic of trail and error process of learning the consequences of different types of local barring moves.
1. A Barring Move - as placing of a single bar where only known consequence is its depth gain for the system as a whole.
2. A Barring Maneuver - a planned series of two or more moves where the depth gain effect of the whole series is taken into account, rather than the individual moves.
Both move and maneuver thus have foresight about depth gain, but only maneuver have foresight about future moves.
A random barring process is one in which barring moves are independently of each other. We can describe this as a degree to which a process is governed by fore thought.
Another type of process is a governed process on where it is governed by a m-deep maneuver , where m is the number of bar locations. Therefore, it concludes with a whole set of bars that are though out in advance and each taken into account the known future positions of all others.
Different types of barring processes:
Set out a barring process of 24 bars, numbered in order of placement in which each move is designed to maximize depth gain. The reason for 24 and not say...25 is that, that is the maximum that can be placed without dividing the aggregate into discontinuous zones.
To maximize depth gain:
.bar 01 must be places exactly to bisect a line of cells.
.bar 02 must take into account the location of the first, since the depth gain will be maximized only if it is linearly contiguous with it.
.the same principal governs the location of the bar 3,4 and 5.
.after the 5th move, it is seen as the most depth gain efficient way of using the fewest bars to 'nearly divide' the aggregate into two.
This as a whole follows a purely local rule. Even though the individuals moves has a degree of choice, the configurational outcome was quite deterministic.
.since the next move cannot be continuos due to the possibility of cutting the aggregate into two, we must bisect the longest sequence of cells, and if possible out bar must be continuos with bars already placed.
.we then partition this line close to its center where it will maximize its depth gain. This means by placing the bar at right angles to the partitioning line.
.the next bar must take into account of which has been selected, extending the bar.
.the next two repeats on the other side. The same principal can be applied to the next sequence of bars, and in fact all we must do to complete the process is to continue applying the same principal in the new situations as they are shown.
Looking at the outcome, we first confirm that once a 25th bar is added no further bar could be added without splitting the aggregate into two. We can also note that the configuration of space created by the barring process because a single 'unilinear' sequence of cells, that has a form of maximum possible depth gain.
By applying these rules to the barring process, we have converted a process which theoretically could lead to a number of global forms, which could lead to a specific form.
To minimizing the depth gain:
.bar 01 must be at the edge of a line of cells. To minimize the loss of non-contiguous bar locations, it should also be on one of the outer-most lines of cells.
.bars 01-05 are forced, and lead to a very specific overall pattern, where the line is shorter and each time close to the edge.
.bars 01-16 continue this process until the possibilities are exhausted.
.the next move must not be continuos and must be near the edge as possible.
.bars 17-19 continue to bar the same line, leaving only one of two possible identical non-continuos moves.
.bar 20 there would be no continuos moves available. Therefore, continuos moves are applied with only least depth gain.
.the final bar must then be on one of five still open lines, four comprising the 'ring', and the one passing through the center. Cutting the ring creates a much more depth gain than cutting the center line because it creates a block in the system that is four cell deep from the boundary.
The depth minimizing process has thus given rise to a form which is striking as the depth maximizing process: a ring of open cells accessing outer and inner groups of one deep cells.
In these figures shows the final form from the two processes, together with depth values for each cell and the total of depth. These differences are all the more remarkable in view of the fact that each form has exactly the same number of partitions. The only difference is the arrangement.
We have arrived at these forms by constraining the combinational process down certain pathways by some quite simple rules.
These have created defined outcomes through morphological processes. The local to global morphological effects of these rules is quite independent of human decisions.
The global pattern of space "emerge" from the localized step by step process.
As a conclusion, simple rules applied from what is and is not an intelligible and functionally useful spatial move create a well defined pathways through the combinational fields which converge on certain well defined global spatial types. These laws seen to be the source of structure in the field of architectural possibilities. These laws are 'generic functions' that is properties of spatial arrangements which all, or at least most 'well-formed' buildings and built environment have in common, because they arise from what makes it possible for a complex to support any complex of occupation or any pattern of movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment