Upgrading Computational Design

Abstract

Shajay Bhooshan heads up the computation and design ZHACODE group at Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) and is a course master at the Architectural Association Design Research Laboratory (AADRL). Here he argues that Parametricism 2.0 has a vital role to play in the progressing of computational design. Assimilating the exploratory developments of the last 15 years, he asserts how the next phase of Parametricism will enable a further consolidation and evolution of digital practices.

Smart processes for smart buildings: ‘sustainable processes’, ‘recyclable processes’ and ‘building seeds’ in parametric design

“…New features were later added to CAD systems that allowed a certain degree of interactive and precise control over smooth, doubly-curved, and complex spaces and geometries (Bhooshan, 2017). This has enabled architects to start migrating from Euclidean spaces and Cartesian grids (Kolarevic, 2004), and hence to provide habitats similar to those of nature (Bhooshan, 2016). This tendency towards expanding the level of geometric complexity tractable appears to be a main factor that instigated the development of new software and modelling techniques to enhance generation, presentation and evaluation of complex forms.…”

“…From this necessity, the new digital technologies are allowing unprecedented levels of collaboration across fields of expertise (Sprecher & Ahrens, 2016). This is enabled through the use of integrated platforms, where ideas, tools, models, and algorithms are shared and exchanged throughout the different stages of the design process (Bhooshan, 2016;Fok & Picon, 2016). In this case, different processes and decisions, such as choice of materials, structures and fabrication technologies are integrated into the inception stage of the design process (Oxman, 2017b).…”

“…In parallel to the rapid evolution of digital technologies, architectural practice is undergoing unprecedented and rapid transitional changes and shifts (De Rycke et al, 2018;Haidar, Underwood, & Coates, 2017;Kocaturk, 2017). New design tools, techniques and methodologies are being developed that are shifting the design processes from the individual to collaborative (Fok & Picon, 2016;Kocaturk, 2013;Kocatürk & Medjdoub, 2011), from disciplinary to interdisciplinary (Bhooshan, 2016;Hesselgren & Medjdoub, 2010;Sprecher & Ahrens, 2016), and from implicit to explicit (J. E. Harding & Shepherd, 2017;Jabi, Soe, Theobald, Aish, & Lannon, 2017;Oxman, 2006). The tools are becoming more adaptable (Burry, 2013), the processes are becoming more iterative and flexible (Imbert et al, 2012;Tamke & Thomsen, 2018;Wortmann & Tunçer, 2017), and the traditional form-based models are being abandoned in favour of data-rich and performative models (May, 2018;Mueller, 2011;Tamke, Nicholas, & Zwierzycki, 2018;Thomsen, Tamke, Gengnagel, Faircloth, & Scheurer, 2015).…”

Proposing a Procedural Paradigm: An exploration of computational design thinking and computational design education within architecture

“…Conference on Design Methods -considered the fields' embryonic conference -adherents of this nascent digital design paradigm began to assert themselves and their pluralist conceptual territorialisations within broader design discourse (Caetano & Leitão, 2020;Carpo ed., 2012). Peripheral shifts in design and technological habit -instigated by the likes of Heidegger's (1953) The Question Concerning Technology and other essays, Banham's (1960) Theory and Design in the first Machine Age, Negroponte's (1969) Towards a Humanism Through Machines, and Pask's (1969) The Architectural Relevance of Cyberneticsprompted increasing academic and practical interest in computational design and generative systems, such as shape grammars, space allocation, procedural modelling, Lindenmayer systems, modelling scripting languages, and more frequent use of the term 'computational thinking' (Krispel et al, 2014;Caetano & Leitão, 2020;Bhooshan, 2016;McCullough et al eds., 1990;. Rising exponentially, by the turn of the century the volume of publications had reached a zeniththis period had unequivocally bought computational design thinking forth as a major theme in the profession and marked the beginnings of what would be collectively designated 'The Digital Turn' within architecture (Carpo ed., 2012;Ammon, 2017).…”

“…While the computer is not an indelible part of computational methods, the intervening years have provided an exponential explosion in both the capabilities and prevalence of computers within industry. Computation transcends formalist classifications; rather than appraise its merits and demerits as an architectural style, proceduralism attempts to consolidate discordant advances in design technologies and computational design thinking within a holistic architectural paradigm -replete with a distinct body of theoretical principles, presented herein -that may yet precipitate the systemic upgrading of contemporary computational design practices (Oxman, 2008;Bhooshan, 2016).…”