Introduction: Inside Smartgeometry

Abstract

Smartgeometry (SG) is a key influence on the architectural community who explore creative computational methods for the design of buildings. An informal international network of practitioners and researchers, the group meets annually to experiment with new technologies and collaborate to develop digital design techniques.

When SG was founded in 2001 by London-based architects and friends Hugh Whitehead (Foster + Partners), J Parrish (AECOM) and Lars Hesselgren (PLP), there was little in the way of parametric tools for architecture. SG was founded to encourage the development, discussion and experimentation of digital design techniques driven by design intent rather than on construction specifications. SG calls for a re-consideration of the design process, where the creation of computational mechanisms become an integral part of designing – not a task done prior to or separate from the process. In the early years of the workshops this need for new ways of design thinking led to the development of Bentley´s GenerativeComponents software. In recent years, the ecology of these design environments has diversified to include multiple software platforms, as well as innovative fabrication techniques and interactive environments. SG has grown accordingly from a handful of experts to an international network of designers who are defining the future of design. Founded by digital pioneers, it creates the algorithmic designers of the future.

Inside Smartgeometry can be seen as a retroactive manifesto for SG, examining and contextualising the work of the SG community: the digital spaces, prototypes and buildings designed using bespoke tools created in response to architectural ideas. From interactive crowd-sourcing tools to responsive agent-based systems to complex digitally fabricated structures, it explores more than a decade of advances that have been influential for architecture. Through 23 original texts including reflections by the founders, and key contributors such as Robert Aish, Martin Bechthold, Mark Burry, Chris Williams and Robert Woodbury, the book offers a critical state of the art of computational design for architecture. Many international design and engineering firms have participated in SG and the book includes chapters by practitioners from offices such as CASE, Design2Production, Foster + Partners, Grimshaw, Populous and SOM.

Full text

introduction 8-9
introduction brady peters
terri peters
Smartgeometry (SG) was founded in 2001 as an informal network
of designers interested in harnessing the powers of computation
for architectural design. Friends and former colleagues Hugh
Whitehead, Lars Hesselgren and J Parrish felt frustrated by the
lack of resources and network surrounding computation and
architecture and sought to redefine ways that architects could use
digital tools. At first, the trio of architects drew on their network of
friends and collaborators such as computer scientist Robert Aish,
academics Robert Woodbury and Axel Kilian, and experimental
practitioners architect Mark Burry and engineer Chris Williams to
put together a few modest conferences and workshops. These
began with a lecture and workshop in 2003 in Cambridge, UK,
then in 2004 at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
where the focus was on software development, new tools for
architects and engaging with ideas outside the boundaries of
‘architecture’. These early workshops provided inspiration and
a testing ground for the creation of new parametric software
GenerativeComponents™ (GC) that was introduced to the
group by Robert Aish and Bentley Systems. Rather than being
concerned solely with software or form-making, SG focuses on
the creation and application of digital tools and technologies,
and in cross-disciplinary fertilisation of emerging ideas in practice.
In workshop groups, designers are able to work on projects ‘off
the books’, away from their offices or university settings, creating
pure explorations of technique beyond the confines of the design
project. SG embodied new ideas and new ways of thinking. The
event now spans six days, with a four-day curated workshop
and two-day public conference, and attracts more than 300
international participants and attendees each year.
why geometry?
Architectural design software at the time SG was founded
was created by software developers using object-oriented
programming that almost literally translated software ‘objects’
as building ‘objects’. SG co-founder Lars Hesselgren has written
that they wanted to build new design tools and founded SG as a
rejection of these conservative influences that promoted computer-
aided design (CAD) solely as the organisation of building
components.1 In order to be free of these predefined tools and
have a higher-level discussion of building form in terms of first
principles, this led to a discussion of geometry and mathematics.
As this is a more generic approach, thinking of architecture and
form in this way allowed them to share computational tools
between disciplines. It allowed architects to design conceptually
and create their own custom ‘objects’ rather than use the specified
objects provided by their CAD software.
As Robert Aish explains in his chapter, SG explores the ideas of
design computation, with the notion that there is a distinction
1 Design explorations at SG 2006,
Cambridge, UK.
Conceptual geometric design explorations
using GenerativeComponents™.
1

introduction 10-11
between the generative description of the building, and the resulting
generated model of the building. Therefore SG is more about the
exploration of design intent and how this is inscribed in the design
tools and the design environment, rather than specific technology
for the integrated delivery of building projects. It is about designing
a system, rather than working on a more detailed 3D model.
SG is an agile network. It is purposely structured to be able to
react to and reflect ideas in contemporary practice; there is no
overriding goal or charter. The idea is to engage with current issues
and debates in a collaborative and non-competitive environment.
Digital design leads logically to digital fabrication. Over several
years, but culminating in 2010 where it was a central feature, the
event embraced digital fabrication, interaction and simulation
with ‘workshops’ that more equally split experimentation in digital
and physical realms. As Xavier De Kestelier and Shane Burger
explain in their chapter, the evolving workshop structure is due to
shifts in participants and leadership. The earlier events attracted
lower numbers of workshop participants and leaders and these
were almost exclusively from professional practice. Recent SG
events have had multi-day programs with larger audiences and
an increased focus on academic and research questions. This
shift is discussed in the chapter by CASE, where they identify the
move away from the pragmatics of designing for construction of
buildings, towards workshops based not only on research and
experimentation, which does not necessarily rule out the practical
building issues, but also on creative explorations using these same
methods. The five current SG Directors are all from architectural
practice, but each year attendees and workshop leaders come
increasingly from research and academia.
talking about computation
‘The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They
weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are
indistinguishable from them.’2 This statement from computational
pioneer Mark Weiser in 1991 is relevant to architectural practice
today. Computation is everywhere; should it really be the
medium and not the message? Architects desperately need
to talk about computation, and over the past decade SG has
provided the only experimental workshop-based discussion
forum on this topic. It is not enough to say computation
is ubiquitous in our field; it is not ‘just’ a tool – there can
be no doubt that it is fundamentally changing architecture.
Computation is not what architecture is, but if architecture can
be understood as a practice, concerned with technique, then
computation is a technique intricately connected to designing
for meaning and experience in architecture. Even architecture
as edifice, separated from any discussion of technique, reveals
the tool of the maker. While meaning in architecture can come
from symbols and symbolism in the building itself, it also comes
from the experience of that building.3 Therefore the better we
can simulate the experience of architecture, the better we can
design for it. The technologies explored and discussed at SG are
still quite visible. However, one hopes they will be customised,
2 ‘Responsive Acoustic Surfaces’ workshop
cluster at SG 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Participants engage in a design discussion.
Digital models from the ‘Responsive Acoustic
Surfaces’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Participants work on digital models of
hyperboloid geometry using a variety
of software. 2
‘Use the Force’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Participants discuss design and computation.

introduction 12-13
tested and engaged with by architects even as they continue to
be woven into the fabric of the design environment.
Of course, the mere fact of using a particular computational
technique does not guarantee good architecture, the same way
that using the same pen as Norman Foster will not guarantee a
great building. But why shouldn’t architects share techniques and
tools? It would be pretty silly if architects each had to invent our
own pens, drafting boards and drawing conventions. So while it is
the building that matters most, rather than focusing on the process
of design and making, in the context of design it is critical to
acknowledge that design processes are changing, and SG is at the
forefront of this change.
creating knowledge and technique
The ways that computation and architectural design are
explored at SG are unique. The idea is to nourish a collaborative
environment where participants feel as though anything can
happen. The theme of the event is set in advance and then
workshop leaders apply to lead a cluster based on their own
research: for example, in 2012, 40 detailed applications were
submitted for 10 positions. Participants also apply to join
workshops, submitting portfolios and statements of interest, with
only 100 selected. Carefully curated by the SG community and
directors, the selected workshop themes are developed and in
the four days, focused questions of design, digital technique
and physical making can be explored. In contrast to many other
design workshops with traditional student–teacher dynamics,
workshop leaders do not bring work they have done earlier to get
‘students’ to build, participants do not come to learn something
they know nothing about, and experts do not arrive with ‘answers’
to disseminate. Research and knowledge is created during the
workshops. The challenge is not to construct a research question
that can be ‘answered’ in four days but rather to construct
a line of thinking that can be investigated intelligently and
discussed through experimentation. The SG environment is part
research and part professionally focused, which seems to inspire
productivity, as participants work long into the night to actually
do something as a group within the given time, to produce some
results to share with the wider group by the end of the workshop,
and to work together. In Robert Woodbury’s chapter, he calls this
the ‘flow’ of design computation. There is of course a healthy fear
of failure and underlying pressure to make it perfect, or at least
beautiful. This is architecture after all.
SG makes no claims to produce ‘architecture’. It is not about form,
it is about how we arrive at form. SG is about technique. There
are, of course, many valid ways to design and SG celebrates this
plurality of concept. It is not the place for design crits. In the four-
day workshops, there simply is not time. Instead, techniques and
tools are developed and tested. Participants find where a tool hits
the wall, then how to mash it up with other tools and make it work
better. It is like building a racing car – how fast and how hard can
we push this machine – not how nicely can we drive it.
4 Workshops at SG 2011, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
View of participants and workshop clusters.
3 Prototypes and analysis from the ‘Responsive
Acoustic Surfaces’ workshop cluster at SG
2011, Copenhagen, Denmark.
1:10 scale prototypes were tested for their
acoustic performance and this data was used to
inform the design of the full-scale prototype wall.
3
4

introduction 14-15
coding
‘The ability to ‘read’ a medium means you can access
materials and tools generated by others. The ability to ‘write’
in a medium means you can generate materials and tools
for others. You must have both to be literate. In print writing,
the tools you generate are rhetorical; they demonstrate and
convince. In computer writing, the tools you generate are
processes; they simulate and decide.’ Alan Kay4
When a designer writes a script to solve a problem, the algorithm
becomes part of the design and may then be explored in a
creative way. But, as Fabian Scheurer explains in his chapter,
algorithms are both a description of the problem and the
solution. They define the solution space and they are built around
the definition of the problem. He argues that design is all about
decisions and that delegating these to an algorithm always means
following predefined paths. Often the use of existing tools leads
to existing solutions. Through the creation of new tools, new ways
of thinking and new solutions can be found. Algorithmic thinking
means taking on an interpretive role to understand the results
of the generating code, and understand how to then modify
the code to explore new options, and to speculate on further
design potentials. As designers, we are influenced by the tools
and techniques that allow us to realise our visions. It has been
said that the tools determine the boundaries of art, and that it
is the use of the right tools for the thing that one is making, and
a deep relationship between the use of the tool and its formal
results, that establishes the potentials of what can be made.5 With
computation, the boundaries of what can be made just got a lot
bigger. Parametric systems and computational tools have enabled
the realisation of projects that were previously inconceivable.
Nicholas Negroponte introduced the concept of bits and
atoms, arguing that atoms make up physical, tangible objects
around us – the architecture that we inhabit – while our design
environment and our digital models inhabit the space of the
bits – the information that is contained within the computer
that we use to design.6 So, how does this relationship affect the
architecture we design? This relationship between bits and atoms
is becoming blurred. Not only do the experiments undertaken
at SG work in between physical and digital realms, but design
tools are increasingly used that simulate real-world performance
and provide feedback on designs. Computational tools become
co-creators in design, extending the intellect of the designer,
and so the role of the designer becomes one of tool builder, of
interpreter of results, and of a guide through solution spaces. In
his chapter, practitioner Neil Katz explains that the technology
needs to disappear: it is the design intent and process that is more
important than the tool itself.
‘Software modified by the designer through scripting,
however, provides a range of possibilities for creative
speculation that is simply not possible using the software
only as the manufacturers intended it to be used.
Because scripting is effectively a computing program
7 Visualisation of scan data from the ‘Agent
Construction’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark:.
The emerging physical structure is continuously
scanned, and the data imported into virtual
formats for analysis and further processing. In
this format it can be directly analysed beside
the virtual agent models, or used as an input
in these.
8 Airow simulation from the ‘Agent
Construction’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
The scan data allows for simulation of the
structure’s performance, here through a uid
dynamic simulation in X-Flow.
6
5 Aggregate module structure from the ‘Agent
Construction’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
The participants operate as ‘agents’, building
and altering the structure without pre-made
drawings or plans, instead being guided by rules
responding to local conditions – ‘here and now’.
6 Virtual agent model from the ‘Agent
Construction’ workshop cluster at SG 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
In the computer model, a swarm of virtual
agents gradually and collectively build up
a structure. Different agents are guided by
different rule-sets, and the only communication
between them is through the environment
which they manipulate and which in turn affects
their behaviour.
7
5
8

introduction 16-17
overlay, the tool user (designer) becomes the new
toolmaker (software engineer).’ Mark Burry7
simulating experience
Architecture can be thought of as drawing, but should be thought
of as simulation. Architecture is the act of imagining a building
at a remove from its construction, and then communicating
this concept for others to build. To date, the imagining and
communicating has been largely through drawing. However, it is
not necessarily drawing that defines architecture, but this ability
to create an abstraction of the building through some means.
Through the drawing, the architect is able to imagine how light
and space and material relate in the creation of architecture.
Although largely within the mind of the architect, this simulation
of effect and experience is a necessary part of architectural
design. The pragmatic aspects of performance can be simulated
as well. The digital design environment can be a design partner
for this simulation of architecture. Through the adoption of new
technologies, the creation of design techniques, the coding
of custom design tools and the gaining of critical performance
feedback, the abilities of the architect are extended.
SG was founded on the premise that a first-principles exploration
of geometry in relation to design intent could benefit architectural
design. The development, discussion and dissemination of these
explorations of technique have been central to the SG workshops and
conferences. The SG community explores these through parametric
design, computer programming, digital fabrication, interactive
design, simulation and optimisation. The scope of these approaches
is enlarged at each yearly event. SG has been, and continues to be,
a place where these concepts are not only discussed, tested and
critically reflected upon, but critically, a place where this knowledge is
created. A place for designing, coding and building.
11 Elevation from the ‘Gridshell Digital
Tectonics’ workshop cluster at SG 2012,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New
York, USA.
Diagrams of the lattice gridshell identied the
location of each piece in the four-layer lath
system.
9 Geodesic curves from the ‘Gridshell Digital
Tectonics’ workshop cluster at SG 2012,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New
York, USA.
Geodesic curves allow for complex curvature
from straight segments.
10 Fabrication layout of laths from the
‘Gridshell Digital Tectonics’ workshop cluster at
SG 2012, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
New York, USA.
Geodesic laths are unrolled with precise lengths
and spacing of nodes for pin joints.
11
9
10
applied curves geodesic curves
proportional distribution shortest curve on surface
unrolled lath unrolled lath

introduction 18-19
references
1 Lars Hesselgren, ‘Smooth Is Not Enough’, 18 January
2009, http://www.core.form-ula.com/2009/01/18/smooth-is-
not-enough/ [accessed 12/09/2012].
2 Mark Weiser, ‘The Computer for the 21st Century’, in
Scientific American, September 1991, pp 94–104.
3 Stan Allen, ‘Introduction: Practice vs Project’, in Practice:
Architecture, Technique and Representation, G+B Arts
International (Amsterdam), 2000, page XIV.
4 Alan Kay, ‘User Interface: A Personal View’, in Brenda
Laurel (ed), The Art of Human–Computer Interface Design,
Addison-Wesley (Reading), 1990, p 125.
5 Jose-Manuel Berenguer, ‘Interview with Jose Manuel
Berenguer’ in Mosaic, 2005, http://mosaic.uoc.
edu/2005/09/09/jose-manuel-berenguer/ [accessed
10/02/2010].
6 Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital, Vintage Books
(New York), 1995.
7 Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures, John Wiley & Sons
(Chichester), 2011, p 9.
text
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
images
© Smartgeometry Ltd, © Smartgeometry Ltd, photos
by Anders Ingvartsen, © Peter Suen, © Samuel Wilkinson,
© Andrew Kudless with the Gridshell Digital Tectonics
Cluster, © Mark Cabrinha, PhD
12 Curvature analysis from the ‘Gridshell
Digital Tectonics’ workshop cluster at SG 2012,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New
York, USA.
Curvature analysis determines radii of curvature
to verify the minimum radius allowable for the
bending of lath segments.
13 Completed gridshell from the ‘Gridshell
Digital Tectonics’ workshop cluster at SG 2012,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New
York, USA.
12
13