Computational Design Thinking for first year architectural design studios.

Vamvakidis, Simos

doi:10.5151/proceedings-ecaadesigradi2019_043

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Computational Design theory is still evolving and is inspired by other scientific fields. The key points have being discussed extensively in the previous phases of the this research (Vamvakidis, 2016(Vamvakidis, , 2019 Briefly mentioned, those fileds include biology and Thompson (1917) and his life-long research on the origin of the form of different, yet formally alike animal species. Which he documented with graphs of their form using a grid.…”

Section: Summary Of Previous Phases Summary Of Key Theoretical Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computational Design Thinking and Controlled Transformations, for the schematic design of a second- year, multi-unit housing design studio

Vamvakidis¹

2020

Blucher Design Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In previous phases of this research, a design method of physical & digital modelling named Controlled Transformations was explored and evaluated with first-year architecture students, as a way to introduce students and architects to Computational Design Thinking, before using any parametric software. The paper briefly summarises the previous phases of this research, and highlights the key theoretical points which are then translated to the design method. It then extends and examines the application of the method, to teaching more complex, second-or third-year design studios. More specifically, it examines the application of this method for the design of a multi-unit housing project.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Previous Phases Summary Of Key Theoretical Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Vamvakidis (2016Vamvakidis ( , 2019, the above key theoretical key points of Computational Design could be translated to the following explicit design method guidelines:…”

Section: Summary Of Previous Phases Summary Of Key Theoretical Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Design Thinking and Controlled Transformations, for the schematic design of a second- year, multi-unit housing design studio

Vamvakidis¹

2020

Blucher Design Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Algorithmic processes represent the latest evolution of the academy's role in serving to transform the discipline". Especially now that professional accreditation is usually conditional upon extensive study in higher education, it is paramount that architecture students' formative years reflect not just the traditional characterisation of the profession, but also recognise and prepare them for changes looming upon the horizon (Vamvakidis, 2019;Kalay, 2009;Kvan, 2003).…”

Section: Foreword Proposing a Procedural Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is antithetical to emergent conceptualisations of computational design, which often involve generative, performative, and diagrammatic processes that, according to Oxman (2008), "are in direct contradiction with formalist approaches of syntactical and formal knowledge". Computational design thinking compels students not just to use computer functions to depict their design, but to help orient their conceptual and explorative processes; numerous publications have explored this tenet of digital design as a basis for design studio education, demonstrating that such models require deliberate attention be placed upon relating lower-and higher-level identities and upon how design processes are mediated by design tools (Cantürk et al, 2020;Ozkar, 2007;Ireland, 2017;Agkathidis, 2015;Vamvakidis, 2019;Kocaturk, 2017;Akin et al, 2018;Fry & Reas, 2014). This research's findings demonstrated that this approach -which taught design thinking as, in part, an exercise in relating discrete actions to overall design goals -gradually shifted participants' perceptions of relevance, result demonstrability, and output quality (determinants of PU) regarding computational design technologies, as well as providing direct experience which moderated various PEU determinants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Vartha¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades digital technologies have had an increasingly pronounced impact upon the architectural discipline, and - more broadly - society as a whole. Characterised as ‘the Digital Turn’, many industries are incorporating digital processes within their own operational and andragogical models. Despite this, computational tools possess largely untapped potential as instrumental bases of architectural craft; as Carpo notes, the profession is decidedly reluctant to explore and embrace computational design practices: “architects, for the most part, have neglected or rejected the new digital commons”. Traditional notions of ‘analogue’ design thinking are not wholly compatible with the emergent body of novel conceptual, cognitive, theoretical, and methodological content afforded by computer-mediated design processes. Beyond merely enabling computer-aided drafting, computer technologies allow for a distinct form of digital craft that challenges the centrality of paper-based representation and formal inquiry as conceptual foundations of architectural praxis. This design-research scrutinises superficial instances of computation - more accurately described as ‘computerisation’ - and demonstrates that computational methodologies form a discrete epistemic practice within architectural design. Specific focus is placed upon proceduralism; an extensible computational framework that - it is argued - features a complement of functionalities, suitabilities, and potentialities that may be exploited by architects. This research offers a conceptual territorialisation of computational design methods as supported by other literature, and explores the cognitive basis of proceduralism - that being a direct occupation with the systematic identification, extraction, and codification of procedural (rather than declarative) design knowledge, and explicit use of computational functions to integrate such knowledge within creative and formative processes. The Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) is used to appraise the state of the art in architectural design education, demonstrating that existing educational models are ill-equipped to integrate computational methodologies without a revised understanding of design and making relative to this new paradigm. This paradigm is further juxtaposed via a series of pavilions (based upon the Serpentine format) and the documentation of their design processes. While formally distinct, the designs are teleologically consistent, exhibiting various design methodologies along a spectrum of computer utility - positing procedural and analogue methodologies as opposing poles. ‘Proposing a Procedural Paradigm’ formalises and expands upon the current body of research within the field of proceduralism using a socio-technical perspective to review – both critically and didactically – proceduralism’s role within architectural praxis, seeking to provide a more comprehensive understanding of digital technologies in architecture.

show abstract

Computational Design Thinking for first year architectural design studios.

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Computational Design Thinking and Controlled Transformations, for the schematic design of a second- year, multi-unit housing design studio

Computational Design Thinking and Controlled Transformations, for the schematic design of a second- year, multi-unit housing design studio

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About