!Restored: Organic Buildings In Archicad 10

[Anonymous]

Hi all!

3rd year architectural student here....been working with Archicad 10 for about a year now, on and off, not my main drawing program but the program I use for 3D rendering for Uni so Ive had no formal training in Archicad - pretty much self-taught.

Anyway, for my latest design project I designed an organic building at a Harbour, where the roof is pretty much self supporting and form the overhead and side enclosure to allow freeform design of internal spaces - something similar to the curved red building on the Archicad 10 loading screen.

I dont, however, have the slightest idea of how to do that in Archicad, as this is the first time Ive tried my hand at Organic Architecture. Do you guys know of any tutorials out there explaining how this is done or can you please give me some tips? Would greatly appreciate it!

Cheers!
Rouan

[Dwight]

Excuse me for butting in, but what we see whenever this "organic modeling" question comes up is the quest for building forms we all know are nightmares to detail. The students want to imagine manipulable lozenges and Archicad can't do that because the premise of Archicad is conventional building materials. Many of these blobby fantasies would disappear if they were modeled from panels and sticks rather than sculpy.

For instance, the initial student sketch shows uniform curvy walls flowing into a uniform curvy roof. Wheres the gutter? Where's the venting? How does the roof membrane work? Once you begin to consider these issues, they correctly modify the design. Sure, you could do this with a series of laminated arched ribs, frame between the ribs and then skin the whole thing. That, you could easily model in Archicad [just don't change your mind later.]

I'd love a blobby lozenge to play with - it certainly would go a long way to providing cue points for creating the actual building materials beneath, but my architectural experience shows that the nature of building materials gives a strong form indications that starting with a lozenge ignores.

[Anonymous]

Dwight,

Wow.. I completely connect with what you're saying. This is soooo true. 99% of the time, the 'Grand Solution' gets degenerated into something constructed of stick-like elements or conventional building 'products'. However, in all fairness to the organic crowd, they CAN point to guys like Erro Serinen and Ken Kellogg and say, "Well how about THIS!" Or how about that bus station in Spain shaped like a wave? (Can't recall the Archicritter on that one)

One thing is for sure... if you can get a client to buy into concrete construction, then convention can easily be thrown out the door. Even if I only had the opportunity to do it a couple of times in my career, it would be great to have a software tool as intuitive as Archicad is to achieve it. I still chuckle with delight when I see Mendelsohn's Einstein Tower.

Just sayin'... We can't knuckle under to conformity.. Gotta' keep pushin'!

[Anonymous]

I agree a lot of the modelling could be done in AC, but I always choose the application which will let me model a form easier and faster. And modelling a tent and ropes in AC is far from easy! Even with AC11 if I have to model a curtain, I go to Autocad or Max.

I do not consider DGL scripting as "modelling", though I am pretty good at it.

Djordje, this was modelled in 1999-2000 - I didn't know GDLToolbox or Archiforma ever existed! And internet was a luxury in Bulgaria!

Whatever, as far as I remember Mesh tool and SEO did not exist at that time! 😉

Dwight, I are absolutely right - in construction drawings it all comes to simple forms. But it would have been nice to have a curvy form for the preliminary design stage!

[David Collins]

David wrote:
For the "Self supporting curved roof structure" you can try the technique above, ... If you need more freedom of form, then you can try using the Mesh Tool, but this will be tedious.

The mesh tool is hopeless when it comes to blobs. There's a Regular Blob in the library that you might be able to taffy-pull into shape and then slice and dice with SEO's. (Special Constructions/Basic Shapes/Ellipsoid). Start with an SEO base to give it a flat bottom and then fire a few more SEO's elements through it.

A lot of blobbitecture is Regular Geometry masquerading as free form.

[Rakela Raul]

just in case !!!!

I DO WANT MODELING TOOLS......a simple C4D wouldnt be a bad a idea....but the complete pack ???? c u !!

[Anonymous]

Rakela wrote:
just in case !!!!

I DO WANT MODELING TOOLS......a simple C4D wouldnt be a bad a idea....but the complete pack ???? c u !!

I do have C4D but it will take me years to figure it out for myself and i just dont have time, Uni is a little heavy with the workload so little free time...

But anyway....I figured out how make the walls more organic in Archicad afterall and its pretty easy and obvious --> "Complex wall" and theres an example of a curved wall, spline-like, and I just edited it the way I required and it turned out fantastic. Pity I only tried it after the submission was finished but now i know.

So yeah, no need for laborious mesh editing or to learn C4D, its too difficult anyway I tried it but I dont even know where to start to make a simple curve in the program!

[Thomas Holm]

Dave wrote:
One thing is for sure... if you can get a client to buy into concrete construction, then convention can easily be thrown out the door. Even if I only had the opportunity to do it a couple of times in my career, it would be great to have a software tool as intuitive as Archicad is to achieve it. I still chuckle with delight when I see Mendelsohn's Einstein Tower.

Interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Tower
"The exterior was originally conceived in concrete, but due to construction difficulties, much of the building was actually realized in brick, covered with stucco."

But I do agree with you. Might I mention Oscar Niemeyer?

[Dwight]

i wish i was an Oscar Niemeyer wiener.

Dave "The Dreamer" Sanders wildly speculated:

"if you can get a client to buy into concrete construction, then convention can easily be thrown out the door."

I guess you mean that wacky forms can be done with ease and economy, then? Hahaha.

Perhaps forum members with real experience in wacky concrete formwork might care to jump in here.

[Anonymous]

Dwight,

I'm not saying it's cheap or easy. I'm saying it DOES get done once in a while. I can show you buildings that stand today that are definitely 'wacky'... Lots of 'em. They're intriguing. Ferrocement construction is common in our neighbor to the south, Mexico. It can be made by hand, without form work. Labor intensive? Yeah, of course. Commercially viable? No, of course not. But if you're doing a custom home for an uber-wealthy client, who cares? If they're into it, I'll go for it with no regrets and without looking back. I'm not a 'dreamer'... my bread and butter is pounding out boxes for the marginally informed and intellectually vacant clientele we all deal with. If I couldn't look a little beyond that, I'd have taken my cyanide capsule long ago.

I've definitely noticed one thing... We're starting to let 'products' dictate design instead of designing new products to facilitate design. This is a bad sign... a true death knell of art as we know it. You let that happen, and you can kiss creativity good-bye.

You're giving up to easily. Frontiers are pushed by pioneers. They're pushed back by the status quo. I agree, 99% of our careers will be spent servicing the common needs of common clientele, but every once in a while, you'll get somebody with an eye for the unusual, or even revolutionary, walk into your office. If you're not willing to service their needs, send 'em over to me. I'll give them what they want.

Not trying to initiate a conflict, I'm just saying that it's just as bad to let cynicism rule the roost as it is to let unbounded fantasy run wild. There's definitely a balance.

I'm like you - I'm acutely aware of my practical and fiduciary responsibilities to my clients, and always work within that framework. BUT, I've already had at least one job constructed that was way outside the norm (for our area) in my career (it's on my website; the Small Residence) and I'm keen to do it again.

The TWA Terminal got built. There's Gaudi buildings all over Spain. Mendohlson had a sparkling career during Germany's Weimar years. Niemeyer had lots of projects completed, and you've acknowledged that. I just went to the John Lautner exhibit at the Armand Hammer Museum this weekend. His stuff was amazing. And it got BUILT. Nuff' said.

I'm no student or punter... I've done full production of 10 to 12 $500 to $750/sf houses per year for the last twenty years... a helluva' lot of REAL work, solving real problems. I've got to see a lot of evidence to reach the conclusion that something cannot or should not be done, if it's what the client wants and is willing to pay for.

I did production on two concrete houses this year. They were fairly conventional for the most part, but had some tricky details and formwork to be executed. They came out great. Were they expensive? Hell yes! The clients didn't care. They wanted a concrete house with tricky details.

So that's what it's come down to? We can only do it if it's easy or economical? Wow. That's a pretty bleak world you're living in, there. Ouch.

Dwight.. I love you, man. I've lurked here a long time and always had a lot of respect for your practical, down-to-business approach, as well as your sharp wit. You're always fun to read. Just don't get jaded, man. That'd be a real shame, considering your obviously manifold skills.

[Dwight]

My practice is mainly public art. So I would be the guy exploring new forms who pushes software to its limits and is always developing new things. For instance, by the responses on this forum to "profiler" questions, few expert users really explored the broader applications of the complex profile tool like i did and continued to recommend obsolete approaches.

I react to your statement because it appeared to dismiss the harsh reality of wacky form. Thank you for clarifying. I am delighted by your work.

Students wanting to manipulate amorphic blobs into what they think are buildings complain that Archicad can't do it. They are right. What Archicad needs is an operator that knows how to properly assemble a building, this process informing the user about possible solutions and the relative difficulty of amorphic explorations. So when a student whines, we should ask them how WILL the roof stay up? And when a student thinks that structures are smooth, ask them to look at real buildings that only approximate smoothness, using the interstices between planes to address the realities of venting, drainage and connections.

Anyone wanting to see the nightmare of how a scribble on a napkin with the promise of magical ferro-cement as a solution should study the Sydney Opera house competition where, ultimately, a series of connected tapered segmented rib forms save the day [ie: engineer as hero, architect as donkey hole. Except i don't mean donkey].

Sydneyites: Will you ever finish paying for it?

It is just that vague dreamer talk is inappropriate for an era where demanding more material efficacy addresses long term durability and recyclability. So, yes, i definitely see a professional trend to manufactured items minimizing waste that are extruded and stacked, not amorphic crafted elements. Buildings will become more uniform in the way cars have. Of course students want to playfully explore form - but this should result in responsible building practices.

Those fancy terminals and other freeform architectural artworks you mention were created with a clear need: iconic expression - marketing. They were not developed at the whim of an architect, just like your extravagant clients need to assert their originality by demonstrating to other rich guys and we peons their financial ability to purchase unique and indulgent detailing.

We serve the money.