how to draw a sphere?

[Anonymous]

Hi, I'm a second year undergraduate student majoring in architecture, and for my current project, I am designing a three-story multi-spherical building. I was wondering how I could draw such a building in ArchiCAD. Since the building is a sphere, that means all of the floors have different areas, which I could draw on the separate stories, but how would I connect all the floors while forming a smooth spherical surface. Also, I am using a steel geodesic structural system for my design, is there anyway I could show that with ArchiCAD such as with a certain material or something?

Thank you in advance.

[Dwight]

That's a big set of questions all at once.

First of all, there's no such thing as a spherical building, even if Archicad has a sphere object in the library folder "Special Construction." Or, that you could make a Complex Profile half-sphere and use it with a curved wall to define a sphere that would possess more built information than a fantasy sphere might. [see illustration attached]

A building that is spherical would be made of many flat segments - like a geodesic dome appears to be a sphere but is sticks and tilted flat panels. No curves there at all!

I remember a GDL object somewhere that was a Geodesic dome - perhaps one of the objects with the GDL Cookbook.

If this is a multi-storey structure, you could use the complex profile/curved wall approach to guide and define floor areas [floor plan cut height] and then replace it with arrays of tilted columns and triangular roof planes as interstitials.

Archicad doesn't map textures to curved or angular surfaces well, so trying to emulate the 3D with a surface won't do the trick for you.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Dwight.
Is there really no such thing as a spherical building?
Yes, a geodesic dome is formed of a series of many triangles that may combine to form hexagons, pentagons, etc. I understand that there are no curves, I suppose I should have worded it differently.

I'll try what you suggested.
Thanks again.

[Dwight]

You being a student and all, it is important to distinguish between Saturday night fantasies where geometry reigns and gravity is non-existent and actual buildings where fantasy is destroyed by leaking cantilevers and gravity weighs heavy on the aging, cynical psyche. So have the fun while you can in the years before liability insurance premiums.

[Anonymous]

Yes, certainly, being a student who still has much much more to learn and all, I'm not as bounded by building codes and such problematic issues as those you mentioned. Right now is mostly a creative period for me, and yes, I am definitely taking advantage of the "fun" at the moment. But, there're plenty of real-life projects that manage to bend the rules a bit or find some way to function properly without running into major issues, while still being exciting. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright's Johnson Wax Headquarters was an amazing design, but it still had its problems, such as ceiling leaks due to rain. But he chose to realize his dream design and sacrifice certain fundamental aspects of a "proper working building."

And, I don't know what type of architecture you like particularly, but I myself am quite interested in seeing what will become of Rem Koolhaas's "Deathstar" project in Dubai, which is also a "sphere"-shaped building.

I think in architecture, as with in any passion, one should dream big, no dream is too big, even if it may seem impossible to do: pursue the dream, find some way to make it work, and build it/design it. Progress and innovations can best be made by attempting to achieve or even surpass one's limits and boundaries and trying to do what's never been done before.

[Dwight]

Don't think that i am trying to stop you from dreaming. I earn my living as a public artist, so we use Archicad to define unique prototypes all the time.

Dreams and envelope-pushing aside, I can guarantee you that NONE of those allegedly swoopy structures that you admire will have doubly-curved glazing. Certainly, their overall forms allude to pure geometry, but if you look close enough, it comes down to flat planes and extrusions stuck together with caulking.

The trick is in taking simple rectilinear elements and assembling them into what superficially appear to be magical modular geometries.

[Dwight]

And as for that Frank Lloyd Dwight guy. I was just visiting Johnson's Racine mansion Wingspread while killing time trying not to throw up with anxiety until giving my art presentation in Milwaukee later in the day.

Fuggedaboudit!

The era of fantastically rich people who think that they are art patrons and aren't concerned about the consequences so lets call Frank, is long over.

Unless they are calling that other, fatter Frank.

[Anonymous]

Yes, pretty much everything comes down to simple rectilinear shapes if you break it down.

As for the bit about FLW, he was an extremely egotistical man, but extremely brilliant at the same time. And he was certainly not "fantastically rich" as you put it, he was actually in debt and struggling with financial difficulties during a good bit of his lifetime, not to mention his scandalous personal life, relationships, and affairs caused quite a bit of turmoil.

And the other Frank, I'm assuming is Frank Gehry. I think his works are quite fantastic. I'm not a huge fan of all of his works, but he certainly does produce some good designs in my opinion, like the Dancing House in Prague.

[Dwight]

I meant that it would be the rich clients calling. [We are familiar with the exalted yet tragic history of our hero.]

Especially for that Hollyhock house that would reek of dead snails and seagull poop inside if they filled the fireplace moat.

So, if you are going to bridge geometric fantasy with an understanding that these wacky forms generate impossible building details affecting the purity of geometric fantasy [a trait notatall necessary to graduate from architecture school judging by the useless aristocrat arm wavers I have worked with] all you need to do is think about the buildability of the things you dream of.

[Anonymous]

I see, my misunderstanding.

?