Reading 005_Lena Pfeiffer_Authoring Robotic Processes

This article Authoring Robotic Processes, by Gramazio and Kholer, discusses the shift from digitally designed architecture to digitally constructed architecture.  It is no longer a relationship between "dematerialization and pure form" but of the construction of those forms from the digital realm into the 3D.  With the introduction of digital fabrication, there are fewer limitations on the possibilities for construction.  Through computational logic and material realization robots will be able to shift the parameters of design and fabrication. But it is important to use our design to inform the work of the robot and not the other way around, or else we will not be expanding our view of design. The robots must be approached as a tool for furthering design, not a limitation.  One of the main advantages of the robot that gives it an advantage over many digital fabrication devices is its manual dexterity.  This is the ability to be multi-functional because it is, in some form, "generic".  This allows for endless tools to be used on the robot, such as the ones we used and constructed in class.  This allows for options of building, placing, filming, painting, and so on, which in turn gives us very well rounded understanding of material and structure.
Scale is another factor that plays into the use of the robot.  The robot arm can be placed on track and given a wider range of motion, but that can only take its motions so far.  One project Granazio and Kholer discuss is their fly quadrocopters.  The next step is to figure out how to apply this to full scale construction.

Reading 007: Retooling for Mass Markets: Hillary Davlin's Response

"Retooling for Mass Markets", written by Tom Verebes, poses a counterpoint for the implementation of robotics in the 21^st century, or as he terms it, the “Asian-Century”.  Today, robots have slowly been integrated into architectural design, practice, discourse, teaching and researching, but have hardly been considered in the physical building or a contemporary city. Verebes argues that robotics poses great opportunity to aid in the population demands across East Asian today. While robots may reduce both time and money through the production of high-rise residential buildings, there is a concern that robots may not be used to their full potential in order to create variation rather than similar architectural typologies.  Robots have been associated in the 20^th century with a monotonous, Fordism ideology, where repetitive products are produced in a timely manner.  Although robots today have the same standardization ability, there is opportunity for diversity through different tooling and robotic applications.

Customizing different robotic tools has the ability to transform a city, allowing for a vast differentiation of architectural high-rise typologies, while still doing so in an efficient time.  The question at this point becomes not how robots can change urban skylines, but if they will be used to do so.  In the article, Verebe reiterates Kittler’s stance on new technological media, stating that, “new media does not make old media obsolete; they assign them other places in the system” (p. 129). Robots, in this case, will most likely be combined with old building techniques in order to address housing issues of the 21^st century. The responsibility thus relies on architects, developers, and city officials, if the potential of robotic retooling will create a unique and successful city skyline, or a dreary, monotonous urban fabric for the future population to live within.

Reading 006: Changing Building Sites - Hillary Davlin's Response

“Changing Building Sites”, written by Thomas Bock and Silke Langenberg, explores the long history and potential of robotic automation on the building site. Beginning n the 19^th century, specific machines have been necessary in aiding construction processes for new materials (concrete, steel etc.) in the industrial revolution. For example, one of the biggest architectural feats of the century, the Crystal Palace (built in 1851), required new steam powered machines that could hold the large cast iron beams, thus changing the physical building site. Progressing into the 20^th century, the destruction from WWI and WWII pushed the need for new construction machinery as housing shortage reached an all-time high.  Massed produced, prefabricated components become the main mode of construction, changing machinery and building site even further. 

            Prefabrication in buildings and building systems advanced even greater during the 60s and 70s. Standardized systems and mass production enabled time and cost savings, yet again shifting the paradigm of building elements and site. During the 70s, Japan hit a population and housing boom. Using similar mass production of building systems, Japan adopted an automation system that replicated more of an assembly line than actual automation. Robots slowly became introduced not only into system production, but also into construction firms for the purposes of demolition, surveying, excavation, paving, tunneling, welding, etc. on site. As robots have transitioned from the factory to the construction site, it has been argued that building sites are more successful if they are designed similar to factories, where robots are fully integrated into the future production of a home.

Reading 007 Lena Pfeiffer

Reading 007 Lena Pfeiffer

This weeks reading Retooling for Mass Markets by Tom Verebes discusses the role of robotics is mass housing production.  The population growth on the planet has caused for necessary focus on creating living spaces for millions of people every year.  One issue this article discusses is the standardization of these housing projects and the lack of design diversity.  The standardized method that has grown out of the Industrial Revolution does not allow for a city to form a unique model for itself.  The question now is how can robots help us create a simplified way for design to become diverse again? How can the technology of these machines make it easier for these large housing projects to be built in an affordable and efficient manner, without taking away from the unique designs and character of the building?  

Through fabrication, manufacturing, construction, assembly and management, robotics has become a tool for the problem of the housing demand.  Both independent robotic design teams, and university-funded programs have been working to find the answers to methods of combining robotics and construction.  The next step is taking the fabrication out of the laboratories and into the field of the construction site.  

While standardization is "both the problem and the solution", the robot is a tool that can be an even better resolution to the issue of under-produced, under-designed, over standardized housing.

Jeffrey's Response to Authoring Robotic Processes

This reading further explains the reading from last week, integrating robotic fabrication in the design process. It introduces the new phenomenon, "digital materiality", that bridges digital design and realization. While robotics were less common in architecture, this reading explains how robotics is now giving a new aesthetic and potentials that changes the architecture design and building culture.

While some argue digital technologies as a generator of complex geometries and renderings, this reading suggest that the real question should focus how digital technologies changes architectural material practice. The authors were not interested in the technological advances, instead they focuses on how it can expand the scope of architectural design and production.

One of the examples is that it can do non-standardized assembly which would be close to be impossible to be built like The Gatenbein Vineyard Facade. Also because architecture is in fact pure physical substance, robots helps enabling realization of these creative projects.

The authors also mentioned the new emphasis of this digital age that we must look into both practical and theoretical perspectives in order to make robot not just a medium of production, but also developing new approaches to design.

It is also true that because it has become more and more available to the public that anyone can be an expert in digital fabrication now. Because of robot, we can now develop new ways of thinking about architecture as well as materializing it.

Jeffrey's Response on Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process

Going into the digital age, we can see the pros and cons of using Digital model in architecture design. However, it still cannot totally replace physical model which provides direct means to understand a three-dimensional design and also showing the relationships between material, structure, space and proportions. Basing off this topic, these Singaporean researchers started to study how robotic technology and its fabrication can bridge these the analog and digital design, integrating the advantages of physical models in digital design.

They separated the research into scientific perspective on the integration of the computation , fabrication and material systems, as well as a design perspective that studies how the production condition has been changed on architectural design.

The use of Grasshopper has also been a great help for them to approach computation as it visualize the intangible coding for architecture students for them to understand the complex flow structures and logic in digital processing.

Throughout this research, they discovered that students can develop computational design strategy which sharpens the students awareness for their conceptual interdependence. The physical working model from robot fabrication helps students to quickly look into the constructive and structural aspects of their design which would further reintegrate into the computational design. Even though it's a work on programming and computation, this whole process now should be considered as a creative design process independently. 

Michael's Reading Response: Authoring Robotic Process

This article discusses and commends the development of robotic fabrication into the digital age. The initial integration of robotic fabrication into architecture saw less than ideal results, as early development lead to a high degree of specificity. In the 1990’s the specificity of each robotic application to each construction process did little more than increase productivity, adding little to no architectural value. Further development of digital manufacturing lead to the use of the industrially proven multi-axis robots, providing a new versatility. This article stresses the versatility attributed to the multi axis robot and its ability to be customized for a wider variety of applications. “- unleashing a previously unimaginable range of freedom in the interplay between the machine and the object.”

Going beyond the introduction of robotics into digital fabrication this article puts emphasis on the synthesis of robotics and the process of architecture. “Only once digital architecture has assumed a more radical, substantial role in the aesthetic and material realization of architecture will the discipline finally arrive in the digital age.” Essentially for robotics to be fully integrated into the design process it must provide a means of translating the digital realm into the physical. 

This article discusses three projects that truly integrate robotic process, materiality, and design concepts. The first project is the Gantenbein Vineyard façade, using robotics on a large scale to generate an irregular brick façade. The second project expands upon this idea of stacking irregular brick structures by using aerial robotics. “flight assembled architecture” The third project refers to the previously discussed Future Cities Lab producing 1:50 scale models through robotic fabrication. Each of these projects emphasizes the use of robotics to produce a physical model through a variety of materials and processes. By robotically producing physical architecture from the digital world, architecture is pushed forward into the digital age.

Jeffrey's response to Manufacturing Systems and Strategies (Digital Design and Manufacturing)

This reading is informative and explains how different robot has been adapted to different manufacturing processes as well as the design strategy of the whole manufacturing process.

We need to understand the fact that each robot has their pros and cons. It is pretty logical that people would use a more detailed robot like the 7-axis robots we have in the FabLab, basically a job shop, for our studies as well as unique product making and use more specific robot to finish tasks in a much more efficient way  for a flow shop. For example, one would not use the KUKA 7 axis robot to mass produce pretzels because it would take a lot of steps for the robot arm to make all the complex moves. However some other machines are designed specifically for folding pretzels that would take them less than 1 sec to form a good piece of pretzels.

It is also important to understand the Just-in-time concept that with the use of robot we need to eliminate waste and non-value-adding activities. In last assignment, Pinhead, we forgot the importance of efficiency and time with the use of robot, We could have made the procedure smoother and in turn saved a lot more time by shortening the distance that the robot (titey) to travel to and from nail holder and the hole that it was about to punch.

Jeffrey's Response to Model/Prototype/Archetype

From "Models, Prototypes, and Archetypes", Mark Burry asserted how digital fabrication is not exactly speeding up the design process, which most people would argue, but changes the way that we look into design. Burry used his work and studies on Sagrada Familia to explain how digital fabrication has not eliminated but changed the role of the model, the prototype, and the archetype.

While many people think it might be unnecessary to have model, prototype or archetype as we can just machine print a design, Burry argues that they still exist in design process. Burry expressed that even we have digital fabrication to makes the production process quicker, but math and programming in the digital design are actually adding complexity of the design process . Thus the design process is still here not in the form of building by hands but switched to other parts of the whole design process. Same applies to model, prototype and archetype. Right now with digital fabrication, Model, as a usually miniature physical representation of an idea, can be easily built in the real scale then it can also act as a prototype. This actually could make observations of the idea much easier. In Burry's work on Sagrada Familia, he also claims that the prototype that they build can also work as a Archetype as it is the first product that the other copies and variations would be based on.

It is really interesting to see how digital fabrication has been blurring the definition of these design tools yet able to redefine and make them more efficient to help designers and even architects to make decisions throughout the design process. There would always be struggle in the designing and we can see how struggle switched from one part to another.

Hillary Davlin 005: Authorizing Robotic Processes

In “Authorizing Robotic Processes", written by Fabio Gramzaio, Matthias Kohler and Jan Willmann, the authors explores the complex role that robots play within architectural production. While there is much skepticism using digital design to create form, the authors argue that it is crucial that architecture informs the machine, and not vise versa. Much similar to “Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process”, this article explores the potential for robots in construction and materialization processes. Projects such as the Gantenbein vineyard façade and Flight Assembled Architecture (which resulted from this project), look into robots for precise and unique construction assembly. In this sense, architecture is informed by new fabrication, thus becoming more integrated in its output. As in last week’s reading, this article also looks at the Future Cities Laboratory for high-rises in Singapore as an example of integrating robots into initial architecture design. By viewing robots in the initial steps of design and production, there is potential for new, exciting and experimental forms of architecture.

Monica Reading Response 005: Authoring Robotic Processes

This article speaks of the merits of robotics in architectural design in a similar way to the last week’s reading. It stresses the adaptability of multi-axis robots for varied uses, rather than iterations of one specific process. The authors go so far as to posit that robotic design with do away with the conventional divide between intellectual and manual work in the construction industry.

The use of the industrial robot, which can be programmed into a near infinite variety of tasks, is the basis for this revolution of building processes and design. Robots and digital design were considered separately in the 1990s, without great success. This is because the robots used were highly specialized to one specific task, which did more to restrict architectural design than to advance it. Digital design was considered entirely separately from robots or any sort of fabrication, leading to overly abstracted and somewhat contrived “pure forms”. It is the marriage of robotic processes and digital design that can allow for new architecture to develop.

The emphasis throughout this article is on robotic fabrication informed by the architectural process, instead of vice versa. The designer must have an understanding of material systems and site specific conditions in order to develop the robotic process. The experiment with 1:50 scale skyscraper design from the Future Cities Lab is once again discussed to point to a connection between the digital, theoretical, and material that must constantly be reevaluated. Both the physical and the digital model must be used to inform the other, with a new emphasis on the physical. With robotic fabrication, architecture can finally be brought into the digital age.

Monica Reading Response 004: Integrating Robotic Fabrication in Design Process

The paper “Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process” details the research done by a master’s studio on the use of robotic fabrication to inform the design process. The groups of students each created models of high rise buildings for proposed sites in Singapore. The models were created at 1:50 scale with the use of many tools and materials on the robots. This large scale offered a unique way of working through the design process, since problems of construction that would not be evident at a smaller scale presented themselves in the ten-foot towers. The use of robots to build the model required students to consider spatial relationships between the parts, as well as the order in which the pieces could be assembled. For this reason, and because each material required different assembly techniques, the author argues that the programming of the robot was a design process in itself.

The description of this project poses the question of what role the robotic fabrication process can occupy in architectural design. For these students, it was a means to work at large scales with precision, and to do it with a variety of materials, unlike a 3D print. Speed, however, was not a factor, since the programming time for new buildings must have taken considerable time.

In our class, defining “appropriate tasks” to use robots for is an important consideration, since the time it takes to set up and run an error-free program is often longer than the time taken to do it by hand. So far our primary factor has been precision, since this is one thing that the robots can certainly do better than humans. This article makes the argument that robots can allow for more complex designs while still allowing them to be modeled. It also states that students worked to design a set of processes, instead of a form. They used the movements and abilities of the robots to inform their design process, rather than simply employing the robots once the design has been made. I think that this argument for considering fabrication in form development is a strong one. Because robots don’t always expedite the creation of the model, it’s hard to argue for their use as a simply practical tool when building prototype models. Instead, robots should be considered for their specific characteristics of precision and being able to locate points in space without reference points. These capabilities allow for more varied designs, as these students found with their high rise structures. Instead of simply using the robots to quickly make their end product, they used the robots to aid in their designs from the early stages. 

Lena Pfeiffer 004 Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process

Integrating robot technology into the design process can lead to both higher efficiency and increased precision.  All of the projects in the FCL benefitted from the use of CAD and the robots, allowing them to move their designs to new levels and possibilities.  The article talks about the students ability to alter their thought process and skew it towards their digital capabilities.  By shifting to algorithmic logics, the students were able to channel their thought process of the physical building design to the digital and back.  This ability is something that has become more and more crucial in the architecture world, seeing as technology is always improving and contributing to new design techniques.  By creating digital models, which can then be physically constructed, whether it be by robots or by hand, designers can learn from that 2D to 3D transition.  The construction process that goes into building the models is something that must be considered at the full scale.  Working with robots to build scale models can teach designers about the potential structural issues in an efficient and easily replicable fashion.  CAD allows for easy changes and design tweaks that may be very time consuming otherwise.