Digital Tectonics » David Lewis

Someting like this…

David — Tue, 11 May 2010 13:50:51 +0000

…but with lots of changes: more structure, more people, more lighting, changes to the facades, re-formed roof etc. (And please ignore the purple patch to the left.)

Design Diary

Andrew — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:44:01 +0000

Pixels

David — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:04:00 +0000

More light entertainment, this time from France:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Must… keep… working… >gasps<

The Cloud

David — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:09:01 +0000

For George:

Click here to view the embedded video.

More here.

First Scheme

David — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:41:57 +0000

This is the first scheme, as presented on Monday. It is very uptight and charmless but a lot of the organisation has a lot of sense to it and will be furthered. Taking two uniform grids coming at each other from different angles, as opinions might in an ethical dilemma, produces a mixed up disputed region where they overlap. This, the in-between, is the area of interest and will be where the focus of the programme, the studio, is placed. The other programmatic elements will claim this territory in different ways, hopefully producing the architectural equivalent of an argument.
This image was titled ‘Voids and Suggested Fluctuations’ and shows the placement of programmatic divisions as three-dimensional, volumetric vertices. To the left are the production offices (aligned with a quiet, shaded street); at the top is the high-ceiling scene dock (to match the tall, faceless back end of the Picadilly Theatre across the narrow alleyway); to the right is the public lobby area in which the audience will gather (sat opposite two corner pubs and on a well-walked street); at the bottom is the backstage area for artists to prepare and the slab-like volume between the scene dock and the public areas houses the technical areas (appropriately dark places beneath the studio).

The plans below, on four floors, show the current arrangement of spaces. The TV Studio plan is, albeit modelled in 3D, is Studio 1 from the London Studios and is effectively collaged onto the scheme to show size. As the region that is disputed and/or shared there will be much more play in it’s arrangement and form than such a simple, box-like shape suggests.

Below is an axonometric image of the first scheme, with the TV studio lifted up.

Some Site Images

David — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:53:05 +0000

I should have put these up a while ago…

Unknown Pleasures

David — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:24:52 +0000

These are the field diagrams for exploring the immediate surrounding to the site. I found them to be very useful in setting out the massing which, in keeping with the ethics theme, would accommodate with the nearby buildings externally but have a contrasting element on the inside. The scales for the fields are bound at either end by the same blue colour, accentuating the idea of the in-between. The amplification of the fields is appropriate to the relationships within the twin phenomena discovered on the site.

The title ‘Unknown Pleasures’ is a reference to the album cover for Joy Division’s album of the same name, designed by Peter Saville and originally from the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy.

New Developments

David — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:06:13 +0000

SIMPLIFICATION: The interest lies with the in-between. It is a one dimensional point on a two dimensional scale.

TRIANGULATION 1 & 2: The architecture that represents combined/convoluted ethics should develop from a dimensional extrapolation of the simplified problem. Each side of the triangles is a scale, an undirected edge between two vertices. The defined points A, B and C have areas attributed to them by the linking of the points on the inter-relational scales; however, they must form a space in between to moderate their territories. 1 shows this ‘from point’ and 2 shows this ‘perpendicular to scale’, with both showing a new defined area D to represent a shared/disputed region.

RECTIFICATION (INCOMPLETE) 1 & 2: Here, A is (using graph terminology) not adjacent to D – nor is B adjacent to C – and the graph is incomplete. 1 shows the territories attributed perpendicular to the scale, and 2 shows from the scale.

RECTIFICATION (COMPLETE) 1 & 2: A and B are adjacent to D and C respectively. 1 shows how disputed regions can emerge (A and C can claim the left blue triangle) whilst shared regions still exist. 2 shows a rectified situation where there is no disputed area.

PENTALOOP (REGULAR) 1 & 2: The relationships form a complete loop but the graph is once again incomplete. 1 shows a formalised sixth region F formed with the original vertices being dominant and 2 shows F formed when it is dominant.

PENTALOOP (IRREGULAR) 1 & 2: Only the point on the A-B scale has been moved, creating a series of shared/disputed regions in the case where the vertices are dominant (1) but not after rectification (2). Notice how in 1 the edge of a shared/disputed space exists on the B-C edge/relationship.

RE-SIMPLIFICATION: The importance lies not at the vertices but in the region created in-between. The vertices thus become voids, non-dimensional and the scale takes all the responsibility for variation.

SITUATIONAL (ARBITRARY) 1 & 2: To accommodate a programme and a site there must be some adaptation. Programmatic mixing and crossing creates axes of variation between voids, arbitrarily represented in 1. With flexing in programme and in response to site, as in 2, new regions and combinations emerge.

SITUATIONAL (ARBITRARY) EXTENDED: With an extra dimension the site becomes more occupied and the voids are anchored. This diagram is the theoretical strategy to be applied to programme and site.

Footnote: the new colour is International Klein Blue. It will be the only colour used other than the greyscales (to be explained more in the future).

Game Diagram (First Draft)

David — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:20:33 +0000

Spectra Minis

David — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:18:48 +0000