Advertisement

Seeing a Tree as a Prerequisite to Timber Architecture

  • Rizal MusliminEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 24)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the way in which a tree’s geometry is visually perceived and constrained in architectural design. The discussion is centered at the intersection of visual perception and geometry to explore the design opportunities in a tree’s complex geometry. The first part outlines the representational framework and the role of visual perception in seeing tree geometry. The second part repositions timber architecture typologies using the framework discussed in the first part. The third part illustrates alternative approaches for embedding tree geometry in timber designs. This representational platform aligns well with the emerging movement on organic timber architecture and is timely due to the recent advancements in timber manufacturing and technology.

Keywords

Tree Visual perception Embedding Wood and geometry Computational design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The tree images in Figs. 311 are based on a model provided by Xfrog (Xfrog 2010), a courtesy of TurboSquid.com.

References

  1. Abrahamsen RB, Malo KA (2014). Structural design and assembly of “Treet”—A 14-storey timber residential building in Norway. In: World conference on timber engineering 2014, p 8Google Scholar
  2. Adams J (ed) (2013) Carvel building in retrospect. In: A maritime archaeology of ships, innovation and social change in late medieval and early modern Europe. Oxbow Books, pp 175–192Google Scholar
  3. Born L, Jonas FA., Bunk K, Masselter T, Speck T, Knippers J Gresser GT (2016). Branched structures in plants and architecture. In: Biomimetic research for architecture and building construction. Springer, Cham, pp 195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brell-Cokcan S, Reis M, Schmiedhofer H, Braumann J (2009) Digital design to digital production: flank milling with a 7-axis robot and parametric design. In: 27th ECAADe Conference proceedings on computation: the new realm of architectural design, pp 323–330Google Scholar
  5. Ernest E (1989) Process for manufacturing corrugated plywood composites. US4816103AGoogle Scholar
  6. Klein J (2017) In Poland’s crooked forest, a mystery with no straight answer—The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  7. Koffka K (1922) Perception: an introduction to the Gestalt-theorie. Psychol Bull 19:531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Laseau P (2001) Graphic thinking for architects and designers. WileyGoogle Scholar
  9. Ludwig F, Schwertfreger H, Storz O (2012) Living systems: designing growth in Baubotanik. Archit Des 82:82–87Google Scholar
  10. Maloney TM (1996) The family of wood composite materials. For Prod J Madison 46:18Google Scholar
  11. Marr D, Ullman S, Poggio TA (2010) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Mattheck C (1998) Design in nature: learning from trees. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muslimin R (2014) EthnoComputation : on weaving grammars for architectural design. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. Muslimin R (2012) Recursive embedding of gestalt laws and shape grammar in the weaving design process. Presented at the the 30th eCAADe, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 443–449Google Scholar
  15. Poirier E, Moudgil M, Fallahi A, Staub-French S, Tannert T (2016) Design and construction of a 53-meter-tall timber building at the University of British Columbia. In: Proceedings of the world conference on timber engineering, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Prusinkiewicz P, Lindenmayer A (1996) The algorithmic beauty of plants. Springer-Verlag, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramage MH, Burridge H, Busse-Wicher M, Fereday G, Reynolds T, Shah DU, Wu G, Yu L, Fleming P, Densley-Tingley D (2017) The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:333–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raumonen P, Kaasalainen M, Akerblom M, Kaasalainen S, Kaartinen H, Vastaranta M, Holopainen M, Disney M, Lewis P (2013) Fast automatic precision tree models from terrestrial laser scanner data. Remote Sens 5:491–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reeve MM (2012) Gothic. Stud Iconogr 33:233–246Google Scholar
  20. Rosette J, Field C, Nelson R, DeCola P, Cook B (2011) A new photon-counting lidar system for vegetation analysis. Proc Silvilaser, 1–8Google Scholar
  21. Runions A, Fuhrer M, Lane B, Federl P, Rolland-Lagan A-G, Prusinkiewicz P (2005) Modeling and visualization of leaf venation patterns. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 24:702–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheurer F (2010) Materialising complexity. Archit Des 80:86–93Google Scholar
  23. Schindler C, Tamke M, Tabatabai A, Bereuter M (2013) Serial branchesGoogle Scholar
  24. Schindler C, Tamke M, Tabatabai A, Bereuter M, Yoshida H (2014) Processing branches: reactivating the performativity of natural wooden form with contemporary information technology. Int J Archit Comput 12:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Self M (2016) Hooke Park: applications for timber in its natural form. In: Menges A, Schwinn T, Krieg OD (eds) Advancing wood Architecture: a computational approachGoogle Scholar
  26. Self M, Vercruysse M (2017) Infinite variations, radical strategies. Fabricate, 30–35Google Scholar
  27. Steiger L (2007) Basics timber construction, 1st edn. Birkhäuser Architecture, Basel, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Stiny G (1993) Boolean algebras for shapes and individuals. Environ Plan B Plan Des 20:359–362.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b200359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strahler AH, Jupp DL, Woodcock CE, Schaaf CB, Yao T, Zhao F, Yang X, Lovell J, Culvenor D, Newnham G (2008) Retrieval of forest structural parameters using a ground-based lidar instrument (Echidna®). Can J Remote Sens 34:S426–S440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tittmann P, Shafii S, Hartsough B, Hamann B (2011) Tree detection and delineation from LiDAR point clouds using RANSAC. Proc SilviLaserGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagemans J, Elder JH, Kubovy M, Palmer SE, Peterson MA, Singh M, von der Heydt R (2012a) A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychol Bull 138:1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagemans J, Feldman J, Gepshtein S, Kimchi R, Pomerantz JR, van der Helm PA, van Leeuwen C (2012b) A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychol Bull 138:1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wallace IH (1968) Piet Mondrian : the evolution of his neo-plastic aesthetic 1908–1920. University of British Columbia.  https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0104386
  35. Wertheimer M (1938) Laws of organization in perceptual formsGoogle Scholar
  36. Wertheimer M (1923) A brief introduction to gestalt, identifying key theories and principles. Psychol Forsch 4:301–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xfrog (2010) XfrogPlants blue-gum eucalyptus [WWW Document]. TurboSquid. URL https://www.turbosquid.com

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, Design and PlanningThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations