br From protoBIM to quantumBIM In the search for

From protoBIM to quantumBIM In the search for finding the key to solve the above specification dilemma Hyperbody has developed a program based on the dynamic principles of swarm behavior (Fig. 6). The hrg (Hyperbody Research Group) software organizes the behavior of points in space, while these points are provided with characteristics like strength, area, volume, color, and shape. Positive strength means attraction; negative strength means repelling the points they are linked to. The swarming points are typically represented by vaguely outlined dots so as to avoid clinging to a specific esthetic preference in the early design phases. Nonstandard information architects are aware of the fact that platonic geometry cannot be the starting point for their designs. They must move deeper into the genes of the design materials. The relations between the points of the informed point clouds in digital space give structure to the early design concept naturally in weightless space so as to be able to introduce the forces of gravity in a later stage, in order to avoid the glutathione reductase of the ground level. Hyperbody has teamed up with ONL to develop special software for such early design phases. It is common knowledge that it is the earliest conceptual design phase that is the major driving force for the potential of any project. The very first design decision has far bigger impact than all subsequent design decisions. The software that ONL/Hyperbody is in the process of developing is named protoBIM. ProtoBIM supports the development from a written conceptual statement via a swarming behavioral point cloud toward a BIM that contains all required data for building approval and the tender process. The importance of clearly describing the conceptual statement should not be underestimated. A statement that is described in vague non-verifiable terms is bound to compromise the inherent elegance of the design process. The protoBIM connects all relevant disciplines in this early design phase to each other in the most effective and simple fashion. There will be no more data exchanged than is strictly necessary. The structural engineers do not need a complete 3D model from the conceptual designer; they would rather see a simple wireframe which they can import in their specialist calculation software, most likely applying finite element methods. ProtoBIM is not yet supporting streaming information, as is the main feature of a next level Hyperbody software that I have baptized quantumBIM, which basically is protoBIM with additional features supporting streaming data on all data exchange levels based on the same principles of swarm behavior. ProtoBIM communicates via a dynamic database with other programs, but only in quantumBIM the cells of the database will be continuously updated in a streaming fashion, feeding the actuating building components. QuantumBIM is prepared for the foreseen paradigm shift from static to dynamic modeling, which will be facilitating truly dynamic structures being addressed in real time and proactively acting in real time. ProtoBIM supports truly nonstandard architecture while quantumBIM facilitates truly dynamic structures.
One building one detail One building, one detail. I have introduced this challenging phrase in earlier writings (paper for Nonstandard Praxis, MIT conference, 2004). Without any reservation I declared: Mies is too Much! Radicalizing the minimalist tendency of Mies van der Rohe, I observed that Mies still needed many different details to prove his point that less is more. His less is still too much. His less is an imposed less in visual appearance, but still a more in number of details. To perform better one single parametric detail must be mapped on all surfaces, which is subject to a range of parameters rendering the values of the parametric system unique in each local instance, thus creating a visual richness and a variety that is virtually unmatched by any traditional building technique. Such visual richness was naturally apparent in indigenous architecture, all made by hand, based on simple procedures. Now the new parametric and customization techniques allow such visual richness on the grand scale of large buildings, which is complexity based on simple rules. Complexity is the real more, based on the truly less. Please be aware of the double meaning: I do respect Mies van der Rohe to the max, which prohibits me from copying or varying the original—it was deliberate violation indeed when Rem Koolhaas forced the Barcelona Pavilion to bend in the early days of his career. Rather, one should endeavor to radicalize Mies instead; one should take the next step forward, instead of looking backward in such incestuous operations. The parametrization of the leading building detail implies an extreme unification; it requires an uncompromising systemic approach, thus allowing for a rich visual diversity at the same time. Les extremes se touchent. The coherence of parts in a parametric design system does not necessarily lead to a harmonic relationship between the parts as suggested by Palladio over 500 years ago, neither as suggested by Vitrivius 2100 years ago. Coherence of parts in a 3D parametric design system covers a much larger bandwidth of possible variations (Fig. 7).