United Apartments After talking with Jackaboy to get help, Jerry doesn't like being Increase. The Computer is active.

Hi, everyone. I'm going to present my final work in architecture, which is called From Patterns to Parameters, and refers to the evolution of architecture from the 1,000 decades, for example, in the 70s to architecture in the Middle Ages, specifically in parametric architecture.

The investigation is about this reaction in architecture in parameters and patterns, and about how they can be integrated. Patterns, as we say now, can be understood as models, but it's only that representing examples. And parameters are a variety of numerical factors

that define an equation. Both patterns and parameters depend on mathematics, which may in the investigation be closer to the performance. And we can see here how the three items are totally neat.

For example, the Christopher Alexander patterns of space can combine patterns and architecture. All sorts of different parameters result in a limit or parametric architecture. And even patterns and parameters have become the software design patterns in our talk.

And however, the most interesting thing to this investigation is the code of the scheme that I call parametric patterns of space, like some of the genetic check grammar. So at this point, we tried to show the relation

of the investigation with thermometers, and then how patterns can produce a general approach to this method. So parametric architecture can be defined as architecture based on algorithm thinking, defining the parameters and rules to establish a relation between them to obtain a certain control result.

Of course, whenever we make a design, we try to make it responsive to the environment. But what we are saying is that digital tools allow us to make it with complex data, faster and in a continuous way, adaptable to it. So looking at the scheme, we see that the input parameters,

the design constraints of users and environment, produce a response in the resulting bi-algorithmic work. So both are correlated and re-adapt each other at any time during the process. That is, a change in the response

means a change in the input parameters. And the reaction of the output, not just in a quantitative form of way, but in a qualitative change of its characteristics. And so the idea of design optimization allows us to see that digital tools solve also

the constraint of manual design. We can try to adapt a design of the environment, but it's not sustainable at each point of living in an open-body way. And it's rather easy to control it with digital tools. So now it's possible to represent on just a linear form, but also spline, qnarch, and so on.

And what is more important, we can generate the form instead of drawing. But we should not follow using these tools just in an expected way, but using their full condition. So in that way, we will probably more control and simplify its own parameter project

to have a good response to the environment than the one we got from the project center in Stetsys. And now, a question by Sandra speaking about the total language. Do programmers not practice it? Say that the total language was created to generate the environment individually,

and that the logical coordinates are generated by the medical. So the idea leads us with biometric architecture, seeking solutions by understanding the rules regarding natural forms, but not just propagating them. That is, looking for the rules of its genetic code that generates the form.

The drawback is that in practice, most of the time, it just maintains form and does not allow the process behind them. And so seeking processes in network will bring some innovation in architecture. It will be more useful trying to identify human processes. Although, they will probably be more complex to understand.

And here's where this, for example, pattern of space seems to be useful to reduce that complexity, because they simplify human relations with space to a few parameters. So we can seek out a biometric architecture trying to identify the relations in a form, in a natural form,

and reduce it to a parametric algorithm to replicate it. But in a human environment, a human relation with space, we need a system of patterns to reduce it in a parametric decomposition to generate the work.

So let's say that the pattern is a marker and that the sum is the difference between parametric and post-classical architecture by the change of form, avoiding rigid derivatives and considering no forms

to be parametric or malleable. But this idea seems to me to be a bit vague, because it refers to physical forms and aesthetics and has not changed the sense of relation. A topological relation between the space and the human response.

The idea of using patterns in parametric architecture allows us to think of a potential form architecture considering just a relation that should generate the space and not the form of the space itself. From this point of view, a change of style or ideology can depend just on a formal exchange,

but in a social transformation. This is a transformation in the patterns of space. This means that a deep change in architecture that can happen is parametric, and these tools are not only used for computer editing, design and manufacturing, that is, that's for changing physical forms, but also if they are used for a kind of

computer editing conceptualization, the way we think in architecture. That's the limit of just being able to think of a project. What we can design is overcoming, we can think of a project not by designing it, but by establishing the rules that would generate it.

So this means that we should then refuse parametric methodologies, but also that it's necessary to implement more complexity. And now it's focused in environment, environmental factors, so you can see that with human information linked with geometric form, but it's possible to implement

quantitative information that implies topological systems, and combine it with our efforts. So now we have control the environmental factors, like insulation lines, temperature, sound waves and even some quantitative human information.

But we can also add more topological information by the patterns. So regarding this componentality between parametric architecture and total language, we can say that it improves

both qualitative and quantitative characteristics. Parametric architecture generates architectural forms responding to environment, being shareable and reusable because of being digital. On the other hand, patterns generate topological

spatial relations and response to human constraints, being well-defined, but not digital, so it's difficult to share them.

Therefore, in conclusion, we can say that with the componentality between patterns and parameters, parametric architecture could respond to environment and users, and patterns could be shared and reused in digital. So what about the language and why we need a parametric approach? For understanding

what the pattern language is, we need to understand the unity that composes the language. This is the pattern. Each pattern describes a problem which supports over and over again in your environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over without ever doing it

in the same way twice. This is the definition by Alexander for a pattern and an edit. We can see a design of a pattern by him that shows how it strives to find a simple way of representing a model that is not a fixed solution, but a specific abstract

solution that is honest. On the right, we can see how the patterns have a lot in common with parametric architecture, combined with Alexander's code with Colorex's one. So instead of articulate an internal logic of Colorex's and Alexander's

describes the core of the solution and instead of of Colorex's a range of capabilities Alexander's says that it's possible to use the solution and it has already done everything in the same way twice. In that way we see how patterns can be adapted

to parametric and also how the pattern language can work. The idea of this in a geometric system is common to both. The pattern language is then defined not just by the patterns but also by the relation between them. Just as the diagonal logic is defined

by the patterns and the rules that are combined. The representation of the pattern language as a tree is a common way to represent it. Just look for making it easier to understand that it works as an input and as a model. So thinking of them from a

fractal approach, the pattern language or the parametric pattern language can be seen as another network inside the parametric one composed by form, structure and function and so on. But it's an energetic network that combined will make finally a degree. So it's composed by that network

could be I mean that input could represent the pattern language but also in a model-esque the pattern language can be just a component inside this network. In order to find an

inspired pattern which accelerates just an hypothesis to look for a repetitive conflict in the environment, combining the correct and wrong solutions. And then defining a different solution to the conflict that includes the correct ones and excludes the wrong ones. The problem is that they are just

hypotheses also testing empirically. We need to criticize and correct them but it's difficult to share the improvements in the pattern as just publishing them. This problem can be solved in our information technologies if the patterns were digitalized. The idea of sharing a pattern

digitally is given by their own evolution. After a pattern language was published patterns have already been used in architecture but programmers have a methodology of Alexander to create a software design pattern as we've seen here before. And also in 2010

Roy Woodry published Elements of Parametric Design which combined the software design pattern with a kind of program in coding patterns that solved that problem. The benefits of that software design pattern is that

they are not just theoretical as Alexander Padme and Valerio Lucien are reusable by a program that can be criticized, correct and shared by anyone improving them continuously. Then why are the patterns not listed in the presentation?

And there are three issues that can be considered as the problems of the pattern language. The first one is that this is complex and it is necessary to select the patterns, understand and lead them together and then make all the progress.

The second point is that they are difficult to correct and share so we can be sure about the correction of patterns. But as we explained before those problems can be solved with digital tools. The issue that seems to be more important for not using patterns is that we look at them and they seem to limit

creativity and innovation in architecture. But this is false. In the design you can see the representation of the pattern fully held over one of the most important for my investigation because I am trying to evaluate them based on the certain things that respond

to these patterns and we see how their representation by example has the same user properties as the parameters mentioned earlier. So we can design a pattern if any possible. The other conclusion that can be taken

from the Covinius analysis is that too many project patterns are always used. The drawback is that we use them and constantly just trying to imitate the characteristic of a piece of a space that our memory of the whole equation

seems to be comfortable or good. In that way that if we use them constantly we can emulate knowledge. Otherwise we will be trying to reinvent the wheel again. If we try to digitalize a pattern it is necessary to find

the parameters that compose the coffee. The solution of Alexander will be just for essential characteristics that define each pattern and have the parameters intrinsic to them. In this example the city spots are defined or solved

by the parameters related to use, treatment, sun, shades, winds, protection and activities. However, it is not easy to parametrize them because we have the parameters but it is necessary to find logic that links them

which in this case is different if there are six poles for summer or for winter. Then we will have some output parameters. The events on the right show us how the complexity is still increasing when the patterns are linked in a pattern language having parameters that are linked

to several patterns and having output parameters of the larger patterns that work as inputs for a small format. So can a pattern be parametrized? Is it possible to digitalize a pattern language? It is difficult to respond to that

but I tried to make some experiences in some patterns like the last one, six poles because it is the simpler and smaller pattern, applicable to my case of the experiment the serpentine coordinates and the inputs parameters that define the pattern

as we said before, the views to some activity the insulation shades insulation shades and the winds. They are not related to obtain a visualization of the potential base to choose for us What I was trying

to represent in my pattern defined theoretically can be parametrized to obtain a visualization but it is not so simple

like that. Here I like to show the complexity of doing a project patronized from conceptualization. The problem is not just the complexity of linking all the patterns or control the parameters but doing it without a form without a program or simply without targets.

But theoretically it would be possible to digitalize it with the necessary knowledge of programming just by linking the input parameters with the patterns having the output information to control the design without having the formal components. So it is an example

of the pattern language I am following to analyze the pavilions and I try to design the response that it would happen in the design of another pavilion that it is difficult to connect the patterns together.

So the problem is that each parametric pattern should be as simple to work by itself and so complex that it can be used within the language. This means that each pattern depends on its input parameter but also in larger patterns output parameters.

So finally we will talk about the parametric patterns what the solution is why are they just possible in a topological detector and not in a physical way and what the digital morphogenesis would represent. What we said before when talking about an input

a parametric pattern language cannot make a building by itself. It can just define a parametric conceptualization of it and evolve it during the project. So looking at the sketch we see that the pattern language is something abstract, just an input

with information and attention. However, we need a way to visualize it to kind of use it for design and this way to visualize it needs to be topological, not with a fork.

Furthermore, we need to control and quantify the parametric logic with the parameters, input and output from this view here and the patterns by a digital element. So that idea of topological architecture allows us to think of a project as a system of

force that interact, change like a lab together, form environment and use it. So what we said before now architecture can be generated and not designed. In that kind of approach the importance of digital tools science and mathematics is fundamental because without them it is not

possible to move from theory to architecture. And finally we will work with the last part of corollary because the digital morphogenesis could be a great advance on architecture but we need to be conscious. The architect should be the person who chooses the pattern and defines

their generative body whereas the computer just can place that fabric controlling all the information on the partures while offering a range of possibilities for them and also the user, the project, to choose the most

applicable. As conclusion just in this part architecture is much more than intuition and patterns or digital architecture should not limit the creativity of the architect but he wrote the

possibilities we have. Digital tools and mathematics are necessary and inevitable so we must rethink about the constraints and disadvantages of them and propose new solutions and agendas. Digital morphogenesis could represent the evolution of architecture but it can also become a trap if it's asking to

adjust it to architecture design by computers and patterns and parameters may not be the best solution for that whole thing because they cannot exceed the necessary complexity as we have said before we share the grammars to be a tool compliment that approach but they can be a start point to improve

our vision of architecture. So that's all. Thank you. Applause