Kennesaw State University

DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University

Bachelor of Architecture Theses - 5th Year Department of Architecture

Spring 5-9-2022

Transformative Architecture Through Kinetic Mechanisms

David Feregrino Rodriguez

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/barch_etd

Part of the Architecture Commons

Recommended Citation
Feregrino Rodriguez, David, "Transformative Architecture Through Kinetic Mechanisms" (2022). Bachelor
of Architecture Theses - 5th Year. 220.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/barch_etd/220

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Architecture at
DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bachelor of Architecture
Theses - 5th Year by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more
information, please contact digitalcommons@kennesaw.edu.
TRANSFORMABLE ARCHITECTURE THROUGH KINETIC MECHANISMS
 Transformable Architecture
Through Kinetic Mechanisms

Thesis Proposal is Presented to the

Faculty of the Department of Architecture
College of Architecture and Construction Management

Arief Setiawan and Christopher Welty

and
Dr. Arash Soleimani, Thesis Coordinator
Kathryn Bedette, Interim Chair of Department

By

David Feregrino Rodriguez

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Architecture

Kennesaw State University

Marietta, Georgia

May 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
[1.0] Design Theory 06
[1.1] Thesis Statement [3.0] Space Studies 48
[1.2] Rise tectonic machines! Construct the exigent city! [3.1] Redefining Space
[1.3] Kinetic Architecture [3.2] Spatial Division
[1.3.2] Kinetics in Nature [3.3] Spatial Expansion
[1.3.3] Kinetics in Machinery [3.4] Transformative Space Speculation
[1.3.4] Kinetics in Architecture
[1.3.5] Self-Erecting Structures
[1.3.6] Kinetic Floor Systems [4.0] Transformative Tower 58
[1.3.7] Kinetic Additive and Subtractive Systems [4.1] Transformable Tower
[4.2] Tower Rotation
[2.0] Precedent Studies 28 [4.3] Revolving Rooftop Space
[2.1] Precedent Time-line [4.4] Floor System: Pulling Pushing
[2.2.1] Hoberman Sphere [4.5] Collapsible Retail Space T
[2.2.2] Tower Crane [4.6] Collapsible Floors A
[2.2.3] Hydraulic Excavator [4.7] Collapsible Facade B
[2.2.4] KMG XXL Ride [4.8] Exploded Axon Floor Plates L
[2.2.5] Merchant Square’s Fan Bridge [4.9] Competition Boards E
[2.2.6] Merchant Square’s Rolling Bridge
O
[2.2.7] Spiral-Guided Gas Holders [5.0] Works Cited 78 F
[2.2.8] Truman Sports Complex
[2.2.9] Pittsburgh Civic Arena
[2.2.10] The Shed C
[2.2.11] The Round House Wilton O
[2.2.12] Villa Girasole N
[2.2.13] Schroder House T
[2.2.14] Baitasi House E
N
T
S

3 4
 D
E
S
I
G
N

T
H
E
O

1.0
DESIGN THEORY
R
Y

5 6
 D
E
S
Plug-in City: Maximum Pressure Are (Source: The Museum of Modern Art, 1964) Walking City on the Ocean (Source: The Museum of Modern Art, 1966)
I
G
This project started with inspiration from the work of the British group Archigram. The organization wanted to design prop- Similarly, the Walking City by Ron Herron is an insect-like pod capable of moving across land and sea. The ship resem- N
ositions focused on people before anything else. They wanted the city to change with its inhabitants rather than staying bles naval technology that is capable of traveling utilizing telescopic legs. These cities also have the capacity to connect
static. The plug-in city by Peter Cook proposed a city that could easily grow or shrink and therefore function like a ma- to each other by retractable linking corridors. The surreal collage provides a radical view of what a city could become if it T
chine. It had cranes that would ease the assembly and disassembly of the city components. transforms following humanity’s dinamic lives. H
E
O
R
Y

7 8
 [1.1] THESIS STATEMENT
This thesis started with an interest in transformable architecture which will allow it
to become adaptive. Zuk and Clark, in “Kinetic Architecture,” argued that modern
architecture was outdated because of its static nature. Architecture can address
these challenges in a simple and intentional manner if kinetics are included. This
removes demolition and expensive remodeling. Plants and animals adapt kineti-
cally, such as growing cells in the opposite direction in which they were bent, sets
of muscles that flex and extend to kinetically move a limb, or transforming its whole
body and positioning each limb strategically to maximize the range of movement
and minimize the effort. All of these concepts are applicable in architecture.
The research started with various mechanisms that enable movement; from joints in
hinges or folding mechanisms, to pivoting systems that revolve around a defined
axis, to sliding and telescopic mechanisms that allow elements to be displaced
along a defined path. I developed a taxonomy of to organize these kinetic ex-
amples. The categories include mechanism (sliding, telescopic, pivoting-rotating,
9 10
[1.2] RISE TECTONIC MACHINES! CONSTRUCT THE
EXIGENT CITY!
hinging-folding, and pneumatic structures), transformations of geometry (scale,
change of volume, addition-subtraction, and deformation), architectural elements By Marcus Shaffer
(point, line, plane, and volume), direction of movement (horizontal, vertical, di-
agonal, and axial), energy input (human, hydraulic, mechanical, and chemical), “We have this opportunity now — as the post-industrial machine is taken off the
transformations of space enclosure, open, hybrid), and physical components(par- assembly line. Why wouldn’t we start to put that which separates architecture
tition, roof, floor, and structure). from mere construction and the economy/optimization of the engineer into the
machine while we have this chance?” (Shaffer 2013, 07).
This thesis raised the following questions: What are the architectural design prin-
ciples that can be applied to create spatial experiences? How are these prin- “A tectonic machine for semi-automated construction in environments of displace- D
ciples incorporated into kinetic architecture? How can we create multiple spa- ment.” “Tectonic machines, as far as I have been informed through this effort, are E
tial experiences based on the possibility to change space? In what situations is constructs of our cunning and desire, technological extensions of architecture’s S
transformable architecture more convenient than conventional static architec- essential synthesis, and manifestation of humanity’s powerfully rationalized pre- I
ture? These questions are explored in a series of studies that led to the concep- cision commingled with the great potency of meaning to be found in our ritual G
tual design of a collapsible skyscraper. practices.” (Shaffer 2013, 56). N
T
H
E
O
R
Y
Figure 1: Rise Tectonic Machines! Construct the Exigent City! cover. (Source: Shaffer, 2013)
 Mr. Kumar was Shaffer’s guide during his trip throughout Sri Lanka. Mr. Kumar
invited Shaffer to his house where he explained his community’s method to con-
struct their dwellings. “Mr. Kumar and his sons were constructing the much larger
house, employing a 1960s era manual block press... Families would work long
enough to buy sacks of Portland cement and gravel, and then host the press to
make concrete blocks toward realizing their housing needs.” (Shaffer 2013, 43)
This brings two important points: The community shares the block-making machine
and the blocks can be used towards constructing any building typology.
[1.3] KINETIC ARCHITECTURE
By William Zuk and Roger H. Clark

“Kinetic architecture is an architecture that recognizes the fluidity of the set of

pressures to which form must respond and of technology that allows us to interpret
these pressures and the situations under which they exist. We must evolve an ar-
chitecture which will adapt to continuous and accelerating change.” (Zuk, Clark
1970, 09).

“An interesting result of the adaption of kinetic architecture is that the initial form
does not theoretically have to be correct, since the form can kinetically be changed D
to meet pressures which have not been satisfied. Actually, the architect/designer E
will provide a range of forms capable of meeting a range of pressure changes.” S
Figure 2: Helicopter carries its own hangar designed by Buckminster
Fuller . (Based on U.S. Naval Institute Photo Archive, 1954) (Zuk, Clark 1970, 11). I
G
“A post-war turned its new materials and processes towards providing housing N
for people fast n’ cheap, it may have seemed obvious that pre-fabbed hous-
ing structures packed into airplanes (Jean Prouve) or strapped onto helicopters T
(Buckminster Fuller) could also be delivered to displaced peoples in need of new Figure 4: Kinetic Architecture cover. ( Source: Zuk, Clark, 1970) H
buildings.” (Shaffer 2013, 38). E
O
R
Y

11 Figure 3: 1970s manual soil block press. (Based on CETA-Ram press, 1976) 12
 1
Pressure 1

Design
Pressure 2
2 Design Production Utilization Change
Research Production
Pressure 3 2 2 3 5 6
1 3
7
Pressure 4 Research Distribution
Development
1 4
Kinetic
Pressure 5 Response Form
6 4
Kinetic
Adjustment
3
Pressure 6 Elimination Distribution D
5 8 E
S
Utilization Elimination I
Pressure 7 G
Figure 6: Approaches towards architecture design. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 8) Figure 7: Typical building life cycle. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 10) Figure 8: Kinetic building life cycle. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 10) N
Zuk and Clark’s main argument supporting kinetic architecture is that there are a set of responses Typical static buildings tend to have a rigid life. When the building is no longer T
Pressure 8 that influence the architecture form and these pressures are ever-changing. This leads to the explo- useful, it follows lengthy and costly renovations or it is simply demolished. The H
ration of the possible solutions available to respond to an architecture problem: kinetic building aims to do the exact opposite. When the current configuration be- E
comes outdated, the building is kinetically adjusted lengthening its lifespan. This
Technology

O
Pressure 9 1. Static Solution (changing pressures uncomfortably accommodated). process could be infinitely repeated. R
2. Universal space solution by Mies van der Rohe (attempts to solve all functions but satisfies none). Y
3. Kinetic solutions (form can change as the set of pressures also change).
13 Figure 5: Pressures that influence architecture. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 6) 14
 Figure 9: Pigeons and most bird species fly transforming their whole bodies. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 17)

[1.3.2] KINETICS IN NATURE

There are many examples of kinetics in nature. In this section of the book howev-
er, it was given emphasis on the animal and the plant kingdoms. First, when we
analyze the movement of a member of the animal kingdom, we notice that the Figure 12: Puffer fish inflating itself in a situation of danger. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 20)
body undergoes a transformation. This can be defined as “free body movement”
which describes the whole system moving in response to its environment and other
pressures. If we zoom in, we see muscles that have a critical characteristic; these
D
are only capable of contraction. This means that in order for a member to return to Figure 14: Unfolding mechanism of a gull’s wing. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 19)
E
its original position, some opposite force must be exerted. Or other set of muscles
Another interesting example of kinetics in nature is the puffer fish. There are many S
that pull the limb in the desired direction.
subspecies of this fish but their transformation follows the same logic. When they I
In the case of the plant kingdom, grass stalk is analyzed as it erects itself by grow-
encounter predators, they inflate themselves up by multiplying their size and ap- G
ing new cells on the underside of the location that suffered damage. This kinetic
pearing bigger than they actually are. This is possible by two evolutionary char- N
response is crucial for the plant as it adapts to it’s new environmental conditions.
acteristics: they lack bone structure which allows them to expand and contract
easily and they also pump water into their stomachs making it expand giving them T
their characteristic imposing look. H
The folding and unfolding mechanism of birds’ wings is quite impressive as well. E
In this case, the mechanism of a gull’s wing was analyzed understanding the com- O
plexity of its joints and seeing how these are transformed as the wing extends and R
contracts. Y
Figure 10: Flexor muscle (top), Extensor Figure 11: Grass stalk sending. (Based on Zuk,
muscle (bottom) (Based on Pearson Educa- Clark, 1970, p. 15)
tion Inc, 2009) Figure 13: Puffer fish pumping water into its stomach. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 20)
15 16
 Continuous information
input

Sensor Basic energy

source

Relay

Control

D
E
S
Figure 15: Early 18th Century steam driven beam engine used for pumping water. (Based on Zuk, Figure 16: Basic flyball governor. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 23) Figure 17: Military plane. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 25)
Clark, 1970, p. 22) Energy Conversion I
[1.3.3] KINETICS IN MACHINERY G
N
Level 1 Machines are made to perform a single operation repeatedly. Figure 15 Level 3 Machines have their own partial or full control of multi variable opera-
shows an early 18th Century steam driven beam engine used for pumping water, tions. Figure 17 shows a military plane that responds to external pressures and is T
therefore, repeating single operation. reconfigured consequently. Other examples may include construction machinery, Relay H
cars, trains, etc. E
Level 2 Machines have the ability to perform several functions, either in sequence O
or simultaneously. The example on figure 16 is a basic flyball governor, a simple Level 4 Machines are those that have automatic control and learning capacity. R
sensor-control device used to automatically regulate the speed of an engine. These might include modern computers, smartphones, self-driving cars, modern Y
softwares and other emerging technologies. Continuous output
17 Figure 18: Level 4 machinery capable of learning. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 27) 18
 [1.3.5] SELF-ERECTING STRUCTURES
These structures are meant to be easy to set on site re-
ducing the assembly complexity. Figure 21 shows a
camper that has a semi-automatic system consisting
of hinges and rails that allow it to be easily formed.
Similarly, the tent uses bar linkages, zippers and snaps
to hold itself up. These two examples of self-erecting
[1.3.4] KINETICS IN ARCHITECTURE structures are conceptually similar. Both are mean to
be transported compacted in a smaller form and to
Kinetics has multiple applications in architecture. These typically include doors, be erected on site and later be compacted again and
windows, elevators and escalators. Figure 20 portrays a device found at Thomas consequently transported.
Jefferson’s home, which has a tensioned band underneath th floor allowing the
operation of both doors by simply moving one of them.
On the other hand, it is argued that kinetic architecture should play a bigger role
as technology becomes more accessible. On simple terms, kinetic wall partitions
could be independent from the building structure and easily be used to reconfig-
ure the space in response to new sets of pressures.

D
E
Figure 20: Device invented by Thomas Jeffer- S
son that allows doors to open simultaneously.
(Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 29) I
G
N

T
H
E
O
R
Y
Figure 21: Erection of completely hard walled camper. (Based on Zuk, Figure 22: Erection of camping shelter. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 47)
Clark, 1970, p. 49)
19 Figure 19: Movable interior partitions independent from structure. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 62) 20
 Figure 24 displays the concept behind the Acorn House by Carl Koch. The struc-
ture was meant to be transported to site compacted and subsequently be extend-
ed to fulfill its intended use. This is an early example of a prefabricated house that Figure 26: Rotating and wobbling roof presented at the Osaka ‘70 exposition.
(Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 67)
utilized deformity characteristics.
Figure 23 illustrates a proposal for a mobile home by John Vredevoogd and it
is based upon a series of eight foot sections, or modules. This allows for simple
transportation and quick assembly as they set on the ground as the trailer moves
forward.

D
E
S
Figure 27: Proposed design of rotating home by Pier Nervi in 1934. (Based on I
Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 72) G
N
Figure 25 shows a proposed stadium roof in Atlanta, which never became a reality. The idea for
this kinetic component was that a hydraulic piston would extend pushing the roof fabric upward T
and ultimately setting it at a specific height. Then, air would be pumped inside the structure and H
the self-supporting roof would take its final shape pneumatically. Figure 26 illustrates an inter- E
esting concept presented of the Osaka 1970 exposition in Japan. The unusual structure aimed O
to respond to wind pressures generating a wobbling and rotating dynamic. Lastly, figure 27 is R
a proposition of a rotating home designed by Pier Nervi. This kinetic mechanism would enable Y
Figure 24: John Vredevoogd’s proposal for mobile home. Figure 25: Sequence of self-erection of proposed stadium roof in Atlanta, Ga. panoramic views as the house would constantly change its axial position throughout the day.
21 Figure 23: Acorn house designed by Carl Koch in 1948. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 103) (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 111) (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 50-51) 22

Figure 28: Concept of moving theater by Marcello Sacripanti. (Based on Zuk,
Clark, 1970, p. 72)
[1.3.6] KINETIC FLOOR SYSTEMS
The advantages of having a kinetic floor surface in architecture can be better
understood when theaters and theaters and their programmatic needs are an-
alyzed. Figure 30 shows a stage system in the theater of Birmingham Southern
College, which is a great example of this idea. It is a three-part system involving
half-circled stages that can be configured to be ready as soon as they are need-
ed without having to pause the play to reconfigure the stage as in the case of
single-stage theaters.
Figure 28 shows a concept of a pixelated stage that could be configured in real
time. Figure 29 displays a speculative system that would make the moving stage
possible with an array of pistons.
[1.3.7] KINETIC ADDITIVE AND SUBTRACTIVE SYS-
TEMS
This project was designed for California migrant workers. The module consists of:
1) a prefabricated structural shell made of polyurethane foamboard.
2) An MDF with integrated foamboard beams.
3) and 4) Are fiberglass screened ends and aluminum door.
5) A canvas canopy.
The project can house a family of seven and they can be in separate sleeping ar-
eas. Additionally, the dwelling has greater flexibility by a combination of special
tapes and plastic pieces crafted in field.

D
E
S
I
G
N

T
H
E
O
R
Y
Figure 30: Revolving split-lift stage for the theater of Birmingham Southern Figure 31: Sim Van der Ryn’s and Sanford Hirshen’s proposal for modular housing.
23 Figure 29: Speculative piston system. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 72) College. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 70) (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 139) Figure 32: Proposal for modular housing detailed. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 139) 24
 The AISI project by Edmeades Walloff and Tipton under tha direction of Zuk and 3-10 Years The disposable car proposal (figure 35) consisted of three parts:
Pelliccia at the University of Virginia is an example of architecture seen as a kit Self-contained heating and cooling unit located in the rear of the car.
of parts giving the designer the flexibility to add or remove components from the 1-3 Years Injection-molded plastic body module which includes the seats.
whole composition. These modules are set in place and subsequently post-ten- Plug-in, bolt-on front-drive power module.
1 Month-
sioned. 1 Year
The Architectural Team (Roger H. Clark, Carlo Pelliccia and H Kenneth White)
Figure 34 shows another student proposal following the idea of additive systems. developed incremental housing with the concept of assembling and dissasem-
The proposal was designed by Joseph Carbonell under the direction of Roger H. 1 Day-1 Week bling increments ( housing modules) so they can be re-ereceted on new sites.
Clark at the University of Virginia and it consists of a holistic structure that is built This provides flexibility by implementing modulation for the interior as well. This is
in different phases depending on potential for growth and change. This allows the accomplished with interchangeable components.
users to expand the space depending on their needs. 3-10 Years
Figure 35: The disposable car proposed by Brock Yates. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 135)

3-10 Years

1-3 Years D
E
S
I
G
N
3-10 Years

T
1-3 Years Efficiency
1 Bedroom 22Bedrooms
Bedroom Two 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms and 3 Bedrooms H
1 Month-
E
1 Year O
Figure 36: Incremental housing by Roger H. Clark, Carlo Pelliccia and H Kenneth White. (Based on
Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 88) R
Y
Figure 33: AISI student project by Edmeades Walloff and Tipton at the University of Vir- Figure 34: Student project for neighborhood education at the University of Vir- Kitchen Closet Bathroom Storage
25 ginia. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 82) ginia. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 96) 26
 P
R
E
C
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I

2.0
PRECEDENT STUDIES
E
S

27 28
 [2.1] PRECEDENT TIME-LINE

Hydraulic Excavator Villa Girasole Pittsburgh Civic Arena The Round House Wilton Hoberman Sphere Merchant Square’s Fan Bridge KMG XXL Ride
(1835) Near Verona, Italy (1931) Pittsburgh, PA (1961) (1967) Jersey City, NJ (1992) London, UK (2014) (2017)

P
R
1835 1924 1931 1949 1961 1965 1972 1992 2005 2014 2017 2019
E
C
E
D
Schroder House Tower Crane Spiral-Guided Gas Holder Truman Sports Complex Merchant Square’s Rolling Bridge Baitasi House The Shed E
Utrecht, Netherlands (1924) (1949) Weymouth, England (1965) Kansas City, MO (1972) London, UK (2005) Beijing, China (2017) New York City, NY (2019)
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S

29 30
 [2.2.1] HOBERMAN SPHERE
Jersey City, NJ (1992)
This sphere was designed in 1992 by Chuck Hoberman. The composition of scis-
sor-like components can be expanding multiplying itself in size to later fold down
to a fraction of its size. The curious object is made out of aircraft-grade aluminum
that weighs 750 pounds holistically. The sphere is operated by two cables that
pull the sphere in one direction at the time to control its expansion or contraction
movements alternatively. When the sphere is expanded, the space within it ex-
pands accordingly and this has the potential to be explored in architectural space.
[2.2.2] TOWER CRANE
(1949)
A German-Swiss company called Liebherr invented in 1949 the very first tower
crane, which would service the construction industry. These impressive machines
populate the skylines of hundreds of cities throughout the world. Their main ad-
vantage is that they can climb as the building gains height and that the crane itself
is anchored to the ground enabling it to carry heavier loads. The kit of parts that
make up the crane structure are transported to the site and they are easily assem-
bled. The kinetic components of the tower crane can be explored structurally in
architecture with the possibility to move heavy building components.

P
R
E
C
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S
Figure 39: Assembly sequence of tower crane and geometry analysis. (Based on Zuk, Clark, Figure 40: Typical tower crane during construction. (Source: Massachusetts
31 Figure 37: Hoberman Sphere at Liberty Science Center. (Source: Liberty Science Center, 1990) Figure 38: Mechanism drawings submitted for patent. (Based on U.S. Patent, 1990) 1970, p. 20) Contractors Academy, 2018) 32
 Figure 43: KMG XXL Ride erection sequence. (Based on KMG Europe, 2019)

Figure 41: Hydraulic excavator arm movement sequence. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 26) P
R
[2.2.3] HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR [2.2.4] KMG XXL RIDE E
(1835) (2017) C
The first excavator of this type can be traced back to 1835. Before then, workers The Dutch company KMG is the corporation behind the KMG XXL ride. It became E
were already using emerging technologies to make their labor easier but nothing available for sale in 2017. The ride has the ability to reach a height of 40 meters, D
came close to the efficiency and reliability of the hydraulic excavator. The first or 132 feet, and it has a capacity of 20 people. What makes this ride interesting E
model was steam-powered and it was extensively used for mining primarily. As is that it can be self-erected with a crew of 4 people and it only averages 7 hours N
technology progressed, these machines were mounted on tracks that enabled of assembly. This is possible with a couple of hydraulic pistons that push the struc- T
them to be displaced on a defined path, this later evolved to the modern machine ture that hinges with itself. The system is secured through a series of bolts and pins.
that has built-in track system. The turntables that allow for 360 degree operation Many principles that characterize this ride could easily be applied in architecture. S
also became more sophisticated. The hydraulic arm was reliant on cable and pul- T
ley systems, which later evolved to more compact hydraulic systems. U
D
I
E
S

33 Figure 42: Typical hydraulic excavator at construction site. (Source: Pixabay, 2015) Figure 44: KMG XXL Ride at typical fair. (Source: KMG Europe, 2019) 34
 Figure 45: Fan bridge cross and longitudinal sections. (Based on Knight Architects, 2014)

P
R
E
C
E
Figure 46: Fan bridge erection sequence. (Based on Knight Architects, 2014) Figure 48: Rolling bridge erection sequence. (Based on Heatherwick, 2005) D
E
N
[2.2.5] MERCHANT SQUARE’S FAN BRIDGE [2.2.6] MERCHANT SQUARE’S ROLLING BRIDGE T
London, UK (2014) London, UK (2005)
The Bridge was designed by Knight Architects and it was built in 2014. The kinetic This bridge was designed by Thomas Heatherwick and it was built in 2005. It S
structure spans over the Grand Union Canal and it has won multiple awards for spans over an inlet off the London’s Paddington Basin. Heatherwick noticed that T
its unique design. The cantilever components of the bridge are raised with the help all the other bridges around this area break apart to allow the traffic of boats. He U
of hydraulic jacks that sit underneath the structure. This is possible with the help found this problematic as his rolling bridge does something drastically different. It D
of counterweights that sit on the opposite side of the jacks to make the operation simply gets out of the way and the object compacts itself down sculpturally. Con- I
smoother. The form of the bridge is not typical by any means as the structure re- ceptually, the bridge wants to be as least disruptive as possible. This includes the E
sembles a traditional Japanese hand fan. This system could assist kinetic architec- care for noise reduction as the system itself is describe by its architect as “the steel S
ture to move components that could otherwise be very difficult to move with other mechanism is so quiet as to be almost spooky.” A system like this could be applied
35 Figure 47: The fan bridge perspective. (Source: London Laura, 2022) tools or machines. architecturally in places where it is critically to maintain a low decibel reading. Figure 49: The rolling bridge perspective. (Source: Bejarano, 2011) 36
 [2.2.7] SPIRAL-GUIDED GAS HOLDER [2.2.8] TRUMAN SPORTS COMPLEX
Weymouth, England (1965) Kansas City, MO (1972)

The spiral-guided gas holders started popping out in the 20th century throughout
Europe and throughout the world as gas storage facilities. What was innovative
about this typology is that as gas is filled in the inside of the structure, the structure
telescopes out. And consequently, when the gasholder is emptied, the structure
returns to its compact form. This mechanism could be classified as pneumatic as
the structure to be completely erected, it has to rely on the pressure of the volume
of gas in the inside. The volumetric change in these structures is worthy of revisiting
as the need for gas holders has declined significantly.
The complex was opened in 1972 and it has two stadiums that would be con-
nected with a corrugated roof structure. This structure would be divided into two
independent sections that could service both stadiums at the same time or be
combined to create a larger roofed area. The roof would use guides as long as
2,000 feet long, where the roof structures could easily slide from one side to the
other and vice versa. Ultimately, the stadiums were completed without the roof
structures. There have been efforts to raise the capital to complete the rolling roofs
but they have only been failed attempts up to this day. This concept could work at
different scales depending on the building type and the intended use.

P
R
E
C
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S

37 Figure 50: Gas holder in Weymouth, England. (Source: Heritage Calling, 2020) Figure 51: Gas holder elevation and section. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 68) Figure 52: Truman Sports Complex roofs in plan and elevation. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 65) Figure 53: Truman Sports Complex bird’s eye view. (Source: The Kansas City Public Library, 2019) 38
 [2.2.9] PITTSBURGH CIVIC ARENA
Pittsburgh, PA (1961)
The arena was designed by Mitchell and Ritchey Architects and it first opened its
doors in 1961. The roof structure consists of eight sections, six of which are oper-
able. The diameter of the dome is more than 400 feet. The movable sections are
anchored with a pivoting crown and a track system that allows them to move ra-
dially. Additionally, the arena had a stage that was uncovered by lifting a seating
section making use of hydraulic jacks. With all its kinetic components, the arena
could be easily reconfigured depending on the weather and event type. This sys-
tem can be utilized in other building typologies of varying scales.
[2.2.10] THE SHED
New York City, NY (2019)
Inaugurated in 2019, the shell structure was designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro
in collaboration with the Rockwell Group. It consists of a telescopic volume that
slides and extends the space to take over part of the exterior space to incorporate
it to the interior space. This transformative feature allows the concert area to adapt
depending on the spatial needs. The120 feet high shed structure has the capacity
to move due the lightness of the materials used as well as the simple in concept
track system. ETFE pillows make up the cladding and steel makes up the structure.
Variations of systems similar to this can easily be scaled up and down.

Figure 57: The Shed volumetric movement. (Based on Arquitectura Viva, 2020)

P
R
Figure 58: The Shed extended and wheel detail E
diagram. (Based on Arquitectura Viva, 2020)
C
Figure 54: Pittsburgh Civic Arena elevation and section. (Based on Pittsburgh Magazine, 2010)
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S

39 Figure 55: Pittsburgh Civic Arena perspective. (Source: Arena Digest, 2010) Figure 56: Pittsburgh Civic Arena erection sequence in plan. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 63) Figure 59: The Shed extended and wheel detail diagram.(Based on Arquitectura Viva, 2020) Figure 60: The Shed perspective. (Source: Dezeen, 2019) 40
 [2.2.11] THE ROUND HOUSE WILTON [2.2.12] VILLA GIRASOLE
Wilton, CT (1967) Near Verona, Italy (1931)

The spiral-guided gas holders started popping out in the 20th century throughout
Europe and throughout the world as gas storage facilities. What was innovative
about this typology is that as gas is filled in the inside of the structure, the structure
telescopes out. And consequently, when the gasholder is emptied, the structure
returns to its compact form. This mechanism could be classified as pneumatic as
the structure to be completely erected, it has to rely on the pressure of the volume
of gas in the inside. The volumetric change in these structures is worthy of revisiting
as the need for gas holders has declined significantly.
The house was designed by Engineer Angelo Invernizzi. His intention was to de-
sign a home that would take full advantage of the natural benefits of following
the sun. The structure revolves around its own axis making 360 degree turns as
opposed to the 180 degrees that were originally planned. The house takes about
ten hours to make a full revolution. This mechanism is powered by two diesel fuel.

Figure 64: Villa Girasole section and floor plan. Figure 65: Villa Girasole section and floor plan.
(Based on Secor, 2019) (Based on Secor, 2019)
Figure 61: The Round House Wilton elevation. (Based on Zuk, Clark, 1970, p. 72)
P
R
E
C
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S

41 Figure 62: The Round House Wilton perspective. (Source: The Round House Wilton, 2021) Figure 63: The Round House Wilton floor plan. (Based on Dezeen, 2020) Figure 66: Villa Girasole perspective section showing mechanism. (Based on Secor, 2019) Figure 67: Villa Girasole perspective. (Source: Twitter account Hans Nijs, 2018) 42
 [2.2.13] SCHRODER HOUSE [2.2.14] BAITASI HOUSE
Utrecht, Netherlands (1924) Beijing, China (2017)

The house was designed by Gerrit Rietveld in 1924. The client was Truss Schroder This project is located in a historical district in Beijing. It was intentionally designed
who had recently become a widow. The house reflects her desire to get outside to create an experimental house that accommodates and adapts to the needs of
the conventional design of a home. This can be appreciated from the modernist younger generations. It has panels that can work as dividers of spaces as well as
geometry of the facade along with the combination of colors that give a huge furniture pieces for storage. The spaces can be divided but they are still connected
identity. For the purpose of this precedent study, the interior sliding panels were as the walls or furniture pieces do not reach the floor. The design team decided
analyzed as they are strategically found throughout the second level of the home. to keep the home as original as possible rejecting a futuristic aesthetic and using
wood instead.

P
Figure 68: Shorder House first and second floor plans. (Based on Rietveld, 2015)
R
E
C
E
D
E
N
T

S
T
U
D
I
E
S
Figure 69: Shorder House perspective. (Source: Archdaily, 2010) Figure 70: Shorder House axonometric view showing deployed movable walls. (Based on Riet- Figure 71: Baitasi House axonometric view showing sliding furniture. (Based Figure 72: Baitasi House interior perspective. (Source: Archdaily, 2017)
43 veld, 2015) on dot Architects, 2017) 44
 [2.3.1] TRANSFORMATIVE ARCHITECTURE TAXONOMY
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TRANSFORMATION OF GEOMETRY MOVEMENT MECHANISM DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT BUILDING COMPONENT TRANSFORMATION OF SPACE KINETIC INPUT SOURCE
1. Point 1. Change of Scale 1. Telescopic 1. Horizontal 1. Partition 1. Space within a Space 1. Human
2. Line 2. Change of Volume 2. Sliding 2. Vertical 2. Roof 2. Linked Space 2. Mechanic
3. Plane 3. Addition/Subtraction 3. Pivot-Rotation 3. Diagonal 3. Floor 3. Intersecting Space 3. Hydraulic
4. Volume 4. Deformation 4. Hinge-Fold 4. Axial 4. Structure 4. Adjacent Space 4. Pneumatic
5. Expanding

1
1
1 1
1

2
1 2

P
2
R
E
2 3 2 2 2 C
E
D
E
3 N
T
3
3
3 3 S
4 T
3 U
D
I
E
S
4 5 4 4 4 4
45 4 46
 S
P
A
C
E

S
T
U
D
I

3.0
SPACE STUDIES E
S

47 48
 S
P
A
C
[3.1] REDEFINING SPACE E

The precedent research gave insight on multiple mechanisms that enable S

building components to transform. It was time to test a few of these theo- T
ries. At this stage of the project, the goal was to rearrange a single kinetic U
component within a static component and study the spatial consequence D
of this action. This was done by sliding components that could conceptu- I
ally be arranged from wall to roof, as well as from one side to the other. E
Ultimately, this inspired a set of sketches that further explored these rela- S
tionships.
49 Figure 73: Space study: Solid. Figure 74: Space study: Frame. Figure 75: Space study: Solid-Void. Figure 76: Space study: Void Volume. Figure 77: Space study: Volume. Figure 78: Space study: Plane. Figure 79: Space study: Hybrid. 50
 Figure 83: Space study: Inward Hinge. Figure 84: Space study: Sliding perpendicularly. Figure 85: Space study: Double axial pivot. S
P
A
C
[3.2] SPATIAL DIVISION E

Spaces that are composed of kinetic mechanisms can be classified as dividing or S

expanding. The previous exercise led to a series of studies that further analyzed T
spatial relationships and opened up other possibilities. The examples presented U
above are a mix of sliding, hinging and pivoting systems that demonstrate the D
gradual division of space as the component makes its journey from point A to I
Figure 80: Space study: Axial pivot. Figure 81: Space study: Sliding vertically. Figure 82: Space study: Sliding horizontally.
point B. Despite being different systems, they are similar because they all divide E
and rearrange space. The result is different in each scenario but the concept is S
translated from one mechanism type to the other.
51 52
 Figure 88: Space study: Sliding floor and roof in one direction. Figure 89: Space study: Telescopic accordion.

S
P
A
C
[3.3] SPATIAL EXPANSION E

Figure 86: Space study: Axial pivot.
Opposite to the previous example, this set of studies analyze the possibility to ex- S
pand space utilizing the same mechanisms shown previously: sliding hinging and T
pivoting. The expanding mechanisms generally are composed of more complex, U
multi-part systems that allow this transformation. The ones studied during this thesis D
Figure 87: Space study: Sliding floor and roof in opposite directions.
were telescopic by sliding and telescopic by hinging. In concept, these expanding I
mechanisms could be composed of infinite parts. However, in practice this would E
pose a challenge as it more pieces to move make more complex compositions. S

53 54
 S
P
Figure 91: Speculative transformative spaces in section. A
C
[3.4] TRANSFORMABLE SPACE SPECULATION E

With the collected data, it was time to speculate on a few possibilities that could S
be used to transform space utilizing kinetic components. The opportunities are T
rendered unlimited, therefore, the project needed to be focused toward solving an U
architectural issue. The challenge D
I
E
Figure 90: Speculative transformative spaces in section.
S

55 56
 T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
V
E

T
O
W

4.0
THE TRANSFORMABLE TOWER
E
R

57 58
 T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
V
E
Figure 92: Transformative Tower in New York City, USA. Figure 93: Transformative Tower in Mexico City, Mexico.

T
As stated in the begining of this book, this project started inspired on the work of Archigram. The group focused their projects O
putting people before anything else. They wanted the city to change with its inhabitants rather than staying static. Similar to W
the Plug-in and the Walking cities, the Transformable Tower is intended to easily grow or shrink and therefore function like E
a machine as well. Because of its flexibility to transform, the transformable tower can be plugged into any city that goes R
through drastic population changes.
59 60
 Public rooftop space

Public observation deck

Utilities

Apartment units

Vertical circulation

Retail/Lobby T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
Figure 94: Site plan showing crane turning circumference and scale for context. Figure 97: Movement pattern of rotating floor plates. T
I
[4.1] THE TRANSFORMABLE TOWER [4.2] TOWER ROTATION V
E
The previous studies were taken into a tangible architectural intervention. The 1500 ft. Tower is a concep- The tower makes use of a system of wheels and tracks installed on structural cages that are subsequently
tual building that grows and expands or shrinks depending on the needs of the city. The tower is intended attached to the utility and structural core. This allows for a smooth clockwise or counterclockwise rotation
to react to the migration patterns of where it is located and therefore adapt depending on the growth or direction in response to environmental conditions. These conditions are wind and sun. When the wind T
shrinkage health of the city. The building does is not anchored to a specific site as it could theoretically be speed increases due to a storm, the tower can rotate to decrease the resistance to wind. In terms of solar O
built anywhere. The tower is divided into sections that are either hung or sitting on a steel cage attached response, the tower can rotate throughout the day to maximize interior natural lighting during the winter W
to the utilities core, to the vertical circulation core and the other towers. The tower becomes compact as months and also minimize solar radiation during the summer months.
people move out, and similarly, it grows as people move in. It is also capable of rotation depending on
E
the external environmental needs like wind and sun exposure. R

61 Figure 95: Mass diagram displaying program. Figure 96: Isometric, elevation and plan view of wheels and tracks that allow to building to rotate. 62
 T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
Figure 98: Revolving rooftop space section. T
I
V
Figure 101: Revolving structures: hanging and pushing plan view. E

[4.3] REVOLVING ROOFTOP SPACE [4.4] FLOOR SYSTEM: PULLING-PUSHING T

O
The revolving rooftop sits at the top of each completed residential tower. As opposed to the rectangular As mentioned before, the collapsible floors sit on and hang from a circular truss structure that is attached W
residential floor, the rooftop space is circular. This provides a consistent panoramic view sitting hundreds directly to the utility core. This truss structure is also connected to the circulation tower and to the other
E
of feet from the ground. The space could serve as restaurant, community gathering space, resident amen- residential towers. This system allows the floors hung from the structure to rotate independently from the
ity space, etc. Similar to the residential floors, the rooftop space revolves around a utility core, which floors that are sitting on top of it. R
provides an axis of rotation and structural stability with the trussed cages that connect to the other towers.
63 Figure 99: Revolving rooftop isometric. Figure 100: Revolving structures: hanging and pushing isometric. 64
 T
R
A
N
Figure 102: Retracted: Accordion retail space elevation. S
F
O
R
M
A
T
[4.5] COLLAPSIBLE RETAIL SPACE I
V
The collapsible retail space sits at the foot of the circulation tower. Similar to the residential floors, the
E
retail space also collapses, however, this happens horizontally. When the retail space is collapsed, the
roof remains in the same place, changing the spatial dynamic from inside to outside space. This space
was designed this way to provide a space for the public whenever the retail space is not utilized. As con- T
sequence, the goal is for the infrastructure to be usable for multiple purposes. O
W
E
R

65 Figure 103: Expanded: accordion retail space isometric view. Figure 104: Transformable tower elevation. (Midtown Atlanta buildings in background for scale) 66
 T
R
A
N
S
F
Figure 104: Planar hinge mechanism inspired on origami. O
R
M
A
T
[4.6] COLLAPSIBLE FLOORS I
The collapsible floors work using a scissor system. When multiple floors are put together, they create an V
accordion-type dynamic. Getting the system to work required multiple iterations that were used to test E
different ideas as shown in figures 104, 105 and 106. Ultimately, it was decided to take iteration number
3 shown in figure 106 because the rectangular, and therefore more regular, floor plate provided the
possibility to create at least two different facade treatments to all 4 sides.
T
O
W
E
R

Figure 104: Collapsible floor plates with scissor structure iteration 1.

67 Figure 105: Collapsible floor plates with scissor structure iteration 2. Figure 106: Collapsible floor plates with scissor structure iteration 3. 68
 [4.8] COLLAPSIBLE FLOOR PLATES

T
R
A
N
S
Collapsed Interior Walls Door/Entrance F
O
R
M
Figure 107: Collapsible facade inspired on origami. Expanded Interior Walls Balcony A
T
[4.7] COLLAPSIBLE FACADE I
V
The collapsible facade is inspired on the art of origami. The facade is divided into 3 segments that help to
reduce the size of the facade components consequently reducing the size and weight of the facade mem- Utility Core Facade (Outer Skin)
E
bers. This also has a visual consequence: forcing the facade to look as delicate as possible. The system
is attached to the floor plates and collapses and expands simultaneously with the floors. The collapsible T
facade is detached from the inner skin.
O
W
E
R

69 Figure 108: Exploded axon with possible transformable layout. 70

 T
R
A
N
Figure 109: Transformative tower perspective 1. (Midtown and Downtown Atlanta buildings in background for scale)
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
V
E

T
O
W
E
R

71 Figure 110: Transformative tower perspective 2. Figure 111: Transformative tower perspective 3. (Midtown and Downtown Atlanta buildings in background for scale) 72
 T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
V
E

T
O
W
E
R

73 Figure 112: Transformative tower perspective 4. (Midtown and Downtown Atlanta buildings in background for scale) Figure 113: Transformative tower perspective 5. (Midtown Atlanta buildings in background for scale) Figure 114: Transformative tower perspective 6. (Midtown Atlanta buildings in back- 74
ground for scale)
 [4.9] COMPETITION BOARDS

T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
V
E

T
O
W
E
R

75 76
 W
O
R
K
S

C
I
T

5.0
WORKS CITED E
D

77 78
 BOOKS
Shaffer, Marcus, and Michele Marchetti. Rise Tectonic Machines!: Construct the Exigent City! Novato, California: ORO Essential Technologies Inc. “A Guide to Construction Tower Cranes.” cnstrctr, May 4, 2020. https://www.cnstrctr.com/
Plus, applied research + design, 2013.
Zuk, William, and Roger H. Clark. Kinetic Architecture. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970.
WEBSITES
Cook, Peter. “Peter Cook. Plug-in City: Maximum Pressure Area, Project (Section). 1964: Moma.” Ink and gouache on
photomechanical print. 83.5 x 146.5 cm. The Museum of Modern Art, New York City, 1964. https://www.moma.org/
collection/works/797.
Herron, Ron. “Ron Herron. Walking City on the Ocean, Project (Exterior Perspective). 1966: Moma.” Cut-and-pasted
printed and photographic papers and graphite covered with polymer sheet. 29.2 x 43.2 cm. The Museum of Modern
Art, New York City, 1966. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/814.
Hoppe, Jon. “The Marine Corps Goes Geodesic.” U.S. Naval Institute, September 28, 2021. https://www.usni.org/
magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/october/marine-corps-goes-geodesic.
Engineering Faculty of the San Carlos University in Guatemala. “Small-Scale Manufacture of Stabilised Soil Blocks.”
Community Development Library. International Labour Organisation, 1987. http://www.nzdl.org/cgi-bin/library?e=d-
00000-00---off-0hdl--00-0----0-10-0---0---0direct-10---4-------0-0l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0--4----0-
0-11-10-0utfZz-8-00&d=HASH01892cac2d55b0cd522e7c12.7.7.1>=1.
Parker, Tom. “Biceps and Triceps Injury Management.” BodyHelix, June 29, 2019. https://bodyhelix.com/bi-
ceps-and-triceps-injury-management/.
Dollens, Dennis. “Hoberman Sphere, Liberty Science Center, Jersey City, New Jersey.” Canadian Centre for Architec-
ture. Canadian Centre for Architecture. Accessed December 14, 2021. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/
collection/object/431863.
Dunnell, Tony. “The World’s Largest Hoberman Sphere.” Atlas Obscura. Atlas Obscura, March 27, 2019. https://www.
atlasobscura.com/places/world-s-largest-hoberman-sphere.
Liberty Science Center. “Hoberman Sphere.” Liberty Science Center, 1992. https://lsc.org/explore/exhibitions/
hoberman-sphere.
Patent, United States. “Reversibly Expandable Doubly-Curved Truss Structure Patent.” New York City: United States
Patent, July 24, 1990.
79
blog/a-guide-to-construction-tower-cranes/.
Massachusetts Contractors. “6 Types of Cranes Used on Construction Sites.” Massachusetts Contractors Acad-
emy A PHD Academy Company. Massachusetts Contractors Academy, July 13, 2018. https://247mass.
com/2018/07/13/6-types-of-cranes-used-on-construction-sites/.
AstroCrane. “Who Invented the Mobile Tower Crane?” Astro Crane, March 9, 2018. https://www.astrocrane.com/
who-invented-the-mobile-tower-crane/.
Ascarza, William. “Mine Tales: Power Shovels Made a World of Difference.” Tucson.com. Arizona Daily Star, February
1, 2016. https://tucson.com/news/local/minetales/mine-tales-power-shovels-made-a-world-of-difference/article_
b311bb89-28e4-5008-9b1e-fe0de41877b1.html.
KMG Europe BV. “XXL - KMG Ride.” KMG, November 3, 2021. https://kmgrides.com/rides/xxl/.
Knight Architects. “Merchant Square Footbridge.” Knight Architects | Bridge Specialist, September 30, 2014. https://
www.knightarchitects.co.uk/bridges/merchant-square-footbridge.
Laura, London. “Fan Bridge Paddington.” About London Laura - London and Beyond, February 14, 2022. https://
aboutlondonlaura.com/fan-bridge-paddington/.
Bejarano, Cristina. Thomas Heatherwick’s Rolling Bridge in Paddington Basin. Photograph. London, September 16, 2011.
Flickr.
Dunnell, Tony. “The London Bridge That Curls up like a Caterpillar.” Atlas Obscura. Atlas Obscura, August 13, 2019.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/rolling-bridge.
Heatherwick, Thomas. “Heatherwick Studio: Design & Architecture: Rolling Bridge.” Heatherwick Studio | Design &
Architecture. Accessed December 14, 2021. http://www.heatherwick.com/project/rolling-bridge/.
Historic England. “A Brief Introduction to Gasholders.” The Historic England Blog, July 15, 2020. https://heritagecall-
ing.com/2020/07/15/a-brief-introduction-to-gasholders/.
Kansas City Public Library. “KC Q Tackles History of Arrowhead, Kauffman Stadiums. See How They Set the Standard.”
Kansas City Public Library, August 7, 2019. https://kclibrary.org/blog/kc-q-tackles-history-arrowhead-kauffman-stadi-
ums-see-how-they-set-standard.
McConnell, Craig. “Home Sweet Dome.” Pittsburgh Magazine, June 18, 2010. https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/
home-sweet-dome/.
Reichard, Kevin. “Fate of Pittsburgh’s Civic Arena to Be Decided Today.” Arena Digest. Arena Digest, November 23,
2010. https://arenadigest.com/201011233121/endangered-arenas/articles/fate-of-pittsburghs-civic-arena-to-be-
decided-today.
Ip, Chris. “The Shed and the Art of the Flex.” Engadget, April 3, 2019. https://www.engadget.com/2019-04-03-the-
shed-nyc-hudson-yards.html.
Pelham Communications. “The Round House.” About | The Round House. Accessed December 14, 2021. https://
roundhousewilton.com/about/.
Arquitectura Viva. “The Shed Cultural Center, New York - Diller Scofidio + Renfro .” Arquitectura Viva, November
26, 2020. https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/centro-cultural-the-shed-nueva-york-2.
McKnight, Jenna. “Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Renovates Circular Connecticut Home That Spins.” Dezeen, January 22,
2020. https://www.dezeen.com/2020/01/22/round-house-mack-scogin-merrill-elam-architects-connecticut-reno-
vation/.
Iconic Houses. “Villa Girasole.” Villa Girasole - Iconic Houses, July 29, 2019. https://www.iconichouses.org/icons-at-
risk/villa-girasole.
Wierzbicki, M. “Topologies and Design Methods for Folding Kinetic Structures: Expanding the Architectural Paradigm.” W
Sematic Scholar, December 30, 2014. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Topologies-and-design-meth-
ods-for-folding-kinetic-%3A-Wierzbicki/3b19cc993802283d9315ebe806912877b58826b9. O
R
Secor, Jo Ann. “The Villa Girasole: Sustainable Design.” Skolnick Architecture + Design Partnership, May 7, 2019.
https://www.skolnick.com/news/villa-girasole. K
S
Sveiven, Megan. “Ad Classics: Rietveld Schroder House / Gerrit Rietveld.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, December 29, 2010.
https://www.archdaily.com/99698/ad-classics-rietveld-schroder-house-gerrit-rietveld.
C
Rietveld, Gerrit. Schroder House Upper Floor Plan Open and Closed. 2015. Scan. Tumblr.
I
Zeballos, Carlos, ed. “Gerrit Rietveld: Schröder House.” My Architectural Moleskine, May 16, 2013. http://architec- T
turalmoleskine.blogspot.com/2013/05/gerrit-rietveld-schroder-house.html.
E
ArchDaily. “Baitasi House of the Future / DOT Architects.” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, October 18, 2017. https://www.arch- D
daily.com/881689/baitasi-house-of-the-future-dot-architects.
80