Step 1 - Generative Design Framework
- Design Decision 1: Room Dimensions and Stage Height in Venue Space
- Design Variables
- Stage height
- Stage width
- Room length
- Room width
- Evaluators
- Room capacity
- Stage visibility
- Stage “diveability”
- Stage area
- Most Important Tradeoffs to Consider
- Stage visibility vs. stage “diveability”
- Design Decision 2: Part Weight vs. Part Rigidity
- Design Variables
- Thickness dimension
- Length dimension
- Member cross-sectional shape
- Evaluators
- Total weight
- Stiffness in bending
- Strength in compression
- Most Important Tradeoffs to Consider
- Stiffness in bending vs. total weight
- Design Decision 3: Column Number, Thickness, And Placement
- Design Variables
- Column count
- Column thickness
- Column spacing
- Evaluators
- Maximum safe load
- Available unobstructed floor area
- Material cost
- Most Important Tradeoffs to Consider
- Unobstructed floor area vs. maximum safe load
Step 2 - Generative Design Study
I chose to model the venue design decision to evaluate the tradeoff between stage visibility and stage “diveability,” while attempting to maximize available stage space and venue capacity. This is a tradeoff specific to a music subculture that I participate in, in which fans often jump off the stage and into the crowd during concerts. Traditional venue stages are usually both too high to climb up onto and too high to safely jump off of, so a more “diveable” stage is often a less visible stage.
My generative design study contains room width, room length (not considering the stage), stage height, and stage width (as a percentage of room width) as input variables. As output variables, it evaluates “height discrepancy” (as the difference between true stage height and “optimal” stage height for visibility at the rear end of the room), audience capacity, stage area, and “diveability.” “Diveability” was modeled as a simple quadratic equation that returned zero at eight feet and zero feet of stage height, and ten at four feet.
Step 3 - Generative Design Study Results
This scatterplot shows that the tradeoff between “diveability” and visibility can be resolved in a way that satisfies both requirements. The points in the upper left corner are all points with low height discrepancy and high “diveability,” suggesting venue designs that could preserve visibility even with this added requirement.
The following image shows the Dynamo logic for calculating the output variables and rendering geometry. Notably, “optimal” height is also calculated using a curve fitted to known stage design parameters. Solids are rendered to represent the floor dimensions and the stage space.
