Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 9–23 | Cite as

Architecture In-Play, Future Challenges

  • Alexandra Paio
  • Filipa Osório
  • Sancho Moura Oliveira
  • Graziano Mario Valenti
  • Nuno Guimarães


This paper discusses an emerging field of research in architecture, kinetic design. This approach has been used in different ways through history, but the technological advances of the “Third Industrial Revolution” offer new perspectives on this topic, along with various design innovations. To face this demand, architects must develop new strategies rooted in performance, connectivity and control, and process them to support and inform design. In order to explore these challenges, a group of researchers organized a summer school in 2016. The partnership between ISCTE-IUL and Sapienza University of Rome emerged as an opportunity to join an international community to present recent research, teaching or practice related to architecture, technology, computation, mathematics and geometry. In addition, an experimental learning-by-doing design studio was developed, which allowed for testing a digital workflow to create foldable surfaces based on rigid origami geometry. The major objective of these events, which is summarised in this paper, is to contribute to the debate around digitally-driven kinetic architecture.


Kinetic architecture Computational design Rigid origami geometries Parametric design Foldable structures Digital fabrication 



The authors would like to acknowledge the event sponsors: FCT— Foundation for Science and Technology, Luso American Development Foundation, Araújo & Lino, Leroy Merlin, Sumol + Compal, Copianço cópias; and Scholarships sponsors: ISTAR-IUL (R&D unit) and ISTA.

The authors would also like to thank the workshop participants (Daniela Nóbrega, Denton Fredrickson, Federico Galizi, Inês Caetano, Ioanna Mitropoulou, Jan Broux, Maia Zheliazkova, Maria Bezzone, Pedro Januário, Ronaldo Barbosa) and the contribution of the other teachers Andrea Casale and Michele Calvano; and tutors: João Sousa, João Ventura, Maria João Oliveira, Maurizio Giodice, Susana Neves, and Vasco Craveiro Costa.


Filipa Osório’s research is funded by an FCT scholarship with reference SFRH/BD/100818/2014.


  1. Bier, Henriette and Terry Knight. 2010. Digitally-Driven Architecture. Footprint. Delft School of Design Journal 6:1-4.Google Scholar
  2. Casale, Andrea and Graziano M. Valenti. 2012. Architettura delle Superfici Piegate, le Geometrie che Muovonogli Origami, Nuovi quaderni di Applicazioni della Geometria Descrittiva. Edizioni Kappa.Google Scholar
  3. Casale, Andrea, Graziano M. Valenti and Michele Calvano. 2016. From Origami to Folded Surfaces. Representing Moving Forms. The 17th International Conference on Geometry and Graphics:0-11.Google Scholar
  4. Cowen, Tyler. 2013. The Average is Over. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  5. Daly, Ian. 2011. Data Cycle: Behind MIT’s SENSEable Cities Lab. Wired Magazine April 2011.Google Scholar
  6. Demaine, Erik D., Martin L. Demaine, Vi Hart, Gregory Price, and Tomohiro Tachi. 2011. (Non)existence of Pleated Folds: How Paper Folds Between Creases. Graphs and Combinatorics 27 (3):341-351.Google Scholar
  7. Eastman, Charles 1971. Adaptive-Conditional Architecture. Design Participation: Proceedings of Design Research Society’s Conference, Manchester, September 1971:51-57.Google Scholar
  8. El-Zanfaly, Dina E. 2011. Active Shapes: Introducing Guidelines for Designing Kinetic Architectural Structures. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, Michael. 2016a. Catalyst Design. Architecture in-Play Proceedings:1-5.Google Scholar
  10. Fox, Michael (ed). 2016b. Interactive Architecture: Adaptive World. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, Michael and Catherine Hu. 2005. Starting from the Micro: A Pedagogical Approach to Designing Interactive Architecture. Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture: 78-93.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, Michael and Miles Kemp. 2009. Interactive Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frazer, John. 1995. An Evolutionary Architecture. London: Architectural Association Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Glynn, Ruairi. 2016. Machine Life. Architecture in-Play Proceedings:60-68.Google Scholar
  15. Goulthorpe, Mark. 2008. The Possibility of (an) Architecture: Collected Essays by Mark Goulthorpe, dECOi Architects. New York:Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Iwamoto, Lisa. 2009. Digital Fabrications. Architectural and Material Techniques. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, Paul. 2011. Folding Techniques for Designers: From Sheet to Form. London: Laurence King Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, Paul. 2016. Folding as a Language of Design. Architecture in-Play Proceedings:186-194.Google Scholar
  19. Kolarevic, Branko. (ed). 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age. Design and Manufacturing. New York: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kolarevic Branco. and Vera Parlac (ed). 2015. Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kronenberg, Robert, Joseph Lim, and Wong Y Chii. 2003. Transportable Environments 2. New York: Spoon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lynn, Greg. (ed.). 1993. Folding in Architecture. Architectural Design Profile 102. Google Scholar
  23. Marbel, Scott. 2012. Digital Workflows in Architecture. Design-Assembly-Industry. Basel: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  24. Megahed, Naglaa. A. 2017. Understanding Kinetic Architecture: Typology, Classification, and Design Strategy. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 13:130-146.Google Scholar
  25. Moloney, Jules. 2011. Designing Kinetics for Architectural FaçadesState Change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Negroponte, Nicholas. 1995. Being Digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Osório, Filipa, Alexandra Paio, Sancho Oliveira, 2017a. Kinetic Origami Surfaces. From Simulation to Fabrication. Future Trajectories of Computation in Design. 17th International Conference, CAAD Futures: 229-248.Google Scholar
  28. Osório, Filipa, Alexandra Paio, Sancho Oliveira, Andrea Casale, Graziano M. Valenti, and Michele Calvano. 2017b. Foldable Responsive Surfaces. Two Design Studios with a Comprehensive Workflow. Proceedings eCAADe 35:355-362.Google Scholar
  29. Osório, Filipa, Alexandra Paio, Sancho Oliveira. 2017c. Origami Tesselations: Folding Algorithms, from Local to Global. Geometrias’17 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  30. Pask, Gordon. 1969. Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics. Architectural Design:494-496.Google Scholar
  31. Peters, Brady and Terri Peters. 2013. Inside SmartGeometry. Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of Computational Design. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Rifkin. Jeremy. 2011. Third Industrial Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Rivas-Adrover, Esther R. 2015. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Sadler, Simon. 2005. Archigram Architecture Without Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Saggio, Antonino. 2013. The IT Revolution in Architecture Thoughts on a Paradigm Shift. New York: ITools/ Scholar
  36. Schenk, Mark and Simon Guest. 2011. Origami Folding: A Structural Engineering Approach. Origami 5 - Fifth International Meeting of Origami Science, Mathematics, and Education. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tachi, Tomohiro. 2011. Rigid-Foldable Thick Origami. Origami 5Fifth International Meeting of Origami Science, Mathematics, and Education. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tedeschi, Arturo. 2011. Parametric Architecture with Grasshopper. Brienza: Le Penseur Publisher.Google Scholar
  39. Tedeschi, Arturo. 2014. AAD Algorithms-Aided Design. Parametric Strategies Using Grasshopper. Brienza: Le Penseur Publisher.Google Scholar
  40. Tedeschi, Arturo. 2016. Hyper-Meritocracy and Architecture. Architecture in-Play Proceedings:122-125.Google Scholar
  41. Valenti, Graziano M., Milena Fantozzi, and Alessio Petecchia. 2016. The Form of the Design: Digital Processing a Priori and a Posteriori. 3D Modeling & Bim Applications and Possible Future Developments:553-566.Google Scholar
  42. Walter, William G. 1950. An Electro-Mechanical “Animal”. Discovery 11:90–93.Google Scholar
  43. Weiser, Mark. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Computers and Networks: How to Work, Play and Thrive in Cyberspace 265(3):94-105.Google Scholar
  44. Wiener, Norbert. 1948. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris: Hermann and Camb.Google Scholar
  45. Zuk, William and Roger H. Clark. 1970. Kinetic Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de LisboaISTAR-IUL, DINÂMIA’CET and Vitruvius FabLab-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de LisboaISTAR-IUL and Vitruvius FabLab-IULLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de LisboaInstituto de Telecomunicações and Vitruvius FabLab-IULLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  5. 5.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de LisboaISTAR-IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations