Aperiodic Tiling, Penrose Tiling and the Generation of Architectural Forms

  • Michael J. Ostwald


The new façade of Storey Hall in Melbourne, by the architects ARM, is covered in a particular set of giant aperiodic tessellations which were discovered by the mathematician Roger Penrose in the 1970s and have since become known as Penrose tiles. While architecture has, historically, always been closely associated with the crafts of tiling and patterning, Storey Hall represents a resurrection and expansion of that tradition. However, what is Penrose tiling and what does it have to do with architecture? This paper provides an overview of the special properties and characteristics of Penrose tiling before describing the way in which they are used in Storey Hall. The purpose of this binary analysis is not to critique Storey Hall but to use the design as a catalyst for considering applications of tiling in the context of architectural form generation.


Tiling System Obtuse Angle Architectural Form Penrose Tile Single Tile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ashton Raggatt McDougall. 1996. New Patronage. In Ashton Raggatt McDougall, eds. RMIT Storey Hall, Melbourne: Faculty of Environmental Design and Construction, RMIT.Google Scholar
  2. Cracknell, Arthur. 1969. Crystals and their Structure. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  3. Day, Norman. 1995. Storey Hall. Architecture Australia 85, 1 (1995): 36.Google Scholar
  4. Eisenman, Peter. 1982. House X. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1995. Eisenman Architects: Selected And Current Works. Mulgrave: Images Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, Martin. 1989. Penrose Tiles To Trapdoor Ciphers. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  7. Grünbaum, Branko and Geoffrey Colin Shephard. 1987. Tilings and Patterns. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  8. Kohane, Peter. 1996. Ashton Raggatt and McDougall’s Imitative Architecture: Real and Imaginary Paths through Storey Hall. Transition 52/53 (1996): 8–15.Google Scholar
  9. Kruft, Hanno Walter. 1994. A History of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to the Present. In R. Taylor, E. Callander, and A. Wood, trans. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  10. Miyazaki, Koji. 1977. On Some Periodical and Non-Periodical Honeycombs. Kobe: University Monograph.Google Scholar
  11. Ostwald, Michael J., and R. John Moore. 1995. Mathematical Misreadings in Nonlinearity: Architecture as Accessory/Theory. In Mike Linzey, ed. Accessory/Architecture. Vol. 1. Auckland: University of Auckland. 1995.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1997. Unravelling the Weave: an Analysis of Architectural Metaphors in Nonlinear Dynamics. Interstices. Vol. 4 (1997) CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  13. Ostwald, Michael J., Peter Zellner and Charles Jencks. 1996. An Architecture Of Complexity. Transition 52/53 (1996): 30.Google Scholar
  14. Penrose, Roger. 1990. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. London: Vintage.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 1996. Fax to Howard Raggatt. In Ashton Raggatt McDougall, eds. RMIT Storey Hall. Melbourne: Faculty of Environmental Design and Construction, RMIT.Google Scholar
  16. Rubinsteim, Heim. 1996. Penrose Tiling. Transition 52/53 (1996): 20–21.Google Scholar
  17. Robbin, Tony. 1990. Quasicrystals for Architecture: The Visual Properties of Three-Dimensional Penrose Tessellations. Leonardo 23, 1: 140–141.Google Scholar
  18. Stewart, Ian and Martin Golubitsky. 1993. Fearful Symmetry: Is God A Geometer? London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Van Schaik, Leon. 1996. Preface. In Ashton Raggatt McDougall, eds. RMIT Storey Hall. Melbourne: Faculty of Environmental Design and Construction, RMIT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations