Architectural Templates: A Hands-On Approach to Responsive Morphologies



The ability to acknowledge external inputs in order to make them part of its organizational structure is one of the aspects of “non-linear” architecture that today is perhaps more peculiar to a new design trend, whose main features lead to the definition of complex and changing space systems. This implies the adoption of design tools and techniques capable of dynamicity. Moreover, thinking in terms of architectural competence and behaviour, in spite of its own image, means to adopt in design the logic of coding and computational. This paper discusses the background of responsiveness, its relation to architecture dealing with parameter’s value for instability and dynamism, and explain computational strategies and design methods of a hands-on application based on a simple origami structure, which is also finalizing to design an architectural template for both testing and designing kinematic architectural components, as the main output of the research itself.


Computational design Responsiveness Adaptive architecture Physical computing Origami architecture 


  1. 1.
    Carpo, M. (2011). The alphabet and the algorithm. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casale, A., & Valenti, G. (2012). Architettura delle superficie piegate. Le geometrie che muovono gli origami. Roma: Kappa Edizioni.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corbellini, G. (2013). Ultimo tango a Zagarol. In Corbellini G. e Morassi C., Parametrico nostrano, Lettera ventidue, Siracusa.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox, M., & Kemp, M. (2009). Interactive architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanna, S., & Schleck, A. (2007). Embedded, embodied, adaptive. Architecture + computation. London: UCL Emergent Architecture Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolarevis, B., & Parlac, V. (2015). Building dynamics: Exploring architecture of change. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Igoe, T. (2011). Making things talk. Beijing: O’Reilly Vlg.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nebuloni, A. (2015). Il progetto imperfetto. Lo studio della forma nei modelli di organizzazione generale dello spazio. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nebuloni, A. (2014). Progettare architetture responsive. In Uno (nessuno) centomila, prototipi in movimento. Trasformazioni dinamiche del disegno e nuove tecnologie per il design, Rossi M. e Casale A., Maggioli, Santarcangelo di Romagna.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oosterhuis, K. (2012). Hyperbody. First decade of interactive architecture. Delft: Jap Sam Books.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Sullivan, T., & Igoe, D. (2004). Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers. Boston: Thomson Course Technology PTR.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reas, C., & McWiliams, C. (2010). Form + code in design, art, and architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts, D. (2000). Making things move: DIY mechanisms for inventors, hobbyists, and artists. New York: Tab Books.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terzidis, K. (2006). Algorithmic architecture. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trebbi, J. (2013). The art of folding: Creative forms in design and architecture. Barcelona: Promopress.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vignati, G. (2014). Prototipi responsivi. L’approccio nel contesto del Physical Computing. In Rossi M. e Casale A., op. cit.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiscombe, T. (2014). Discreteness, or towards a flat ontology of architecture. In Project—A Journal for Architecture, 3/2014, Consolidated Urbanism, New York. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design, School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations