Fabricate is an international conference on design and making about to take place in London in April 2011.

UPDATE: call for work is extended to 20th of September.

Below is an excerpt from the press release:

FABRICATE is an international peer reviewed conference with supporting publication and exhibition to be held at The Building Centre in London from 15-16 April 2011. Discussing the progressive integration of digital design with manufacturing processes, and its impact on design and making in the 21st century, FABRICATE will bring together pioneers in design and making within architecture, construction, engineering, manufacturing, materials technology and computation.

FABRICATE welcomes original, innovative and pioneering projects for the Call for Work. Submission requirements emphasize strong and informative visual material with succinct analytical text and project synopsis.

Selected submissions will be featured together with articles from conference keynote speakers Mark Burry, Philip Beesley, Neri Oxman and Matthias Kohler in the book ‘FABRICATE: Making Digital Architecture’ to be published by Riverside Architectural Press. Selected submissions will also be invited to speak at the FABRICATE conference where the book will be launched.

FABRICATE Will also host the UK’s first exhibition of Gramazio & Kohler’s brick laying robot “R-O-B” which will be performing its magic throughout the conference.


Michal Piasecki presented a paper “A Redefinition of the Paradox of Choice”, co-authored with Sean Hanna, at the 4th International conference on Design Computing and Cognition (DCC’10) in Stuttgart.

The paper is a part of Michal’s ongoing PhD research on providing the users with intuitive and satisfactory B2C online mass customization expirience. The abstract is available on the research page.


Green2, a polish design magazine with a focus on sustainability, published Michal’s article on SmartGeometry 2010. This year’s SmartGeometry workshops took place at Iaac in Barcelona – a post-industrial setting likely to influence the title of the event. It was called “Working Prototypes”. Over four days more than a hundred participants worked in ten distinctive clusters using various CAM technologies to manufacture their proofs of concepts.

Four days at Iaac were followed by a two-day conference drawing together speakers such as  Mark Burry (RMIT), Enrico Dini (D-Shape), Marta Male-Alemany (Iaac) and Hanif Kara (Adams Kara Taylor). Videos from the conference are available from Bentley (requires registration).

Workshop participants in Iaac at work. Image: courtesy of Shane Burger.

Final prototype of High Tech Design – Low Tech Construction cluster. Image: courtesy of Shane Burger.

Work from the Parametrics and Physical Interactions cluster. Image: courtesy of Przemek Jaworski.


Michal Piasecki’s recent design – Weaving Bowl – was selected for the final of Young Design 2010 competition organized by Warsaw’s Institute of Industrial Design (IWP). During the project presentation at IWP, taking place on June 2nd this year, Michal emphasized how mass customization paradigm shifts designers and users roles. Designers’ focus moves away from a single solution towards a spectrum of possible forms, while the “users”, “customers”, “prosumers” or “co-designers” choose a single option from this spectrum.

Michal later moved on to describe the spectrum of Weaving Bowl’s forms, also often called the solution space. The product is controlled by three attributes: height, porosity and type of material. The size of the object is 20 by 20 by 4-16 cm and it is a 3d printed piece. It is designed to be manufactured using stereolithography, fused deposition modeling or selective laser sintering.

Parameter 1: height.

Parameter 2: porosity.

Parameter 3: type of material.

Different algorithms for browsing through a solution space of such product where also discussed. This part of the presentation was directly related to Michal’s PhD research, where he is looking at two distinctive approaches to the design of configurators:

- An elective approach where users define levels of each of the product attributes explicitly.

- An instructive approach – an implementation of genetic algorithms which enables users to manually select parents of next generations without a need to understand how many parameters control the product and what each of them is responsible for exactly.

These two approaches were compared in the Breeding Objects Experiment 1.


6 workshops conducted by Workshops Factory to date in Poland and in the USA will be featured at the Spontaneous Schooling Exhibition, curated by Nous gallery as a part of London Festival of Architecture 2010.

The exhibition opens on Friday 18 June, 2010 at 6pm. The venue is: 3.01 Tea Building, 5 – 13 Bethnal Green Road, London E1 6JJ.

Thanks to the Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw University of Technology, 5 3d printed models from the very first WF workshop (wf_091) will become part of the exhibition as well.

Images: courtesy of Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw University of Technology.


Michal Piasecki recently took part in a symposium of PhD students researching computational design. Hosted by Centre for Information Technology and Architecture (CITA) in Copenhagen, the event drew together PhD students and tutors from The Bartlett, UCL, Spatial Information Architecture (SIAL) at RMIT and CITA.

The event was structured into 4 panels and presentations of PhD research where followed by an open discussion moderated by panel leaders. The list of all speakers is below:

June 11th: Panel 1: “Materials & Responses”. Moderators: Sean Hanna and Ole Sigmund.

Norbert Palz: “ Emerging Architectural Potentials of a Tuneable Materiality through Additive Fabrication Technologies”.

Sarat Babu: “Microkinetics”.

Aurelie Mosse: “Self-Actuated Textiles in the Design of Domestic Spaces”.

Gennaro Senatore: “Responsive Adaptive Building Structures”.

June 11th: Panel 2: “Adaptation”. Moderators: Jane Burry and Alasdair Turner.

Ruairi Glynn:  “An approach to interactive architecture”.

Christopher Leung: “Passive autonomic computing with heat motors and their compounds”.

Michal Piasecki: “An evolutionary approach to online mass customization of products”.

Abel Maciel:  “Negotiations of instrumental values  in architectural design: seeking for concept formation structures”.

June 14th: Panel 3: “Digital Methods”. Moderators: Martin Tamke & Alasdair Turner.

Anders Hermund: “ Applied 3D modeling and Parametric Design”.

Daniel Davis:  “Declarative Schemata: challenging the inflexibility of the flexible digital model”.

Alexander Pena de Leon:  “Intuition Based Parametric Strategies for Solving Complex Architectural Problems”.

Tore Bank: “Parametri I Praksis: Generative Performance in Architecture”.

Brady Peters: “Computing Sound Performance”.

June 14th: Panel 4: “Scripted Architectures”. Moderators: Mark Burry and Mette Ramsgaard Thomsen.

Tim Ireland: “Form follows function: activity defines function, gesticulates space”.

Jacob Riiber: “Self-organization as design methodology”.

Kindal_Al Sayed: “Spatial Morphogenesis: an analytical and generative design approach towards modeling and simulating the dynamics of spatial change in cities”.


Critical Practice, a cluster of artists, researchers and academics hosted by Chelsea College of Art and Design has recently commissioned Ola Wasilkowska and Michal Piasecki to design a temporary spatial intervention for their Parade event. The event took place on 21-23 May, 2010 at Rootstein Hopkins Parade Ground in London.

The structure, called Assemblage in Public compromises computational design strategies with a low-tech assembly of repeatable components on site. The project is rooted in an idea that a repetition of a few simple rules is able to construct complex geometry, which can host different functions.

The core structure of the intervention was obtained through multi objective optimization with genetic algorithms. The optimization was conducted with a purpose built software written in Processing. The goal was to distribute the components according to a predefined “shadow map” and to keep them structurally stable at the same time. 4320 crates where used in total. Below are some of the individuals from one of the middle generations.

After the core was erected according to the plans extracted from the optimized form, everyone was invited to contribute to the intervention by adding on furniture. These where meant to be integrated and dissolved in the structure, so that discovering them may be surprising, but at the same time when they start to be used, they always prove comfortable. For this part of components assembly, there was no pre-defined layouts, so the structure started to crawl in diverse directions.

The low-tech crate component enabled the mixture of an evolutionary search for an optimal form with collective intelligence to create an attractor intervening the everyday use of the public.

Images: courtesy of Marsha Bradfield and Neil Cummings from Critical Practice.


Below are some of the Processing sketches written by the students of the Master of Science in Adaptive Architecture and Computation (Msc AAC) at the Bartlett. These works are from the first term (October to December 2009), where students are introduced to the Processing syntax. Their task this year was to create a 2d, interactive application entitled “Performative Bodies”. Processing during the first term was taught by Ruairi Glynn and Michal Piasecki was running tutorials.

Atomized by Hugo Loureiro

The Cave by Ermis Adamantidis

Pixels Dance by Angelos Chronis

All of the works are available here.


Open Generative Design is an initiative started by dr. Sivam Krish. The aim is to develop platform independent algorithms which can be used to browse through solution spaces of various parametric definitions. The algorithms will be written in Excel and special add-on will be developed for each parametric modeling package. The ones for Solidworks and Rhino Grasshopper are already available for download and others, including one for Generative Components are under development. Below you can listen to Sivam introducing the idea himself:

The first iteration of the Excel spreadsheet script will generate instances of parametric definitions which will be random but constrained by maximum and minimum values of each of the attributes. Further iterations will feature a variety of browsing algorithms. For now have a look at how it works with Solidworks:


“A Redefinition of the Paradox of Choice”, a paper co-authored by Michal Piasecki and Sean Hanna, was accepted for the Design Computing Cognition conference 2010 (DCC’10).

In the paper builds upon Barry Schwart’z definition of the paradox of choice. The abstract outlines our proposition of reconsideration of the paradox and positions the Breeding Objects Experiment 1 in this context:

Abstract: Barry Schwartz defined the paradox of choice as the fact that in western developed societies a large amount of choice is commonly associated with welfare and freedom but too much choice causes the feeling of less happiness, less satisfaction and can even lead to paralysis. The paradox of choice has been recognized as one of the major sources of mass confusion in context of the B2C online mass customization. We propose to redefine the paradox of choice with an emphasis on the meaning of choice in conjunction with the amount of available options, rather than just the quantity of choice. We propose that it is the lack of meaningful choice, rather than an overwhelming amount of choice, that can cause customers’ feelings of decreased happiness, decreased satisfaction and paralysis. We further propose that since users themselves are often not able to explicitly define what constitutes a meaningful choice, the task they face belongs to the category of ill-defined problems. The challenge for mass customization practitioners is thus not to limit the scope of choice, as has been suggested in previous literature, but to provide users with choice that is relevant to them.

We further discuss two computational approaches to solving problems related to the redefined paradox of choice in the context of the B2C mass customization. The first is based on recommender systems and the second is an implementation of artificial selection in genetic algorithms. We present findings of an empirical comparison of genetic algorithm and parametric product configurators. We find that the genetic algorithm tools, which allow users to move through a solution space by recognition of meaningful options rather than their definition, appear to be more popular among the users when it comes to browsing through solution spaces with larger number of dimensions.