Tree-Structure Canopy:A

Case Study in Design and

Fabrication of Complex
Steel Structures using
Digital Tools
Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

international journal of architectural computing

issue 11, volume 01 87

Tree-Structure Canopy:A case study in design and

fabrication of complex steel structures using
digital tools
Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

This paper describes and reflects on the design and

manufacturing process of the Tree-Structure canopy for the
WestendGate Tower in Frankfurt upon Main, completed early
2011.The project investigated fabrication and assembly principles
of complex steel structures as well as the integration of
contemporary computational design, engineering, optimization
and simulation techniques in a collaborative design approach.
This paper focuses on the notion of modular standardization as
opposed to non standard customized components. It also
engages with issues relating to digital production tools and their
impact on construction cost, material performance and
tolerances. In addition it examines the reconfiguration of liability
during a planning and construction process, an aspect which can
be strongly determined by fabrication companies rather than the
architect or designer.This paper is written as a reflection on the
complete building process when contemporary digital tools are
used from design through to fabrication. It studies both the
generation of the steel structure as well the ETFE cushion skin.
It reports on a collaborative project, where the main author was
responsible for the canopies design, parameterization,
digitalization and fabrication, as well as for the dissemination of
the outcomes and findings during the design and realization
process. As such it represents an example of research through
design in a contemporary and evolving field.The canopy received
a design award by the Hellenic Architecture Association.

88

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project description
WestendGate, also known as the Marriott Hotel, is one of the most iconic
towers in Frankfurt. At a height of 159 meters and 47 storeys, the original
structure ranked as the highest tower Germany during the 70s and early
80s. Built in 1976 by the architects Siegfried Hoyer and Richard Heil in the
Westend of Frankfurt am Main, the building became the trend setter and
exemplar for high-rise construction in both this district and the broader city
of Frankfurt.The Marriott Hotel Group moved there in 1989, and the
building remains the highest hotel in Europe.The Hotel occupies the top 18
of the 46 storeys of the building; a three winged structure in plan. It has its
own lobby on the ground floor and uses the second floor as a ball room. All
the remaining levels, which are accessible via a second lobby, are occupied as
office space and building services.
The project described in this paper is a canopy, referred to generally in
this paper as the Tree-Structure.This Tree-Structure canopy was designed
in order to protect the newly designed outdoor entrance and departure
area. Besides providing performance needs such as weather protection the
brief for the canopy included the key criterion to generate a prestigious
new entre to the hotel experience. A requirement was that the new
addition should contribute significantly to the buildings visual impact at the
human scale: it already had significant impact at the urban scale. It was also
to provide visual signals to reinforce primary pedestrian movement flows.
The Tree-Structure covers an area of 1200 m2 with its height varying
between 8 and 14 meters.The defining perimeter is between 85 and 14
meters in length depending on section location.The lead author worked
with Just/Burgeff Architekten in collaboration with structural engineer Viktor
Wilhelm.

1.2. Definition of design parameters

The entire design approach for the canopy was based on a set of
parameters, determined by a given range of conditions, such as structural
layout of the underground parking, local building code restrictions,
construction cost as well as programmatic and circulation requirements.
Some of these conditions applied during the construction phase not all
were end state conditions. In particular:
the Tree-Structure columns positions had to match with the existing
column grid of the Underground parking. Any other position could
not be accommodated structurally.
Hotel and office facilities in the tower had to continue operating
during the entire construction phase.
Construction cost and council regulations were given and could not
be violated.
Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 89
Structures using Digital Tools


Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the

Tree-Structure Canopy in Frankfurt.
(Photography by Eibe Snnecken.).

Consideration of these parameters led to the design decision to adopt a

prefabricated structure; one which would allow fast and welding-free
assembly on site.

2. DESIGN PROCESS
2.1. Definition of Structure
The Westendgate proposed canopy was not designed in a conventional topdown design process, where the architect determines design and passes it
on to engineers and fabricators for further processing. It was developed in a
bottom up iterative and interactive process as described by Kloft [1], where
all different team members agreed on a negotiated co-decision process
through which they could enrich the procedure with their expertise. Several
sets of different, planar mesh structures and structural principles were
examined in relation to their performance, construction cost and design
quality (see Figure 2) for the team to consider and evaluate as a team. In
contrast to the Ornamental Discretisation of Free-form Surfaces approach
described Manhal et.al. [2], where an algorithmic tool has been developed in
order to tessellate double curved surfaces, the design team questioned and
thus avoided the necessity of such complexity as part of their approach.
The dimensions of the different planar meshes were determined in
relation to the practical constraints imposed by the possible roof cladding
materials; glass, ETFE foil and polycarbonate panels.Through evaluation of
the merits and demerits of each case, the team decided to continue with a
semi-regular voronoi mesh, including eight different standardized polygonal
90

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

 Figure 2. Iterations of mesh

structures.

frame units, which would repeat themselves through the entire structure.
The solution bears interesting comparison to the one adopted for the
Campus Restaurant and Event Space Roof in Ditzingen, Stuttgart, by Barkow
& Leibinger architects [3].
Finally, branched columns were generated from selected voronoi
intersection points.The location of the trunk of the tree that the branches
would spring from was determined by where they would meet with the
position of the existing underground column grid at the ground slab level
(Figure 3).The schematic structure was subsequently digitized in a bottomup and interactive 3-D model.This model would allow the team to optimize
and update the canopys geometry through the entire design process.
 Figure 3. Design process:
Generation of columns from voronoi
grid.

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 91

Structures using Digital Tools

2.2. Structural Simulation: an Instrument for Form Definition

Finite element analysis techniques were applied to the mesh which was
represented as an axial 3D model, in which each element of the mesh was
defined as a bar element. Defining the mesh this way made it possible to
optimize both load transmission and drainage behavior of the canopy mesh
and branched columns, with the targets for optimization being defined as
minimization of steel weight, and parallel reduction of construction cost. In
this respect the technique follows a process similar to that described in the
its small world exhibition stand [4]. However in the case described here,
although the process was comparable, the optimization process was based
on different parameters, different material and the final structure was,
consequently, significantly different.
The performance simulation analysis was repeated in a series of
iterations, to reach an optimum position in terms of geometry, load
transmission and steel weight (see Figure 4). As a result, the mesh structure
was transformed, overall, into a doubly curved surface (Figure 5), the
elements of which were composed of unique, non standard polygonal mesh
components.The geometry of these mesh elements was defined by the
responsive reconfiguring of their joint conditions and angles to meet a
combination of constraints and optimization criteria.
The mesh outer edges were lifted upwards, while the inner areas were
pushed downwards in the digital representation, allowing optimum drainage
and improved load flow from the mesh surface to the branched columns.
However, this outcome went against the teams initial assumptions, which
included the premise that the outcome would be several standardized frame
units defining the mesh structure.We found that a double curved geometry
would result in a significantly lighter steel construction in comparison to the
standardized solution.
As a consequence of the geometry now being adopted, the canopys
physical appearance changed significantly. Its form and structural behavior
would resemble forms and load transmission processes akin to those in
nature and similar to those described by Otto and Rasch [6], who
promoted the approach of starting with natural forms and then refining

Figure 4. Optimization process,
Finite Element Analysis.

92

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

 Figure 5. Optimization result: double

curved surface, composed of unique,
non standard polygonal frames.

STUTZE "1"

STUTZE "2"

STUTZE "3"

STUTZE "4"

STUTZE "5"
STUTZE "5"

based on constraints and optimization.The introduction of the double

curved mesh roof, contributed to the choice of ETFE foil cushions as
roofing material. ETFE foil is lighter than most comparable roofing materials
and had a particular advantage that the cushions can be mounted on non
planar, doubly curved frames.

3. FABRICATION PROCESS
3.1. Definition of Joints and Units
Determination of assembly joints and frame units was a key issue in order
to resolve the construction details and manufacturing method of the TreeStructure canopy. Due to the complexity of the joints, where each one
becomes a crossing point for up to five different axes, the only geometrically
feasible steel section profile proved to be the tube (or CHS, circular hollow
Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 93
Structures using Digital Tools

section). Rectangular or T-shape profiles could not intersect in a

geometrically calculable joint.The flat plate steel profiles as used in the
TetraScript pavilion [6], could have worked geometrically. However this
would have had two important design implications. First the FEM structural
analysis was based on axial elements and the flat plate cross section is
significantly less efficient as a compressive axial element than a tube (CHS)
section. Secondly it would have had a very significant and undesirable effect
on the visual appearance of the canopy.
In addition, the project team decided to avoid a Mero knot based
solution system, which has been used in comparable junction details in
structures such as the Eden Project by Nicholas Grimshaw [7], due to its
impact on the design outcome and additional difficulties in drainage and
roof cladding details. Considerations of the parameters prescribed earlier
led to the introduction of a standardized screw-knot, that gave a
prefabricated unit as shown in Figures 6 and 7. As a result, the roof mesh

Montagesto
49

79

R0 323,98 .. 3952
Segment 2.5

Montagesto

R0 323,98 .. 493
Segment 2.6
R0 323,98 .. 824
71
Segment 2.6
Montagesto

Montagesto

56

Figure 6 (left). tree column

construction drawing.

bersicht Sttze "2"

M1:20

Montagesto

R0 323,98 .. 1200 68 Montagesto

Segment 2.6
R0 323,98 .. 1609
66
Segment 2.7
67

Montagesto

R0 323,98 .. 593 74
Segment 2.5
R0 323,98 .. 1158
69
Segment 2.7
67 R0 323,98 .. 1281
Segment 2.7
57 R0 323,98 .. 2684
Segment 2.7

R0 323,98 .. 2709
Segment 2.3
56 R0 323,98 .. 7568
Segment 2.3

Montagesto

R0 323,98 .. 1281
Segment 2.7

Montagesto
R0 323,98 .. 513
77
Segment 2.4
Montagesto
R0 323,98 .. 512
78
Segment 2.4
R0 323,98 .. 2987 55
Segment 2.8
Montagesto

Montagesto
64

R0 323,98 .. 2224
Segment 2.3

Montagesto

75

R0 323,98 .. 763
72
Segment 2.7

Montagesto

R0 323,98 .. 2245
62
Segment 2.3
R0 323,98 .. 1817
65
Segment 2.3
63 R0 323,98 .. 2240
Segment 2.2
R0 323,98 .. 2452
59
Segment 2.2
Montagesto

Montagesto

47

R0 139,98 .. 2299
61
Segment 2.4

R0 323,98 .. 5213
Segment 2.7

R0 323,98 .. 7568

48

R0 139,74 .. 8498 45
Segment 2.4

R0 323,98 .. 5064
Segment 2.2

R0 323,98 .. 8504
Segment 2.4

Montagesto
R0 323,98 .. 422
81
Segment 2.1
546 BLECH 65065025
Segment 2.1

50

52

R0 323,98 .. 3424

R0 323,98 .. 3413
Segment 2.1

R0 323,98 .. 430
Segment 2.1

80

Montagesto
R0 323,98 .. 411
82
Segment 2.1

R0 323,98 .. 3406
Segment 2.1

53

R0 323,98 .. 3423 51
Segment 2.4

R0 134,74 .. 3342 54
Segment 2.4
BLECH 10010025 1
Klemmbelech
BLECH 1270125035
544
Segment 2.1
BLECH 13974 .. 234
85
Segment 2.4
RO 13974 .. 240
84
Segment 2.4

94

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

Montagesto
R0 323,98 .. 580
Segment 2.4
Montagesto

R0 139,74 .. 2400
60
Segment 2.4

R0 323,98 .. 593
Segment 2.2

46

R0 323,98 .. 613
73
Segment 2.4

45

76

 Figure 7 (right). Standardized

assembly screw-knot.

551
551
65

63
18

551
59
75
17

81

551

was divided into 72 non standard steel branch units (Figure 8).The
dimensioning of these branches was defined by the size of galvanizing pools
in which they were to be coated, and transportation requirements. A
similar technique was applied to the canopys columns each of which were
divided into four individual units.
 Figure 8. Construction units,
Divisions of different Branches.

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 95

Structures using Digital Tools

3.2. Drainage and Roofing System

The drainage and ETFE-cushions cladding systems are strongly linked, since
they are both attached to each other and have to be assembled as a pair on
the canopys tubular roof mesh.The drainage-cushion assembly detail is an
evolved version of the detail principle used in Herzog and De Meurons
Allianz Arena in Munich [8].This system had to be modified in order to
adapt to the irregular geometry of the Tree-Structure canopy. It consists of
flat laths, welded onto the pipes, covered by a grating, in order to protect
the drainage from collection of debris.
In addition, all of the ETFE cushions could be conveniently fixed to the
drainage laths (Figure 9). Each cushion is made of several ETFE strips, aligned
parallel to each other (Figure 10).This determines the cushions maximum

Figure 9 (left). Drainage system
(Photography by Eibe Snnecken).

Figure 10. ETFE cushion fabrication

drawing.

96

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

footprint, in combination with its structural performance.To maintain the

cushions under constant air pressure, they had to be connected to an air
pump.The pipes used for air supply are positioned in the drainage gutter
under the grating (Figure 11).
 Figure 11 (right). Drainage gutter
and grating.

060

059

K18

053

065

K76

044

K64

K15

005

010

K52

016

K74
003

K7

K5

013

009

K62

K2
K4

023

K9

K55

K8
K6

018
022

034

K12

030

K11

K72
K53

K63

072

K56

K71

K14
041

045

046

K17

K61
K65

087
069

K21

107

K41
129
136

123

117

K40

K45

K44

K51

142

127

K30
K25

K39

K34

K26

093

081

K23

145

K46

K58

K73

068

K54

101

K69
K19

138

K42

K36
K31

095

K79

061

K43140
131 K47

125

K35
089

K50

K59

055

K16

118

114

083

073

063

K68

037

K24

K49

K60

057

K48
038

025

050

K77

039

K32
103

K67

049

042

K37

K27

097

K78

K66
K70

K13

035

K28
019

014

K10

032

K75

020

015

029
028

076

091
085

077

K57

043

K3
K1

K22
K20

116

099
111

K29

K33

134

121

K38

3.3. Fabrication Drawings and Principle Details

All principal details and fabrication details had to be designed in a 3D
environment. Due to the canopys complex geometry, they could not be
efficiently described in a 2D representation system. As the same 3D model
would be used for all design and fabrication faces (Figure 12), the 3D
representation became the main medium of information exchange between
architect, engineer and the steel fabrication company.The main exchange file
format between different software platforms such as Rhinoceros, Autocad,
FreeFem++ became DWG.This choice was primarily defined by the CNC
plasma cutter hardware database, used by the steel manufacturer to
fabricate the steel tree/knot components. Each tubes assembly profile was
calculated, numbered and used as fabrication data (Figure 13). As soon as
the plasma cutting process had been completed, all different branch units
were welded together (Figure 14) and then assembled into the roof mesh in
an upside down position (Figure 15), in order to avoid mismatching joints. In
addition, the welded branches were galvanized and spray painted (Figure 16)
before they were transported to the construction site.
 Figure 12. Collaborative 3D Model
used for the canopys construction.

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 97

Structures using Digital Tools


Figure 13 (left). CNC plasma cutting

of steel pipes.

Figure 14 (right).Welding of plasmacut pipes.

Figure 15.Test assembly of tree

structure mesh.

98

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

 Figure 16. Spray painting the branch.

4. CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY

4.1. Assembling the Structure
Assembling the 1200 m2 structure on a site, which has to service hotel
guests 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, proved to be a challenging task.
Construction started from north to south, since it had to be
synchronized with the hotel events operating schedule. The canopys
branches were assembled from column to mesh, growing in linear
progression like a giant puzzle (Figure 17). Each branch was placed to its
 Figure 17. Assembly process.

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 99

Structures using Digital Tools


Figure 18. Assembly process,

tightening the joints. Photography by
Eibe Snnecken.

exact position by crane and then bolted to its neighbors by hydraulic

screwdrivers. The workers were able to reach the joints by the side
assembly holes, which were integrated close to every branch unit (figure
18). After the whole structure was completed, each bolted joint was
tighten again, thus the tolerances could be minimized. Finally all assembly
holes were sealed.

4.2. Assembling the Cushions

Soon after the structure was completed, assembly of the cushions started in
a similar manner. Assembly was made easier, quicker and less expensive due
to the fact that workers were able to walk on the structure. Enabling this
feature was a parameter defined in the design process, and this affected the
choice of steel tube diameter. Adopting this defining parameter for minimum
tube dimension would prove to significantly simplify assembly and
maintenance processes. Each cushion had to located in the correct position,
be unrolled and fixed to the steel framework. Rubber gaskets between
cushion and frame ensured a seal. Finally all cushions were connected to the
pumped air supply system.

5. DISCUSSION
5.1 A century of Standardized Constructions
Each time the architectural production technology changes, then
architecture changes as well argued Conrad Wachsmann in the late 50s
[9]. And it is indeed true, that significant technological developments have
always had an impact in architectural design and production.

100

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

Paxtons Crystal Palace, built in the late 19th century, played a key role in
inaugurating a new era, when the development of techniques to produce
innovative iron and glass components began to revolutionize the
construction, structure, and consequently, design of buildings. It heralded the
dawn of a new architectural aesthetic. Following the introduction of the
recently invented assembly line [9], industrial production set of on a new
march towards faster construction time, at low cost and greater efficiency.
The urge to fulfill those three requirements motivated the Russian
engineer Vladimir Grigorjewitsch Suchov to develop his hyper-parabolic
mesh structures [11] in the same century.They consisted of mass produced
iron sticks, welded together in a minimal structure which combines fast
construction requirements with an optimally efficient geometry. Like Otto
[5] he had the goal of achieving essential coherence between form,
structure and production process. His intelligent structural system was used
for the construction of at least 200 telecommunication towers throughout
the Soviet Union.The use of the industrial manufacturing processes of his
time played a fundamental role in conceiving and delivery of the hyperbolic
towers.
With further industrialization of architectural technology taking place in
the beginning of the 20th century, serial mass production became more
refined.The notion of industrialization became a synonym for the notion of
mass production.The fully automatized factory could only operate efficiently
if it could produce huge numbers of self-similar copies.The initial formgiving tool is the major new component in such a process, thus also,
indirectly the final product.Wachsmanns modular coordination [9]
describes an order, based on a system, in which all components have a
clearly defined relation to each other. It tries to define one universal unit
categorized by geometries, tolerances, valuation and construction.This
order is, for him, the only way to guarantee reliable construction quality. It
also dictates a new relation between design and structure: he argued that
Industrial production cannot be abused as an excuse for realizing freely
designed conceptions. It can only be used as a direct cause for the
development provision of a product, which in a combination with the rest
provides the finalized form.

5.2 CAD/CAM:Techniques for Non Standard Constructions

Today, emerging CAD/CAM design and manufacturing technologies allow a
differentiated view of the assertions made above.The use of the computer in
the contemporary design process now appears to be merging design and
production into a shared environment that we might call firmware. Mass
fabrication and custom made production are unifying and becoming mass
customization.The use of structural simulation techniques and algorithmic
tools in an architectural process are decoupling the former limiting relation of
costs - quality - efficiency and the associated repetitive production processes

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 101
Structures using Digital Tools


Figure 19.Tree-Structure Canopy

(Photography by Eibe Snnecken).

this led to. Furthermore, novel digital manufacturing techniques allow

designers and architects to extend former boundaries of geometry and form.
Wachsmanns modular coordination is being replaced by the notion of
performance [12], which includes coordination of more than one parameter,
into a more complex balanced equilibrium system that is facilitated by the
new computational tools.The pre-digitized production criteria now appear
to many to be outdated and limiting. In their place, individualized structures,
as found in nature, are proving to achieve a greater degree of efficiency.
With the further spread of CAM technologies and rising cost of resources,
criticisms traditionally leveled at such structures, such as high production
cost and outlay, are fading away and wider adoption is becoming more
accepted as a norm.

102

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown

7. CONCLUSIONS
Looking back in the overall design and realization process of the TreeStructure canopy, it is apparent that the conventional design procedure
became naturally transformed into a collaborative virtual system, where
architects, engineers and manufacturers were linked together in a constantly
updated common flow of information.Typical architectural drawings, such as
sections, elevations and floor plans are losing their importance, because they
are unable to entirely describe complex geometrical structures. Meanwhile,
the role of interactive digital models is gaining in importance.Various CAD
file types and application formats such as DWG, IGES or STL are becoming
the common data currencies, that both define the building, and carry the
responsibility for efficient transmission of design information between the
actors.Thus, our understanding of advanced design, precision and structural
tolerance is being transformed.We can relate ideas and decisions directly to
the relevant requirements of each manufacturing machine.
These changes have a strong impact on a contemporary design and
construction process. For instance, because of the fabricators expertise in
determining planning and production tolerances, that fabricator gains more
responsibility for implementation planning and finalized product. However, the
question of the legal responsibility of the architect can become more complex
in such cases: can an architectural practice be legally responsible for
production drawings, which are increasingly dependent upon advice and
intervention from external agents?
On a technical level related to the Tree-Structure project described
here, the introduction of the screw-joint, used for assembling the different
branch unit, proved to be an efficient innovation, which could be used for a
wider spectrum of contemporary projects. It is a construction solution,
which, unlike the Mero knot separates the geometrical knot junction from
the actual assembly junction, allowing a flexible subdivision of units. Other
parameters such us the units weight or the size of the galvanization pools
could thus be made more optimal.
It is also essential to mention that the implementation of finite element
analysis simulation played a key role in the switch from a partly standardized
to a non standard structural system and geometry.The initial assumption,
that by reducing the number of individual frame and cushion units would
reduce the cost of construction proved to be irrelevant. On the contrary,
the structurally optimized, non-standard frames proved to be lighter, and
less expensive.The increased complexity related to the frames
manufacturing process was counteracted through the integrated, interactive,
parametric design environment linked to finite element analysis and
computer aided manufacture (CAM) systems.
It is becoming clear that Conrad Wachsmanns theses about the relation of
technology and architecture are more relevant than ever.We live in a time
when digital manufacturing technologies are revolutionizing the architectural

Tree-Structure Canopy: A Case Study in Design and Fabrication of Complex Steel 103
Structures using Digital Tools

practice and construction procedures.The transformation emerging goes

beyond morphological characteristics. It has an impact on the essential
procedures, on which architectural production had become based for decades.

Acknowledgements
The author wants to express sincere thanks the co designers Malte Just,Till
Burgeff, the lead structural engineer Viktor Wilhelm and the fabrication
company Rolfing.

References
1. Kloft H., Digital Manufacturing and Sustainability, in: Agkathidis A., Digital
Manufacturing in Design and Architecture, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010, p
130133.
2. Manhal M., Stavric M.,Wiltsche A., Ornamental Discretisation of Free-form
Surfaces, in International Journal of Architectural Computing, issue 04, volume 10,
December 2012, p596612.
3. Barkow F., Cut To Fit, in: Manufacturing Material Effects, Rethinking Design and
Making in Architecture, Kolarevic B., Routledge, New York and London, 2008,
p91102.
4. Thomsen M. R.,Tamke M. Nielsen J. R., Generating a scalar logic: producing the
its a small world, International Journal of Architectural Computing, issue 02.
volume 09, June 2011, p116131.
5. Otto F., Rasch B. Gestalt Finden: Auf dem Weg zu Einer Baukunst des Minimalen,
Edition Axel Menges, Fellbach, 1996.
6. Henriques G.C.,TetraScript: A responsive Pavilion, From Generative designe to
Automation, International Journal of Architectural Computing, issue 01. volume
10, March 2012, p88104.
7. Grimshaw N., Grimshaw: Architecture:The First 30 Years, Prestel Publishing,
London, 2011.
8. Kronenburg R., Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, Laurence King
Publishing, London, 2007.
9. Wachmann K., Burton T. E.,Wendepunkt im Bauen.The Turning Point of Building.
Structure and design, DVA, Munich 1962.
10. Phillips S., Guide to the Crystal Palace and Park (Crystal Palace Library Guides),
Euston Grove Press, London, 2008.
11. Graefe R., Gappoev M., Pertschi O.,Vladimir G. Suchov, Die Kunst Der
Sparsamen Konstruktionen, DVA, Munich, 1990.
12. Rahim A, Designing and Manufacturing Performative Architecture in: Kolarevic B,
Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing,Taylor & Francis, New
York, 2003.

School of Architecture The University of Liverpool

Liverpool L69 7ZN, UK
a3lab; [email protected]

104

Asterios Agkathidis and Andr Brown