Unit vs. Object

The topic of object vs. unit was brought up during our last presentation and after thinking about it, I came to the realization that my workflow had a dichotomy of the two subjects embedded into it. What I mean by that is my building generation was operating on both scales and were often contrasting or informing one another. On the scale of the unit, I was always considering how it would stack vertically and its restriction to a bounding box. And on the scale of the object, I was always considering the limitations of the unit as a reference for generating iterations of mass.

Although the unit is the primary driver, I believe that working on both scales, without one dominating the other, can inform one another and produce peculiar results.

These are some samples of how I have been aggregating the unit structure on the scale of the object.

By testing on the scale of the object, it is much easier to produce multiple results with more variation while understanding how the unit system could be applied to these moves.

Ultimately the process is the same, whether being operated with the actual unit geometry at a high resolution, or with a more monolithic, low resolution object. Therefore, the workflow on the scale of the object can be mimicked or reapplied to the unit aggregate.

Current Method:
Divide tower mass into four slender tower units (roughly the size of a unit type)
Perform deformations on a single slender tower, that respond parametrically onto the others.
Deformations include Mirror, Twist, Lattice, Bend
All deformations are capable of being active at the same time, giving a diversity of solutions