Make Architecture



Hugg -Final project


Aim/main concept:

The idea was to make something using all that we had learned during the class. To identify a problem and solve it.  Therefore my main idea was to make something that would work as a solution and give an aesthetic feel.

Something Big, is how I started thinking about my final project. I wanted to make something that would enable me to feel the design in real. So i started designing an enclosed space and  play with  light.

I then decided to make a dome but still wasn’t quite satisfied.

So, finally i ended up doing a part of both i.e Hugg

It serves as a semi enclosed space and  plays with light too.  My design the hugg basically solves connection problems without using any other  joinery requirements such as bolts and screws. It  is concentrated on the snap fit connection joints. The structure is completely snap fit together.  Shows how large constructions can be made by using just wood.


My inspiration was the Zome which was made by Zomad (designer).  When i saw the pictures online while i was searching for wooden joints. The thing that interested me most were the joints/connections and the very next moment i wanted to build it. To see for myself how they work. So i studied it tried modelling it to the best of my understanding and of course i ended up changing most of it.

I Chose this design and CNC milling as my final project because using shopbot has been one of my best experiences and the whole process of milling interests me very much. My earlier works of class using shopbot are:-

yin-yang table cum shelf

two parts..

Molding machine

Materials needed:

  • Birch wood 1/2″ thick only!

Equipments used:

  • CNC shopbot machine
  • filers
  • chisel
  • hammer


The whole design was made by using Google- sketchup.  The plans were laid in Rhino and exported as Dxf’s into Partworks for CNC milling.

The file was prepared using  1/8″ end mill bit.

zomes ready2!-Model


Re-building/ re-designing the zome into hugg was a learning experience. The hug was a success to the most part.

lessons learned:

While designing the  hugg i assumed the offsets that worked earlier would work the same way in the structure but after milling, the joints became too tight and had to be sand and filled and at times even chiseled to make a perfect fit. To go about this a different kind of wood could be used for this purpose. The joints can also be modified to fit more easily and more efficiently.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Instructor: Nick Gelpi TA: Skylar Tibbits TA: Varvara Toulkeridou
Class Times, Monday, 1-4pm - room 5-216
4.184 is an intensive introduction to methods of making explored through a wide range of brief but focused 1-week exercises. We'll engage the real and leave behind representation in the focused context of this class gaining skills for utilizing a range of fabrication machines and technologies from lasercutting, waterjet, 3D printing, welding, formworking-molding, casting, gears, joints and composites.
In this workshop we'll constrain ourselves to the territory of the 1:1. Students will represent architectural constructions at full scale and develop a more intimate relationship with technology by engaging the tools and techniques that empower us. We will gain access to the most cutting edge machines and technologies in the MARS lab at the Center for Bits and Atoms.
The second layer of information for this course will be to look at a series of case studies in which construction methods and technologies have played a dominant role in the design process .
Over the past 20 years, architects have focused on the technology of representation to create new ideas of what architecture could be. Looking back today, much of that research failed to substantially change the way we design buildings by focusing on apriori formal configurations. This class makes the contention that this failure comes from a lack of considerations of the potentials within fabrication knowledge. We look to the future of what building might become, given the expanded palette of personalize-able technologies available to us as architects. Students will participate in curious technological and material investigations, to discover the potentials, known and unknown, for these various technologies.
The sub-disciplines of what's drawn and what's built have been compartmentalized and disassociated as the representational tools of architecture have distanced themselves from the techniques of making. At the same time the technologies for “making” in architecture have provided us with new possibilities for reinventing how we translate into reality, the immaterial representations of architecture.


%d bloggers like this: