Exista probabil doua cuvinte care exprima capacitatea arhitecturii contemporane de imbogatire

a posibilitatilor de reprezentare si modelare a spatiului: fantezie si libertate si acestea sunt

conferite noii geometrii , tipologii si programe de grafica pe calculator
In the mind`s eye a fractal is a way of seeing infinity

Capitolul 1. Introducere
Capitolul 2. Fractali
2.1 Definirea Fractalilor
2.2 Conceptul de Fractal
2.3 Tipologia Fractalilor
2.4 Dimensiunea Fractala
2.5 Infinitatea ca parte a vietii
Capitolul 3. Geometria Fractala in Arhitectura
3.1 Definirea geometriei fractale
3.2 Prezenta fractalilor in Arhitectura
3.3 Robbie House- Frank L.Loyd Wright
3.4 Antonio Gaudi - Sagrada Familia
3.5 Metodologia arhitecturii fractale.Water Cube
Capitolul 4. Sustenabilitate si Arhitectura Fractala
4.1 Evolutia conceptului de sustenabilitate
4.2 Prototipuri ale designului sustenabil
Capitolul 5. Orase Fractale
5.1 New Delphi plan
Capitolul 6. Arhitectura generata pe calculator
6.1 Algoritumul in arhitectura
6.2 Arhitectura parametrica si fractali
Capitolul 7. Concluzii

The main intention of my research is to increase the knowledge and understanding

of natures fractal phenomena and forms, and try to apply the results for a better
comprehension of human and social behaviour and to the architectural design.

For

more than two decades an intricate and contradictory

relationship has existed between architecture and the sciences of
complexity. While the nature of this relationship has shifted and

changed throughout that time a common point of connection has

been fractal geometry. Both architects and mathematicians have
each offered definitions of what might, or might not, constitute
fractal architecture. Curiously, there are few similarities between
architects' and mathematicians' definitions of "fractal architecture".
There are also very few signs of recognition that the other side's
opinion exists at all. Practising architects have largely ignored the
views of mathematicians concerning the built environment and
conversely mathematicians have failed to recognise the quite
lengthy history of architects appropriating and using fractal
geometry in their designs. Even scholars working on concepts
derived from both architecture and mathematics seem unaware of
the large number of contemporary designs produced in response to
fractal geometry or the extensive record of contemporary writings
on the topic. The present paper begins to address this lacuna.
This paper focuses primarily on architectural appropriations of
fractal geometry to briefly describe more than twenty years of
"fractal architecture" and to identify key trends or shifts in the
development, acceptance and rejection of this concept. The aim of
this paper is to provide an overview for both architects and
mathematicians of the rise and fall of fractal architecture in the late
twentieth
century.
The present paper has three clear limitations or provisions which
define its extent and approach. Firstly, it does not question the
validity of any specific claims from either architects or
mathematicians even though there is evidence to suggest that
claims made by both sides are debatable.[1] Secondly, the paper is
concerned only with conscious attempts to use fractal geometry to
create architecture. A number of prominent examples of historic
buildings which exhibit fractal forms have been proposed by both
architects and mathematicians. For the purposes of this paper these
proposed fractal buildings, including various Medieval castles,
Baroque churches, Hindu temples and works of Frank Lloyd Wright
or Louis Sullivan, are not considered to be a consciously created
fractal designs even if they display an intuitive grasp of fractal
geometry. For this reason, the origins of conscious fractal
architecture cannot have occurred until after fractal geometry was
formalised by Benoit Mandelbrot in the late 1970s even though
Georg Cantor, Guiseppe Peano, David Hilbert, Helge von Koch,
Waclaw Sierpinski, Gaston Julia and Felix Hausdorff had all studied
aberrant or mathematically "monstrous" concepts which are clear

precursors to fractal geometry. A final provision for this paper is

concerned with the relationship between fractal geometry and the
sciences of complexity. While mathematicians and scholars have
valued fractal geometry in its own right, architects have generally
valued it more for its connection to Chaos Theory and Complexity
Science. This is because contemporary architects, like many historic
architects, have little interest in geometry or mathematics per se,
but value geometry for its ability to provide a symbolic, metaphoric,
or tropic connection to something else. Thus, for modern architects
fractal geometry provides a connection to nature or the cosmos as
well as a recognition of the global paradigm shift away from the
views of Newton and Laplace. For this reason, the vast majority of
architects mentioned in this paper view fractal geometry as an
integral part of, or sign for, Chaos Theory and Complexity Science.
Arhitectii apeleaza astazi la calculator si la modele matematice din sfera noilor teorii, dezvoltand
si o arhitectura organica care nu imita aspectele din natura prin decorul ei, ci reflecta ciclul
fundamental al vietii.Stiinta, matematica si tehnologia vin in ajutorul arhitectilor pentru a
construi o noua dimensiune a creatiilor arhitectonice, in accord cu noua viziune asupra lumii
adusa de teoriile moderne din stiinta
Evolutia dinamicii non liniare au dezvoltat modul de gandire al arhitectilor dincolo de formele de
baza ale geometriei euclidiene ,precum liniile,patratele sau cercurile.La inceputul secolului XX
au fost descoperite noi structure matematice, car ein acelasi timp erau vazute si ca exceptii si nu
se incadrau in tiparele lui Newton sau Euclid.
Fractal geometry, a branch of mathematics developed in 1970s [Mandelbrot 1975,
1984, Edgar 1993] studies abstract configurations characterised by self-similarity
patterns and recursive growth [Mandelbrot 1984]. Fractal objects show the
properties of being exactly or nearly the same at every progressive scale. From the
mathematical point of view, fractal objects are sets that have fractional dimension,
so that they are intermediate objects between one and two dimensional shapes (as
lines and surfaces) or two and three dimensional forms (as surfaces and
solids) [Batty 1985, Falconer 2003]. Recently, thanks to the development of
advanced computers, the domain of fractal geometry applications has covered a
wide set of scientific discipline, ranging from mathematics [Berkowitz 1998], natural
sciences , pure and applied sciences , biology and, to engineering and architecture.
Fractal geometry is specifically used as theoretical as well as technical tools for the
analysis, interpretation and description of complex, natural and human phenomena,
where continuous or Euclidean geometry are failed to describe.
For many centuries, a variety of natures forms, which in many cases present fractal
geometry in their structural appearance, such as trees, cells, crystals etc., have
been creatively used by architects and engineers in projects like shells, light-weight
structures, arcs, tents and bridges. In the past, several technical ways were
exercised to connect fractal concepts with architecture by the method based on

physical modelling process. But, nowadays, a procedural generative approach based

on a composition of mathematical functions can be practiced by using the
advantages of contemporary computer technology for connecting the fractal
concept with architecture (e.g., Federation Square, Storey Hall in Melbourne;
etc.) [Huylebrouck & Hammer 2006].

Architectural renderings commonly show projections onto three mutually perpendicular planes,
or consist of cross sections at different altitudes capable of being stacked and representing
different floor plans. Such renderings make it difficult to imagine buildings comprising ramps
and other features which disguise the separation between floors, and consequently limit the
creative process of the architect. Analogously, we tend to analyze natural structures as if nature
had used similar stacked renderings, rather than, for instance, a system of packed spheres, with
the result that we fail to perceive the system of organization determining the form of such
structures.
Perception is a complex process. Our senses record; they are analogous to audio or video
devices. We cannot, however, claim that such devices perceive. Perception involves more than
meets the eye: it involves processing and organization of recorded data. When we name an
object, we actually name a concept: such words as octahedron, collage, tessellation, dome, each
designate a wide variety of objects sharing certain characteristics.