We weren't so concerned with it being "nice" or "interesting", as you put it. What we really wanted was to end subjective, ambiguous debates at the design studio review board by seeing through, focusing on objective, quantifiable values, to bring undeniable functional and economic efficiency. The resulting form was actually aesthetically interesting, maybe because, as often in nature, an efficient, meaningul shape has its elegance.

I'm glad you like it. The problem is that these new, computational design tools make you re-evaluate your way of working, re-state your assumptions on what makes a good building design , in a much more precise, clear way, so you can't fully rely on traditional books on functional design standards.

I'll explain myself a lot better when I'll post some new, finished projects.