From the re-fabrication and geometrical understanding of the Fly’s Eye Dome, our critique of Fuller’s design comes under two categories. First is its limited thickness which results from using only one geodesic sphere with one level of frequency. And second, is the lack of resolution and intention in how the Fly’s Eye Dome engages the ground surface as well as the utilitarian nature of the dome in the architectural play of form and light. Hence, our interest lays in the interaction between multiple geodesic spheres, at different levels of frequencies, as a method to generate thickness which can both, enhance the structural performance of the dome, as well as provide more control of the interior lighting thus enhancing the affect inside the dome. Lastly, through the use of planar surfaces would result in a dome that is easy to fabricate and structurally stable.
.
Understanding the geodesic dome as a link of a ‘two’ and ‘four’ level subdivision through planar surfaces. The planar surfaces are then offset towards the center generating structural ‘boxes’ these boxes are then linked together to generate a tree piece module. The boxes diffuse light to the interior of the dome.
.
.A parametric model was developed to understand the distinct affects generated by the varying parameters of the discretized module.
.This replica of Buckminster Fuller's Fly's Eye Dome was fabricated using CNC wooden molds and vacuum-formed styrene.
.
