Oops, well, my comment here was surely not offensive, self-acclamatory or self-congratulatory as you suggest it was; but opinionated surely, as without personal opinions there’d be no debate 
Design Issues and other design related publications are available through quite a few libraries actually; whether you’re a student or a professional, the subscription fee is fairly low, just about two to four high-street non-matinee movie tickets http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/order/default.asp?issn=0747-9360
As far as algorithmic morphology generation goes, I can’t help but critique this particular example that was thankfully posted here earlier, because it is a good exemplar for what happens when, as Hugh A-W writes - also in this intriguing book on architecture http://www.hughalderseywilliams.com/html/books_zoomorphic.html - pseudo-scientific write-ups are used to paper over the cracks of can-do designs - for the gloss of scientific validity.
Also, I believe that particularly plastics rapid prototyping, as promoted through ever so many algorithmic creation websites and blogs, is no panacea - see last year’s Wohlers Report http://wohlersassociates.com/ - and has many disadvantages in terms of economic, social and ecologic sustainability. I agree most happily that working manufacturable examples are indeed scarce and my point is that can-do-ism won’t help to alleviate that situation. But then, possibly, this may change as many non-profit and academic institutions are disseminating their knowledge, paving the way for us practicing designers and design educators to augment our design processes with useful algorithmic nature and mathematics derived means of form-finding…