PORTFOLIO 2020 by Anna Hargan

A position of enraptured being...

DESIGN PORTFOLIO ... to embody the place with a sense of space delegated by the fluctuation of form brought on by the existing ... connections between one point to another brought on through transitions to create a familiar illusion of the forvever moving pace.

RESUME ANNA HARGAN + 119 DANA WAY + VINE GROVE + KENTUCKY, 40175 + 270.872.8991 + HARGANAK@MAIL.UC.EDU + PORTFOLIO : https://issuu.com/annahargan

ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

2016-20

cincinnati, ohio

KENTUCKY GOVERNOR’S SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS danville, kentucky

2015

Centre College + Three Week Summer School : Architecture & Design + Taught by Jordan Hines Professor at UKCoD | Mark Richards Architect

EXPERIENCE andrew TETRAULT & federica von EUW

cincinnati, ohio

2019-20

Commercial & Residential + Part Time : Fall | Spring

MICHAEL MCINTURF ARCHITECTS

cincinnati, ohio

2019

Commercial & Residential + 3rd UC COOP : Summer

WIMBERLEY ALLISON TONG & GOO irvine, california

2018

Hospitality & Resorts + 1st & 2nd UC COOP : Spring | Fall

ROBERT EHMET HAYES & ASSOCIATES

ft. mitchell, kentucky

2017

Education & Liturgical + Independent COOP : Summer Intern

NOLIN RIVER ART STUDIO

glendale, kentucky

Art Lessons & Art Camps + Artist Assistant & Instructor

INVOLVEMENT Undergraduate Research Assistant : Joori Suh

+ People to People Student Ambassador Program: United Kingdom

2014-17

ARCHITECTURE

INTO THE NEST.......................1 + OHIO CANYON......................13 + GREENHILLS..........................23 + ROW HOUSE..........................29 + MASHRABIYA.........................35 + PROJECT GREEN..................39 + POETRY FOUNDATION.........43

ART

CONTENT

INTO THE NEST SPRING SEMESTER 2020 + WHITNEY HAMAKER + NORTHSIDE + OHIO + A look into the soon to be published Into the Nest, a book detailing the projects and findings from its corresponding research studio. Showcasing my individual project and its contributions to the studio and research overall.

ROOFLINE

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

FAMILY

GABLE

MASONRY

PASSIVE SOLAR

STORAGE

NONE

PRIVATE

AGE-IN-PLACE

MANSARD

STICK

SUPER INSUL

FIREPLACE

ADA

LIVE/WORK

BUTTERFLY

WATER MGMT

PORCH

VISITABLE

MULTI-GEN

FLAT

GARAGE

STARTER

SHED

DECK

ACCESIBILITY

OCCUPANCY TYPE

PUBLIC

COMPONENTS

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

HOW IT WORKS

The process of this studio came about from our analysis of the past two studios work. The matrixes generated from their line of work inspired us to take a new approach. Our understanding of what constraints were necessary and unecessary for further research was discussed early on. Our Matrix presented a new idea of distribution of these selected constraints. Operating in a lottery like fashion, students drew numbers from a mug off one of the desks in the studio. It wouldve been a draw from a hat situation, but no one wears hats in the studio. This process can be understood as that of a slot machine. Having eight categories of constraints, there were eight potential slots to spin, eight "Price is Right" wheels in a row. With fifteen students came fifteen outcomes, each containing at least one constraint from each group for optimum breadth of research. These fifteen outcomes can be better known as the Fifteen Houses. The Round 01 of their development strictly enforced the use of the original eight constraints given to each student during the lottery. Round 02 allowed students to add or subtract constraints from their original eight, however, they still had to use at least one constraint from each category at all times.

CO-HOUSING

STUDIO DYNAMIC The diagram to the left illustrates the slot machine like operation of our constraint distribution process. As you can see, there are several combinations that can occur from this practice. The numbers and statistics can be seen on the following pages. Although our studio wasn't able to explore each unique set of eight constraint options, we were able to explore each constraint from each group. Further research would allow us to explore more pairings of constraints and their compatibility.

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

ROOFLINE

•The categories of Occupancy Type, Sustainable Strategies, and Components were not given a limit on the ammount of constraints students could chose to implicate in their design. •The initial constraint option of None from the category Accessibility was eliminated. Designs from there on must either be Visitable or ADA.

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

The Timeline diagram illustrated on the next couple pages shows our process as a studio with these constraints. The initial designs from Fifteen Houses included Round 01 and Round 02. Round 01 proved beneficial in initial research of the various constraints. In Round 02 students were given freedom to add or subtract constraints of their choice. A couple of general rules were set when given this freedom:

From these two Rounds students were asked to give their opinions on the relationships between each constraint they were given in Round 01. This allowed for further research into what constraint combinations are ideal, unthreatening, or unfavorable. This research has allowed us to understand what design constraints to use together when designing with housing in mind for the future. After Fifteen Houses came the selection of Five Houses. This selection was of the designs that would be presented to NEST in hope of their approval to become one of the two designs chosen to be further developed. Five Houses focused one strengthening the main constraints that had driven their design in the earlier phases. The favorability or unfavorability of these constraints were judged by NEST. Their opinions contributed to our overall research of the constraints and assisted in the development of the Two Teams selected to continue. Two Teams is the last phase of this studio, where the two deisgns selected are developed, documented, and adjusted for each individual site.

PULL TO START

HOW IT WORKS

This Master Dot chart compiles the input from each student and their understanding of the consraints they received during the Lottery--distribution of constraints. There are four categories as specified in the legend below. Most Compatible means that the student believed that a specific constraint pairing allowed for favorable deisgn results. Favorable, in this case, meaning their pairing gave a sense of harmony in the overall design. This harmony may include applicability, affordability, and adjustability: •Applicability meaning is the pair relevant or appropriate to the goals of the project. •Affordability meaning is the pair the best option for generating an affordable design. •Adjustability meaning is the pair flexible enough to be modified to the appropriate standards. The Neutral Category represents those pairings that do not pose any overwhelmingly positive or negative effects to the overall design. Least Compatible means the pairing isn't favorable towards the outcome of the design. Pairings in this category oppose the ideas of harmony mentioned above: Applicability, Affordability, Adjustability. The Void category are those areas on the chart that were not used in the designs due to the amount of students and constraints distributed at the time.

VOID LEAST COMPATIBLE NEUTRAL MOST COMPATIBLE

*my graphic and research work from INTO THE NEST ARCH 4002 ARCH STUDIO IIII SPRING 2020

This studio was the final out of three consecutive studios with intentions to produce a book. Being on the book team first hand, I was responsible for a majority of the graphic work, layouts, and the statistics which have driven the overall conclusion of this third pass at the studio.

CRUNCHING NUMBERS

45 45

The graph to the left represents the amount of pairings per category of Most Compatible, Neutral, Least Compatible, and Void. This graph reveals the relationships between each constraint and just how compatible each relationship handles itself according to the opinion of those who applied them in their overall design. The total results per category given by the students are tallied and displayed for each constraint.

38 15

01 01 08 01

07 04 06 04

02 05 02 06

04 08 05 03

06 07 04 08

05 03 07 07

03 06 03 02

08 02 01 05 ACCESSIBILITY

With Neutral just slightly greater than Least Compatibility, these categories have the highest amount of results out of the four. These results are helpful in finding what pairings pose no threat to eachother and what pairings to avoid when designing. Charts prior to this page will reveal why certain constraints had more Neutral or Least Compatibility tallies.

COMPONENTS

ROOFLINE

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

SITE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

The Most Compatible category has the least number of results. Charts prior to this page will disect this category to see why certain constraints were voted most compatible.

Last but not least, the Void category comes second in number of results. This results from the amount of students to constraint pairings in this particular studio. These pairings were not explored and teh remaining Void pairings tell us how much more can be studied in the future to contribute to the existing findings from this practice. Charts prior to this page show what constraints have more pairings left without a design to study them. The Compatibility categories, distinguishable by color, are ranked below the chart from greatest to least ammount of results. In the category of Most Compatible, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater ammount of successful pairings and a lower ranking means a lesser ammount of successful pairings. With the Neutral category, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater amount of nonthreatening pairings and a low ranking means a lesser ammount of nonthreatening pairings. For the Least Compatible category, we can assume that a higher ranking means a greater ammount of unsuccessful pairings and a lower ranking means a lesser ammount of unsuccessful pairings. And finally, in the category of Void, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater ammount of pairings left not studied and a lower ranking means most pairings have been studied.

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

DOT CHARTS

This section of the chart highlights Attitude Towards the Street. The chart is more dense near the bottom of the chart where the constraint Components intersects. Taking a closer look at this area, the Components of Garage and Deck have the greatest compatibility with Private Attitude Towards the Street. Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses: •Components has the best relationship with Attitude Towards the Street. •Occupancy Type and Roofline have little to no relationship with Attitude Towards Street. •Garage and Deck pair well with Private Attitude Towards the Street. •Masonry is most compatible with Private Attitude Towards Street. •Super Insulation is most compatible with Private Attitude Towards Street.

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

SITE

•Components and Attitude Towards the Street have the best relationship with Site. •Occupancy Type and Roofline have little to no relationship with Site. •Garage and Deck pair well with Site 01, 02, 03, and 04. •Site 04 is ideal for Passive Solar. •Infill sites pair well with Private Attitude Towards the Street. •Corner sites pair well with Public Attitude Towards the Street. •Site 01 and 02 work well with ADA Accessibility.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

This section of the chart highlights Site. At first glance we can note that the chart is more dense near the bottom where the constraint Components intersects. Taking a closer look at this area, the Components of Garage and Deck have the greatest compatibility with Sites 01, 02, 03, and 04. Moving up the chart, Attitude Towards the Street is the second densest area. Site and Attitude Towards the Street have a significant relationship. The corner Sites 01 and 04, with exception of Site 05, have an easier approach to having a Public Attitude Towards the Street. The infill Sites 02 and 03 are able to be have a more Private Attitude Towards the Street.

DOT CHARTS

LEAST COMPATIBLE

ROOFLINE CONSTRUCTION TYPE SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES COMPONENTS LEAST COMPATIBLE NEUTRAL

ACCESSIBILITY

The statistics portion that I was responsible for, included a look at the past matrixes produced from the past two studios. This practice included gaining votes on the constraint pairings from each student. Votes were made on the compatibility of each individual constraint pair.

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

NEUTRAL

MOST COMPATIBLE

CONCLUSIONS The Dot Chart to the left represents the overall compatibility between constraint groups. The votes from students were tallied up and the results show each group pairings strongest level of compatibility. This tells us how uncompatible or how uncompatible these constraint groups are to one another. As you can see from the chart, there are only four constraint groups that had a greater ammount of tallies in the Most Compatible category:

SITE + COMPONENTS SITE + ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET + COMPONENTS OCCUPANCY TYPE + ACCESSIBILITY Simplifying the four results above leave us with this relationship:

SITE + ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET + COMPONENTS OCCUPANCY TYPE + ACCESSIBILITY Site, Attitude Towards the Street, and Components have the strongest bond and impact on eachother when designing. Before choosing an Attitude Towards the Street or Components, Site must first be established. This simplification makes sense during the design process but it is hard to see the toll of the relationship without spelling it out physically like done so above. This just proves what we are taught about the significance of Site in a design. What Site allows for Attitude Towards the Street and Components all depends on the limitations and advantages of the Site. Occupancy Type and Accessibility also makes sense as a compatible pair, as one relies upon the other in order to make essential design decisions. An understanding of who the anticipated Occupant Type might be is necessary in defining Accessibility in a design.

MOST COMPATIBLE

DOT CHARTS

ROUND 2

LOT 2 PRIVATE FAMILY GABLE STICK BUILD WATER MGMT GARAGE VISITABLE

A second iteration of this project included addressing the parking options for off-street parking. Most areas in Northside have onstreet parking so diving into that constraint was useful in addressing ways to integrate off-street parking, paved parking and garage parking.

BEDROOM VS. STUDIO

BASEMENT

The neighborhood of Northside is slowly being developed. It was the goal of this studio to explore affordability without losing that certain sense of design. This project illustrates a seemingly simple exterior and a unique interior. The program on the inside drives the design.

OHIO CANYON NATIONAL RESEARCH RESERVE FALL SEMESTER 2019 + HEATHER BIZON + CINCINNATI + OHIO + A final iteration in a series of projects focused on the evolving identity of the city of Cincinnati. An "American Mashup" developed to illustrate the social + built environments of a futuristic natural boundary.

Studying the sequence of space within the realm of emotional state of being. In the same way, developing a community hub for all things "Poetry Foundation" to provide a multi-funtioning space + community involvement + asthetic response to the site. Allowing all types of people to feel the senses of art + poetry.

EDIT

A theory involving pollution + acid rain+ flooding + contamination resulting in the disappearance and recession of the Ohio River. This work focuses on environmental extremes at natural boundaries + its effect on Cincinnatiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s riverfront edge condition.

Illustrating two perspectives, researcher + Cincinnatian, to represent a futuristic harmony of danger + comfort. As the environment evolves, the way people adapt socially + mentally will shift. When social cognition shifts the built environment will follow.

research

public

public research

research

public

research

public

research

public

4.5.t

~24.a

~250 a.a.

e.e.

4.b

~83.6

***

8.9 8.6 8.2

~50

31--

6.2

~20

6.1

7.a

130--

a--

~20 ~24.a **

75-q

*** 4.5.t 3--a 2.1.3

18.0--

63-q 1.2

1.4 p--

1.6

GREENHILLS SPRING SEMESTER 2019 + ANDREW TETRAULT + GREENHILLS + OHIO + A studio based on research of this Greenbelt town -history + structure + systems- and the application of future developments in the node of residential progression.

STUDIO + 1 BEDROOM + 2 BEDROOM + 3 BEDROOM + 4 BEDROOM

A coexsistence of nature + commercial. A passage. An area deemed comic relief in a place of formality + tradition. A shift from tradition to better induce green integration. A blanket, a mirror of the land. The elevation change perpetuated in form to emphasize the land + views + function. A revolution for a place without evolution.

ROWHOUSE SPRING SEMESTER 2019 + ANDREW TETRAULT + COVINGTON + KENTUCKY + A precedent study + analysis of programmatic qualities for future, similar application on a local site. A prequel to the Greenhills project in its residential applications.

The Sharifi-Ha House. Organizational as spatial in public to private social place. Centralization in circulation as a system of natural, accesible flow. Adaptability in kinetics in respondance to the natural light. In kinetics, allowing for moments of spatial adjustability + program. Social dynamics arrive within vertical space.

*work from Housing Research: A Manual of Interpersonal Spatiality ARCH 3001 ARCH STUDIO III SPRING 2019

MASHRABIYA FALL SEMESTER 2017 + MARA MARCU + DIGITAL REALM + A digital communication skills exercise structured around the concept of evolution of a simple mashrabiya screen pattern into an elaborate physical structure.

A morphology beginning with a simple shape. Addition + addition + addition. Stretch + skew + penetrate. Object + project + subtract. Response + response + response. As much as a practice in development as in perspective. Seeing the two dimensional in what way it feels in three dimensionality. Fabrication + observation.

PROJECT GREEN SPRING SEMESTER 2019 + VIRGINIA RUSSEL + ELIZABETHTOWN + KENTUCKY + A horticulture class project propsed for Elizabethtown High School with a collection of research on the historical structure + enviornmental region + biophilic application.

Research + academic expertise on the implications of a green roof, as a specific study for this facility. Analyzing the qualifications of a green roof for this region + building. Integrating school use for education as well as community involvement to maintain + facilitate a stronger community connection + sustanability.

POETRY FOUNDATION FALL SEMESTER 2017 + JOORI SUH + CINCINNATI + OHIO + A two part studio : a study on poetic movement in its relation to sequence of space + composing a Poetry Foundation in the Over the Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati.

ART 2016-2019 + ANNA HARGAN + A brief collection of day-dreaming doodles + illustrations. It is the heart of my imagination which defines my creative dynamic.

ANNA HARGAN

+ 119 DANA WAY + VINE GROVE + KENTUCKY, 40175 + 270.872.8991 + HARGANAK@MAIL.UC.EDU + PORTFOLIO : https://issuu.com/annahargan