ANTHONY VISCHANSKY A R C H I T E C T U R E P OR T F OL I O 2 0 1 6
ANTHONY VISCHANSKY
EDUCATION
348 W. Thurston St. Elmira, NY 607.207.69 5 4 avischansky@gmail.com
Pennsylvania State University Master of Architecture
2016
Pantheon Institute- Rome, Italy Architectural Studies
May 2015 - June 2015
Alfred State SUNY College of Technology Bachelor of Science in Architectural Technology- 3.86 GPA
WORK EXPERIENCE
2013
Johnson-Schmidt & Associates Architects Intern Examined and documented existing conditions in historic structures, produced Revit models of existing buildings, and schematic design for adaptive reuse projects: mixed-use, residential, and commercial
May 2013 - Aug. 2013 May 2014 - Aug. 2014
Penn State Graduate School Graduate Teaching Assistant Working with Profs. Nida Rehman and Katie Endresen, I grade assignments, meet with students, and answer questions in an introductory architecture and urbanism course, Architecture and Ideas (ARCH100)
Aug. 2013 - Present
Hajjar Air Wall Building Research Research Assistant Construction of Revit and physical models of an experimental building on the Penn State campus by A. William Hajjar, one of the first double-skin buildings
Sept 2015 - Present
Embrace Design Group Visualization Consultant Production of architectural renderings for a variety of clients
July 2015 - Present
Alfred State Tutoring Services Peer tutor Structural Design courses, studio, and Photoshop
HONORS
QUALIFICATIONS
Sept. 2012 - May 2013
John Stewardson Memorial Fellowship in Architecture, Penn State Finalist- One of five finalists chosen by Penn State architecture faculty, representing the school in a competition to design a Syrian refugee girl’s school. Participants include graduating BArch students, MArch students, and recent graduates from six Pennsylvania architecture schools.
January 2016
Alfred State Senior Thesis Finalist- A jury consisting of Alfred State architecture faculty chose the Chemung Valley Awareness Center senior thesis as runner-up in my class.
May 2013
Bath, New York Master Plan- My studio won a competition between three senior studios of 14 students each, where a master plan proposal for the village of Bath, New York was presented to community residents, the mayor, and practicing professionals in the field.
Oct. - Nov. 2012
Appalachian Teaching Project- Chosen alongside five other students to represent Alfred State at a conference in Washington, D.C. where I presented our studio’s Bath master plan in front of 14 other colleges and universities. The goal of the conference was to develop students’ leadership skills,awareness of community assets that foster sustainability, and their involvement in related regional projects.
Nov . 30 - Dec. 1, 2012
Revit AutoCAD Rhino Grasshopper SketchUp
Photoshop Illustrator InDesign
Microsoft Office ArcGIS QGIS Climate Consultant Google Earth Pro
Sketching Model-Building Laser Cutting CNC Fabrication 3D Printing
CONTENTS
37
53
03
27
51 15
47
CHEMUNG VALLEY AWARENESS CENTER
Elmira, New York
RAYSTOWN LAKE RESORT Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
PITTSBURGH ARTS CENTER
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
VIA GIULIA ROMAN MUSEUM
Rome, Italy
HAJJAR AIR WALL RESEARCH BUILDING State College, Pennsylvania
SYRIAN REFUGEE SCHOOL
Al-Zaatari Refugee Camp, Jordan
SUPERSUBURBAN
Detroit, Michigan
CHEMUNG VALLEY AWARENESS CENTER ELMIRA, NEW YORK Spring 2013 Professor - David Carli The Chemung River, located in New York’s Southern Tier, is an outstanding natural resource which provides limitless opportunities for surrounding communities, not only on the river, but adjacent to it as well. The river is not only conducive to outdoor recreational activities such as fishing, kayaking, and hiking, but is an important catalyst for urban development. However, most bordering towns fail to take advantage of this natural resource, particularly Elmira, NY, the largest municipality on the Chemung. The City of Elmira suffers from numerous social and economic issues: a declining population, a high impoverished population, and one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The downtown area also contains an insufficient amount of storefront businesses and residences. In 1972, Elmira and numerous surrounding communities were devastated by a flood caused by Hurricane Agnes, which pushed the Chemung over its walls and into downtown. Entire blocks of buildings were demolished in the following years due to flood damage, thus the shortage of downtown storefronts and housing. Despite being geographically split in half by the river, the city and river fail to share any sort of connection. Mark Twain Riverfront Park, which stretches for about four blocks through downtown, is the closest to any sort of link to the water. Despite the name implications, the park provides almost no views to the water, let alone access. Because Elmira lacks a connection to the river, thousands of people are missing out on the opportunity to take full advantage of the waterway. Fishing, kayaking, hiking, and biking are just a few activities that the river and the surrounding area provides but are not capitalized on. Although not everyone is interested in outdoor activities, many are simply unaware of the opportunities which lie in their own backyard. Ever since the flood, both Elmira and the Chemung River have developed an undesirable image in the area. Many Elmira residents, particularly those that have lived there all their lives, even have a negative attitude toward the river. Some think it is dangerous and unclean, and this ignorance is what is truly hurting the river’s potential. Adding to this the social issues of an uneducated and impoverished population, along with very few downtown businesses and residences, it is no wonder the city is looked at in an unfavorable light. To attempt to address and resolve Elmira’s many issues, the construction of a multi-use complex adjacent to the river on Mark Twain Riverfront Park is proposed. The building will serve several purposes, each relating to and addressing a particular community issue. The biggest goal which the project will attempt to accomplish is to attract people to return to the struggling downtown area by using the river as a focal point. The building and site will work together in finally connecting the city to the water both visually and physically. 03
04
03
04
HISTORIC MASSING
RATIONALIZED MASSING
PARTS OF THE WHOLE
VISUAL CONNECTION
FLIP DENSITY
PHYSICAL CONNECTION
VEGETATE + POPULATE
GATEWAY SIGNAGE
EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
05
06
13
13
12
13
13 13
12 12
3
13
13
13
13
13 13
13
13
11 12 13
4
RESIDENTIAL II
13
13
11
13
13 13
13
12
13 12
12
13
3
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
12 13 11
13
13
RESIDENTIAL I
1 2 3 4 5 6
Retail Outfitter / Rental Atrium Administration Classroom Storage
7 8 9 10C 10E 10V
Temporary Gallery Orientation Conference Gallery: Corning Gallery: Elmira Gallery: The Valley
10H 10K 10A 11 12 13
3
History Gallery Children’s Area Aquarium 2-Bedroom Apartment 1-Bedroom Apartment Studio Apartment
10K
5
10A
10V
10E
3
4
10C
5
5
10H
9
8
7 7 5
5
6
EDUCATION FLOOR
2
5
1 1
4
1
3 1 1
1
1
2
1
RETAIL FLOOR
0
8 16
32
1
64
07
08
09
10
11
12
VERT CIRCULATION
RETAIL
EDUCATION
HORIZ CIRCULATION
ADMINISTRATION
RESIDENTIAL
13
14
RAYSTOWN LAKE RESORT HUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA Fall 2014 Professor - Rebecca Henn The building is intended to be an artifact, discovered at the terminus of a long path of varying slope and directionality. From the lake, the building is understood as an evident human intervention, emerging as an imposing edifice, yet giving scale to the homogeneity of the terrain through architectural constructs: exterior stairs and indications of guest rooms, through a series of punctures in the facade. On site, the monumentality of the gesture is scaled back, providing views over the building and up the valley. Guests are drawn effortlessly down into the building, using the steep slope to assist in the progression, towards a vertical panoramic view of the lake. The project makes the argument that the passerby’s peripheral encounter is as valuable as the user’s spatial experience. The project began by using language prompts to inform aesthetics, as well as a series of provocative images. Words like “artifact, ”fragment”, and “discovery” became key terms to shape the building through multiple iterations of massing models. Students created initial conceptual models and then inherited another student’s project, in which they would impose their own design sensibilities on. We then created an additional conceptual model which was a product of this cross-pollinization of ideas.
15
16
17
18
GUEST ROOMS RESTAURANT 1 RESTAURANT 2 MECHANICAL OUTDOOR
4
3
2
1
0 5 GUEST ROOMS
1010’ RAMP SLAB ON GRADE RAMP SLAB ON TO ROOF (1:12, 1005’ - 1010’) GRADE TO ROOF (1:12, 1005’ - 1010’)
W12 (TYP.) W12 (TYP)
W24 (TYP.) W24 (TYP) 1115 TRUSS MONO TRUSS ONONMONO W24 W24 W/ CLERESTORY W/ CLERESTORY (TYP.) W24 (TYP.) W24 (TYP)
LINE ABOVE ROOF LINEROOFABOVE
2 2 2
RR
33
3 MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 2 EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 223” STAIR WIDTH: N/A
100
RR
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 2 EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48” STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 48”
33
SLAB ONON GRADE ‘ROOF’ ROOF SLAB (1010’-0”) GRADE (1010’-0”) 8
6
400
2
80 2 2 2
2
W24 (TYP.) W24 (TYP)
3
2 2 2 2 4
2 3
115
5
2
75 MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 3 EGRESS WIDTH: 148” > 127” STAIR WIDTH: 96” > 95”
125
5
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 2 EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48” STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 61”
2
W24 (TYP.) W24 (TYP)
2
W24 (TYP) W24 (TYP.)
2 2 2 2 2 3
44
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 2 EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48” STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
11
10
44
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 2 EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48” STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
11
W24 (TYP.) W24 (TYP)
PITS ELEVATORELEVATOR PITS
EGRESS
G G
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’ AREAS OF REFUGE: 3 EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 48” STAIR WIDTH: 102” > 48”
160
STRUCTURE
G G
SLAB ON GRADE SLAB ON GRADE
19 0
8
16
32
64
128
0
8
16
32
64
20 128
21
22
GUEST ROOMS
FENESTRATION
OUTDOOR GATHERING
SUPPORT SPACE
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
INDOOR GATHERING
25
26
PITTSBURGH ARTS CENTER PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA Spring 2015 Professor - Ute Poerschke The project is inspired by the Strip District's status as a hub for the delivery of goods, particularly produce. Instead of a distribution center for food, the art center engages the neighborhood as a hub for art, using the delivery of an exhibit module which is plugged in to the museum via gantry crane and other industrial devices. The building's aesthetic recognizes Pittsburgh's rich manufacturing history and represents a merging of machine-age and new media thinking. Historically, the Strip districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development has been marked by increased density and massiveness along its main corridors, especially Penn Ave. Blocks of attached storefronts and warehouses soon replaced standalone buildings, and these structures were often added to haphazardly in the rear of the property along the alley. This created a distinct separation of permanence and temporary. The Art Center reflects this notion of an enduring streetfront and ever-changing rear. The theatrics of the machine provide a spectacle in itself to pedestrians and museum-goers alike. The crane provides all the standard equipment of a traditional fly tower, but allows each actâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s backstage to be imported in the same manner as the exhibits- from freight to museum, truck to performance.
27
28
28
19 14
25
15
20
1882 7
8
9
10
11
12
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
1900
28
26
27
3
FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
17 14
15
23
13 13
23 1
2
3
4
5
6
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1957
1-12 13 14 15 16 17 2015
16
18
13
1923
Container Exhibits Seminar Rooms Exhibit Lobby Auditorium Lobby Cafe Computer Lab
5
18 19 20 21 22 23
Music Studio Library Workshop Offices Storage Locker Rooms
24
2
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
24 25 26 27 28
Stage Outdoor Forum Fly Space Projection Room Electrical Room
4
Lobby
Reception
0
4
GROUND FLOOR
1
8
32
16
Machine Viewing
29
30
NORTH ELEVATION 0
8
16
32
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
31
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
33
34
Roof 70’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
Fifth Floor 56’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
Fourth Floor 42’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
Third Floor 28’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
Second Floor 14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
First Floor 0’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
Steel Grating Rubber Roof Membrane Rigid Polystyrene Insulation 5” Concrete Slab Metal Decking 5/8“ GWB 2” x 6” Light Gauge Metal Framing Batting Insulation 5/8” GWB Sheathing Moisture Barrier 4” Rigid Polystyrene Insulation Air Space LED Luminaire Perforated Anodized Aluminum Panel
WALL SECTION / ELEVATION 35 0
5
1
2
36
VIA GIULIA ROMAN MUSEUM / URBAN ANALYSIS ROME, ITALY Summer 2015 Professors: David Sabatello, Simone Bove Group: Marie McKenna, Megan Haines This studio was particularly context-driven, focusing on contemporary design within the historic urban landscape. Rome exhibits a unique set of challenges and opportunities given its high density of historically-significant and monumental buildings. Not only is context understood in terms of the site’s adjacencies, but the stratified remains of the city’s past, below ground. The site abuts the Tiber River, occupying one of the final unbuilt tracts of land in the city center, with ancient Roman ruins beneath. The program consisted of both art museum and piazza, the fundamental urban space in Italian cities. The project began with the study of Piazza Santa Marie Della Pace, analyzing critical attributes of piazze: geometry, enclosure, entry and exit, hierarchy, traffic patterns, human activity in relation to time, views, and programmatic requirements. The next step focused on the interpretation of an abstract art painting in to three dimensional space by creating two physical models; one which used primarily additive means of constructing space, and one which used primarily subtractive means. The building’s primary objective was in achieving an understanding of Rome’s profound layering, from ancient Rome up to Renaissance Via Giulia. Most buildings in Rome’s historic center meet the ground heavily, whereas the museum is slightly lifted, revealing activity below grade. The facade is conceived as a contextual wrapper, using a gridwork derived from surrounding fenestration. Pushes and pulls in the grid are intensified along the pedestrian-scaled Via Giulia side, whereas the articulation is much simpler along the more institutional Lungotevere facade. The facade acts as a receiver of information below, as incisions indicate the location of ruins in the piazza. The piazza creates separation from the busy Lungotevere by stepping down from the street. Traditional Roman basalt pavers are used throughout, with the exception of those areas indicating ruins. A portion of ruins are left exposed, recalling Largo Argentina. Within the museum, art galleries are sculpted by extruding the space formerly enclosing the Roman structures below.
37
38
Residual Space
Parking
Cafe Seating Circulation
Program Volume
Piazza Volume
SPATIAL DIVISIONS
SECTION AA
SECTION BB
Jullian de la Fuente
Additive
Subtractive
PAINTING EXERCISE
4 19
11
3
Piazza 1482
PIAZZA SANTA MARIA DELLA PACE
Piazza 1656-61
Church Facade
Projecting Pronaos
9
Pedestrian- Active
Pedestrian- Sedentary 39
40
VIEWS THROUGH SITE Two volumes of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s buildable area are represented as transparent volumes. Darker red indicates greater visibility, thus overlapping views.
20
Sedentary People Parked Vehicles Blocked Area
11
Pedestrian Traffic Blocked Area
Primary Traffic Secondary Traffic Tertiary Traffic Blocked Area
ACTIVITY + TRAFFIC
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
41
42
SITE PLAN 0
Entry LevelDescent to Roman ruins
MassGalleries to be carved out
CrevasseTransitional void between mass and circulation
Ruin VoidsExposing the underground
8
16
Gallery CirculationAdditonal exhibit, revolves around mass gallery
32
64
StructureMass is suspended from surrounding steel frame
GALLERY
ENTRY FLOOR PLAN
TERRACE GALLERY
5
GALLERY
4
GALLERY
3
2
1
29 43
44 30
1
2
3
4
5
1. Campidoglio, Rome 2. Pantheon, Rome 3. Palazzo Farnese, Rome 4. Sant-Andrea al Quirinale, Rome 5. Monument to the Fallen, Como 6. San Lorenzo, Florence 7. Duomo, Florence 8. Novocomum, Como 9. Castelvecchio, Verona
SKETCH BOOK SELECTIONS 8
6
7
45
46
SYRIAN REFUGEE SCHOOL AL-ZAATARI REFUGEE CAMP, JORDAN The school responds to the dense and active ground plane which comprises the majority of the Al Zaatari camp, siting itself along the only qibla-paralleling road in the complex. The building is constructed of basic materials: concrete slab and roof, and wood posts and slats, using a repetitive 16 foot by 24 foot module that can be continually added to, providing space for a multitude of programs. A rooftop play space serves as a unique vantage point to connect with or escape the humdrum of Al Zaatari, filtered through a screen of timber posts. Interior spaces including classrooms, a prayer room, and support spaces inform the façade’s level of openness and closure, creating a pulsing horizontal wave which echoes the street activity. The roof and floor slabs are cast-in-place concrete, using 55 gallon barrels as formwork to create a subtle vaulting. This vaulting not only provides structural support and better acoustics, but allows for water draining through the floor and evaporative cooling strategies to take place through the reuse of greywater and natural ventilation through the slab. The school seeks to provide an alternative to the tents and prefabricated units the residents are accustomed to, in exchange for dignity, well-being, and safety, discovering the permanence within the temporary.
REPLICABLE MODULE: 16’ x 24’
CENTRALIZED SERVICE CORE: MECH + STOR
GREYWATER EVAPORATIVE COOLING
47
48
1 2
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION 0
Fabric Screen Corrugated Polycarbonate 2" x 4" Lumber Slats 4" x 4" Column 2" x 12" Joists Play Space Benches Ventilated Floor Slab Metal Grate Flooring
8
16
32
1. Classroom 2. Food Prep 3. Entry / Office 4. Storage 5. Mechanical 6. Classroom 7. Ablutions 8. Prayer Room 9. Play Space
3 4 5 9 1 2 8
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
ROOF PLAY SPACE
PRAYER SPACE
49
50
HAJJAR AIR WALL RESEARCH BUILDING STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 Research Team: Ute Poerschke, Henry Pisciotta, David Goldberg, Moses Ling, Mahyar Hadighi, Marie McKenna, Laurin Goad
05 Third Floo 26' - 7 3/4
06 Roof 34' - 7 3/8"
Designed by architect and Penn State professor A. William Hajjar in 1959, the Air Wall Research Building was one of the first buildings which utilized a double skin facade, a system which attempted to maximized transparency and natural light without sacrificing the performance of a poorly insulated, fully glazed facade. The Air Wall Building has since been demolished.
05 Third Floor 26' - 7 3/4"
03 Second Floor 17' - 7 1/8"
Myself and another graduate student have been working with a research team of Penn State faculty, creating both a digital model for energy analysis and documentation, as well as a physical model.
03 Second Floo 17' - 7 1/8
02 First Floor 8' - 6 1/4"
01 Ground Floor 0' - 0"
02 First Floo 8' - 6 1/4
00 Top of Footer -2' - 8"
BUILDING SECTION
1 A301
DETAIL SECTION
2 A301
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
DETAIL SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
SECTION
23' - 5 5/8"
6"
11 14 '-
6"
27' - 0" 3' - 6 3/8"
9' - 9 1/2"
3' - 6 1/4"
11 15 '-
9' - 9 1/2"
27' - 8 7/8"
3' - 6 3/8"
1' - 4 7/8" 0' - 6 3/4" 0' - 6 3/4"
3' - 4"
5' - 11 5/8"
2' - 9 1/2"
3' - 2 1/4"
0' - 4 3/4"
2' - 9 1/2"
3' - 2 1/4"
0' - 4 3/4"
6' - 0 3/4"
0' - 6 3/4"
1' - 4 7/8"
0' - 9 3/8"
1' - 2"
3' - 10 1/2"
0' - 6 3/4"
6' - 0 3/4"
6' - 3 3/4"
0' - 4 3/4"
6' - 3 3/4"
2' - 9 1/2"
3' - 2 1/4"
0' - 4 3/4"
2' - 9 1/2"
3' - 2 1/4"
0' - 4 3/4"
6' - 0 3/4"
0' - 6 3/4"
1' - 3 5/8"
1' - 2"
6' - 3 3/4"
12' - 8"
12' - 8"
0' - 4 3/4"
3' - 3 7/8"
0' - 4 3/4"
6' - 2 1/4"
9' - 9 1/2"
6' - 8 3/4" 2' - 8 5/8"
6' - 0 3/4"
6' - 3 3/4"
6' - 0 3/4"
2' - 8 1/2"
6' - 2 1/4"
3' - 6 3/8"
3' - 4"
9' - 11 5/8"
27' - 8 7/8"
2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 9' - 9 1/2"
0' - 4 3/4"
2' - 9 1/2"
27' - 0"
6' - 8 3/4"
6' - 0 3/4"
5' - 11 5/8"
AJV, MEM
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
First and Second Floor
Date Drawn By Checked By
1
Scale
FIRSTChecker + SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A101 A102
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1st + 2nd FLOOR PLAN
Project Number Issue Date Author
Project Number
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1/2" = 1'-0"
Project Number Date Drawn By 1 A103
A102
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
Scale
Hajjar Air Wall Building Third Floor
3rd FLOOR PLAN
Project Number Issue Date Author
Checked By FLOOR PLAN THIRD Checker
1/2" = 1'-0"
AJV, MEM
Project Number Date Drawn By Checked By
Scale
Project Number Issue Date Author Checker
A103
1/2" = 1'-0"
1/13/2016 3:20:47 PM
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
Hajjar Air Wall Building
Ground Floor
1/13/2016 3:20:45 PM
1 A101
Hajjar Air Wall Building
2 A301
1/13/2016 3:20:46 PM
0' - 6 3/4"
AJV, MEM 3' - 6 3/8"
6"
6"
3' - 6 3/8"
9' - 11 5/8"
11 17 '-
11 16 '-
6"
6"
11 18 '-
9' - 11 5/8"
23' - 5 5/8"
11 18 '-
11 17 '-
6"
9' - 11 5/8"
or 4"
or 8"
Hajjar Air Wall Building Building Section
Project Number Date Drawn By Checked By
Scale
Project Number Issue Date Author Checker
A301
As indicated
PHOTOGRAPH, 1961
REVIT MODEL, 2016
1/13/2016 3:22:28 PM
or 4"
AJV, MEM
51
52
SUPERSUBURBAN THESIS DETROIT, MICHIGAN Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 Professor - Juan Ruescas The suburban life does not need to be lived in the suburbs. To destigmatize our decaying city centers, the unique sentiment of the American home must be allowed to operate within the quasi-urban cavity defined by urbanity and sub-urbanity. American community ideology, rooted in antiquated agrarian ideals, would have us believe that “the good life” lies outside the realm of the city. This has promoted a culture engrossed in individual freedoms, manifesting itself in the changing settlement structures of the early twentieth century. Suburban settlements were not immune to the pervading community bias and were unable to detach themselves from a fundamentally rural sentiment of home. The resulting urban neglect has produced a perpetually stigmatized city and a disassociated domain on the urban periphery. To discourage these tendencies, cities must offer an architecture which reconciles these competing residential preferences and lifestyles. Residential choice is currently divided: urban and not-urban. The project questions the necessity of this dichotomy, with a long term goal to reduce suburbanization’s adverse effects on the built and natural environment through offering a “middle ground” residential typology. The project identifies the boundary between residences as the most underutilized space in residential architecture. Its fundamental use as a space-making device is questioned by dividing the party wall and concentrating interactions within this gap. The ideal outcome of the project would be a shift in how we divide space and delineate ownership of property; from compartmentalization to obscured and interlacing boundaries.
53
54
76
5
4
3 2
1 0
TIME TO CITY CENTER
alleyalley
Dogma, A Field of Walls
garage garage
back yard back yard
porch porch
home home
street street grass grass sidewalk sidewalk front front yardyard
yard back back yard
_urban/suburban detroit city
alley
garage
back yard
home
home home
yard frontfront yard porch
street
ban/suburban oit city
front yard
THRESHOLDS
grass sidewalk
street street grass grass sidewalk sidewalk
burban/suburban oit metro
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
VACANCY 8#%#0%;
8#%#0%;
SUBURBAN NECESSITIES + INSCRIBED INFRASTRUCTURE
+05%4+$'& 74$#0+5/ 5722146+0) +0(4#5647%674'
Immeubles VillasLe Corbusier
Narkomfin BuildingMoisei Ginzburg
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
Robin Hood GardensAlison and Peter Smithson
Spangen Quarter HousingMichiel Brinkman
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Unite d'HabitationLe Corbusier
55
56
0
Avg. Influenced Area Daily [-]: Weekly: Monthly [+]: $YJ ƒ 5RXWH /HQJWK
AVG. AREA OF INFLUENCE: AVG. DAILY[-] : 0.302 0.302 mi.2mi.22 AREA OF INFLUENCE: 0.748 mi. WEEKLY 2 DAILY[-] :: 0.302 0.748 mi.2mi. 0.959 mi.22 MONTHLY[+] 0.748 WEEKLY :: 2 0.959 mi.mi. AVG. MONTHLY[+] 0.959 mi.2 : Σ ROUTE LENGTH: 9.93 mi. AVG. Σ ROUTE LENGTH: 9.939.93 mi.mi.
STATE COLLEGE, PA Suburbia gives the appearance of independence through clearly defined ownership boundaries, but the reality is that the less urban one becomes, the more dependent on the system one becomes. In other words, the area that influences you becomes much larger. James Wines, SITE, Highrise of Homes
Avg. Influenced Area Daily [-]: Weekly: Monthly [+]: $YJ ƒ 5RXWH /HQJWK
DETROIT, MI
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
AVG. AREA OF INFLUENCE: AVG. DAILY[-] : 0.068 0.068 mi.2mi.22 AREA OF INFLUENCE: 0.318 mi. mi.2 WEEKLY DAILY[-] :: 0.068 2 0.318 mi.2mi. 0.386 MONTHLY[+] : 2 0.318 mi. WEEKLY : 2 2 0.386 mi.mi. AVG. MONTHLY[+] 0.386 : Σ ROUTE LENGTH: 4.23 mi. AVG. Σ ROUTE LENGTH: 4.23 mi.
4.23 mi.
Filip Dujardin, Fictions
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1950
1950
2015
Filip Dujardin, Fictions
OIT TR IT DETRO DE
2016
2015
R R
ER IVER V I
DETROIT, MICHIGAN DOWNTOWN + MIDTOWN
Site Constraints
Vehicular Circulation
Stacked Program
Sun Exposure / Views to Downtown
Division of Units
57
58
a v i s c h a n s k y @ g m a i l , c o m