Deavan Lauth

how can we generate new types of social experiences within a boundary of space? [ investigating social experiences, space t ypologies, and the manipulation of form ]

01

[ over time I have found that within design, I am captivated by it s ability to bring people together. ] humans are inherently social. the process of how information is learned and shared, would not be possible without interac ting with someone, something, somewhere. during my preliminar y research, guided by interest of togetherness, I began investigating the concept of a social experience.

[ understanding social experiences ] to understand the concept , I began by questioning what makes an experience so momentous. three element s that I felt answered this initial question, where the types of interac tions experienced, the procession or movement during the event , and the space in which this experience occured.

[ examining interac tions ] to comprehend the impor tance of the t ypes of interac tion an experience could have, I asked myself a lot of questions in regards to the “ar t of bringing people together�. from that examination, although no quantitative data emerged, by the end of this f irst analysis, I could begin to answer the following: what are the dif ferent modes of communication, can our interac tions with people def ine space, can inanimate space produce animate ac tions, why do we reac t to people and spaces the way we do, and can our interac tion with space and people def ine interior programming?

[ assessing movement ] to bet ter unders tand the context in which people can be brought together, I assimilated a collec tion of diagrams that illustrated hypothetical processions one could experience within a space. within those diagrams, a few dif ferent t ypologies appeared: • a space with two exit s • a space with one exit • a space with two exit s • a space with one exit

two entrances and two entrances and one entrance and one entrance and

with this new information, I was then able to assess foreseable patterns, levels of interac tion, and entr y-exit point s.

[ exploring space ] to go beyond the parameters I examined within my diagrams, nex t , I wanted to explore the types of spaces experiences could occur in. to do this, I researched space typologies and their unique classif ication of a general place. from there, not shown, I dove deeper into understanding the typolog y and it s classif ication, with case studies from around the world.

[ traditional space typologies ] • f irst place: home

a space in which humans spend a majorit y of their lives. our base point .

• second place: work

another space in which humans spend a majorit y of their lives. can mean dif ferent things to dif ferent people.

• third place: public

known to be “communit y builders”. to be successful, needs to be neutral, comfor table, and f lexible.

[ combined space typologies ] • f irst and second place: co-living

hybrid space that combines home with work. together, they encourage the user to occupy their most resided spaces.

• second and third place: co-working

blended space that combines work with public space. conduc tive for users to work and collaborate within one area.

• f irst and third place: co-mingling

hybrid space that combines home with public space. together, they promote social interac tion and f lexibilit y.

[ analyzing component s ] once I es tablished the t ypologies, their classif ications for space, and the experiences that can happen within them, I wanted to take my analysis one s tep fur ther. in doing this, I began ques tioning whether alone, the space brought people together, or rather did the component s within a specif ic space do that . the process consis ted of breaking down the basic element s of a place, and then fur ther dissec ting those element s into singular component s. all in all, due to this ex tensive research into interac tions, movement , and space understanding how to generate new social experiences became clearer.

02 [ component collages ]

at the end of my initial research phase, I was intrigued by the information found within space typologies and their component s. although I researched numerous case s tudies, the nex t task at hand, was to visualize these hypothetical social experiences graphically.

looking back, when I f irs t s tar ted collaging, I arranged the loose component pieces in a way that grouped element s you might typically see together. from there, once a graphic visual was es tablished, I then began to explore what an experience could be like if atypical component s were combined together.

[ contour of movement ] once the component collages were completed, I began to refer back to a few ques tions developed during the examination of interac tions phase of the projec t : is it possible that our interac tions with people can def ine space, or can it def ine an interior program? I interpreted these ques tions with a ver y similar approach to the preliminar y research I completed - an analysis on the movement s and positions the social experience component collages created. soon af ter the analysis s tar ted, a dynamic relationship s tar ted to emerge that inves tigated boundaries, adjacencies, and form.

[ boundaries of form ] one dynamic relationship that was throughly inves tigated within my collages, were the boundaries and positions of it s component s. intrigued by the possibilit y that experience could shape space, I began outlining the border lines of component pieces in various dif ferent ways. by diagramming these out , space and form soon emerged, and another analysis of the experience within the new boundar y occurred.

03

the emery apartment building is home to a

variety of different occupants. currently, the building houses apartment units, offices, a

coffee shop, a large auditorium, and a parking garage. all of these spaces are unconnected,

prohibiting its users from truly being together.

P

eet Clay Str

Street Walnut

P

[ site context ] armed with knowledge about social experiences, interac tions, movement, boundar y, and form - when the time came to selec t a site, square footage and location were key necessities of mine. af ter researching various sites within the over-the-rhine dis tric t in cincinnati ohio, I landed upon the emer y apar tment building on e central park way.

P

P

B

way

al Park E Centr

way

al Park E Centr B

B

way

al Park E Centr

due to the site’s sheer size, in the future, it allowed me to test and manipulate my previous experience and boundar y diagrams within it s f ixed wall s.

P

Street Walnut

building site plan 100 e central parkway, cincinnati, oh

N

piece cut collage forms

[ a boundar y of space ] with a site selec ted, I went back to the experience and boundar y diagrams that had previously been completed. a challenge I soon faced, was how and where I should inser t and translate the diagram’s forms within the preexisting architec ture of the building. a limitation in regards to a boundar y of a space soon materialized. over my tes ting period, I alternated between using a full singular boundar y diagram versus pieces of one. in the end, I found that pieces of forms from my collages and diagrams adapted better to the boundar y of space (or the boundar y of the building), than a lone single diagram.

04 1

2

main entrance

community space

7

6

8

7

floor one: cafe and deli floor two: open bar

6

floor three: laundry room floor four: fitness room

3 4

7

2

6

communal kitchen 7

work space 6

5

5

communal living room

6

home space-bedroom

7

home space-bathroom

8

elevator

3

1 4

enlarged model plan - floor one scale 1/16” = 1’0”

N

plan - floor two

plan - floor three

after arranging a set of component forms into a desired singular diagram, I chose to carry out my intended design within the building’s existing parking garage. the interior program was created to optimize someone’s chance at human to human interaction. while also keeping in mind personal necessities and desires too. plans are very similar as they ascend vertically, and only differ within the community space. this is to give the user’s another necessary and flexible space. plan - floor four

[ social experience within a boundar y of space ] looking back on my ques tion and my inves tigation into social experiences and space - the f inal design challenges typical interac tions for atypical ones, it choreographs specif ic movement horizontally and ver tically, and expands on traditional notions of space. collec tively, spaces within the interior program of the new boundar y, are relatively open. in s tark contras t to the exclusivit y of the surrounding emer y building, sight lines and spaces are framed, arranged, and opened so that the possibilit y of a new social interac tion can occur.

enlarged exterior elevation west elevation view - looking east

N

main entrance view

community space - cafe and deli space

communal kitchen view

work space - studio view

communal kitchen view looking out to entrance

communal living room view

home space - apartment bedroom view

home space - apartment bathroom view

thank you [ deavan lauth

INTD_capstone

spring 2020 ]