AA_DRL B-SYSTEM (2012)

00_cover.pdf 1 14/02/2012 03:58:46 p.m.

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

MArch Architecture and Urbanism Architectural Associantion School of Architecture Design Reasearch Lab [Proto Design v2.2] 2010-2012

unPROTO

unPROTO

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

unPROTO

unPROTO Boontida Songvisava Carlos Luna Mu Ren

AA DRL Proto Design v2.2

unPROTO TEAM MEMBERS Boontida Songvisava Carlos Luna Mu Ren TUTORS Patrik Schumacher Mirco Becker BRIEF Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology AGENDA Proto Design v2.2

Architectural Associantion School of Architecture Design Reasearch Lab http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/aadrl/

Acknowledgments Personal statement

This book is a closure of a yearlong AADRL project for us, unPROTO. It would not have been possible without our tutors generosities and supports. We are deeply appreciative of our course master Patrik Schumacher, course tutor Mirco Becker, our director Theodore Spyropoulos, tutor Robert Stuart Smith and tutor Ryan Dillon. All fellow AADRLs and all Phase one who helped us in the production week. Lastly, the collaboration of the three members: Carlos Luna, Mu Ren and Boontida Songvisava, who encouraged one another to close this chapter beautifully.

We of what we experienced to stay with us and guide us for the future to come.

Contents AA DRL

002

PROTO-DESIGN v2.2

003

Proto-Design: ParametRic Semiology

004 B SYSTEM

1 2

007

Understanding the University Campus 008 University Campus Organization 012 Connectivity to Network 012 Communicative Interaction 014 Knowledge Defined Program Distribution 022 Proposal 027

Branching System The nature of Branching Branching Control Branching becomes Organization System Branching in Organization and Interaction

028 031 048 056 066

3 4 5

Proto Design 068 University Campus with Data 070 Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization 072 Massing 082 Interior 090 Proto Building Rethinking the Organization Sequence and Emergence of Spaces Interior, Structure and Semiology

094 096 098 102

Proto Campus 106 Urban Analysis 108 Proto campus Design 117 Sequence and Emergence of Spaces 119 Interior, Structure and Semiology 119 Conclusion 133

AA DRL

Design Research Laboratory (MArch Architecture and Urbanism)

The DRL is a 16-month post-professional design programme, leading to an MArch (Architecture & Urbanism) degree. For over a decade, the DRL has been organised as an open-source design studio dedicated to a systematic exploration of new design tools, systems and discourses, targeting design innovations in architecture and urbanism. The DRL actively investigates and develops design skills with which to capture, control and shape a continuous flow of information across the distributed electronic networks of today’s rapidly-evolving digital design disciplines. Learning in the studio is project-based and includes the development of comprehensive, year-long design projects, supported by design workshops and seminars, applying new forms of associative logic towards the conception and materialisation of comprehensive design proposals. Design work is pursued by collective self-organised design teams within four parallel design studios, addressing an overall design research agenda through shared informationbased diagrams, data, models and scripts. The collaborative structure of the DRL design studio enables design teams to address the programme’s design research agenda through a sustained body of design work, which is regularly evaluated by student design teams, tutors and invited critics, and is channelled towards the development of recursive, research-based design methodologies and comprehensive design outcomes.

DRL studio projects begin in January each year with the formation of design teams that carry forward discoveries made in Phase I Autumn Term workshops and seminars. The design research work presented by eighteen design teams in this two-day public jury in the AA Lecture Hall concludes Phase II of the Design Research Lab MArch programme’s two phases.

002

PROTO-DESIGN v2.2 Agenda

The invited jury will review the first phase of the second full year design research agenda called Proto-Design. Proto-Design investigates digital and analogue forms of computation in the pursuit of systemic design applications that are scenario and time based. Considering controls systems as open acts of design experimentation, the DRL examines production processes as active agents in the development of architecture.

Behavioural, parametric and generative methodologies of computational design are coupled with physical computing and analogue experiments to create dynamic and reflexive feedback processes. New forms of spatial organisation are explored that are not type or site dependant but examine scenarios that evolve as ecologies and environments that seek adaptive and hyper-specific features. This performance-driven approach seeks to develop novel design proposals concerned with the everyday. The iterative methodologies of the design studio focuses on the investigations of spatial, structural and material organisation, engaging in contemporary discourses on computation and materialisation in the disciplines of architecture and urbanism.

Four parallel research studios explore the possibilities of Proto-Design. Theodore Spyropoulos’ studio, Digital Materialism investigates behaviour as the means to explore selfregulating and deployable soft systems within the field of scientific enquiry. Proto-Campus, led by Patrik Schumacher with Mirco Becker focuses on the design of parametric prototypes that intelligently vary general topological schemata across a wide range of parametrically specifiable site-conditions as a campus. Alisa Andrasek’s studio, Protocols, looks at infrastructure ecological implants within the context of heterogeneous networks. Robert Stuart Smith studio, explores how non-linear design processes may be instrumentalised to generate a temporal architecture with a designed life-cycle.

unPROTO

Proto-Design: ParametRic Semiology Studio-project brief

The societal function of urban and architectural design is the innovative ordering and framing of communicative interaction. The architectural frames - the designed settings/spaces are themselves communications: they are communications that define, premise and prime the communicative interactions that are expected to take place within the respectively framed territory. Each territory/frame is embedded within a context (system) of frames that can be understood (designed) as a system of signification.

Architecture’s task and core competency has three dimensions: organisation, articulation and signification. Spatial organisation recognizes that social communication depends upon the physical arrangement (gathering and separating) of physical bodies in space. Articulation recognizes that sentient bodies navigate space via perception. Signification recognizes that these sentient, socialized/learning bodies navigate and act on the basis signs. The three criteria of a successful design are thus its physical spacing/accessibility (the organisational project), its perceptual palpability (the phenomenological project), and its cognitive intelligibility (the semiological project).

Every talented/successful designer adapts to and intervenes intuitively within the spontaneous and historically evolving semiological system of the built environment. The aim of the project brief is it to move from an intuitive participation within an evolving semiosis to an explicit design agenda that understands the design of a large scale architectural complex (university campus) as an opportunity to design a new, coherent system of signification, a new artificial architectural language, without relying on the familiar codes found in the existing built environments.

004

ďťż ďťż

The brief suggests that a university is a sufficiently complex social institution, so as to warrant and enable the design of such an artificial architectural language or system of signification. The designed campus would be an information rich, dense communication of the social interactions to be expected within its spaces. Relevant distinctions in the programme domain (the domain of the signified) are to be correlated with distinctions in the spatial/formal domain (the domain of the signifier). The types of information that are to be encoded are the function type (interaction types, what is going on here?), the social type (the various status groups of the institution, who is to expected here?), and the location type (facilitating navigation: How can I find the event I am looking for?). On the side of pe dimension (distinction of spatial shapes) and the dimension of surface treatment (materiality, relief/texture, colour, perforation etc.). These three dimensions are functionally equivalent and can substitute each other. (Shape and surface articulation might be drawn together under the heading of morphology.)

The designed semiological system should be conceived as a parametric system, i.e. the various distinctions and their correlation are subject to parametric variation. The programme domain, the domain of the signified, is best understood in terms of interaction patterns or communicative activities. This implies that the meaning of the system of signification can enter the digital model (design medium) in the form of agents, crowd simulations and character animations. The system of signification works if the agents consistently respond to the relevant positional and morphological clues.

Patrik Schumacher & Mirco Becker, 2011

unPROTO

006

B SYSTEM

THESIS STATEMENT

Our proposal, re-linked knowledge with spatial distribution to create a multi-layered communicative community as an application for proto/typology communicative campus design, where neutral design methodology could be applied to any site in different environmental placement that branching is the model for the system organization. Parametric tested for formation variability and semiology created the diversity of architectural language for the richness of the university, where it is the center of higher learning that humanity evolution is based on from today to tomorrow.

unPROTO

Understanding the University Campus University Campus is a complex social organization within itself is an organization of condense compact city, where knowledge could be exchanged between schools and departments. Most of the universities are concentrated in the urban areas of the major cities of the world. They represented the institutes of growth in human accumulation of knowledge in both humanity and science. The university is the bridge between the institution and its surrounding environment, where exchanges of internal and external are diffused to the evolution of new knowledge. The social connectivity within the university creates the continuity flow of internal social networking as a part to the whole with its environmental surrounding.

Campus Map

Science Park Amsterdam UVA High Tech Campus Eindhoven Phillips Leiden University University of Utrecht De Uithof Erasmus University Rotterdam Leer Park Dordrecht TU Delft Technopolis University of Twente University of Cambridge Cambridge Cluster University of Oxford LSE Nike Microsoft Rockfeller University of Chicago IIT UTP Stanford University Stanford Research Park

010

Understanding the University Campus ďťż

TH Karlsruhe Technology Park Karlsruhe TechnopĂ´le Nancy-Barbois Harvard Allston MIT University Park Yale Vitra Columbia Princeton EPF Lausanne UPenn University of Virginia Royal Netherlands Embassy USC UPC San Vincente Science Park University of Alicante

NTNU RUG Hanze Zernike Complex Otaniemi Science Park TKK

Lomonosov MSU

Technology Park Bremen University of Bremen Zeche Zollverein Mobile Life Campus Volkswagen AutoUni Berlin Adlershof Humboldt University FU Berlin Royal Netherlands Embassy BTU Cottbus adidas

Research Campus Garching TUM LMU Martinsried Technology Centre Bilgi Benetton

Future University Hakodate Tsinghua University

University of Konstanz

Saitama Prefectural University Kogakuin University

Technopark Zurich ETH Zurich Science City Novartis

Royal Netherlands Embassy Guangzhou University City

unPROTO

University Campus Organization Traditional University Campuses are organized through successive ranks or orders in Hierarchy System. The system, which in Social Logic of Space by Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson stated: “… a proportion of the total spatial order … it offers a theory of the relations between the internal and external relations of the cell as part of a general theory of the social logic of space … of common behavioral principles through a hierarchy of different levels” 1 The spaces arrange in the system composed by the sequence of orders that dictated social interactions form public to private. Spaces place reflectively with the relationship of successive popularity of the school programs. A space places consecutively suggesting the growth pattern of larger nodes transmitted to smaller nodes in a continuous network system. The hierarchy system is associated relationship of spaces in a reversed pyramid formation, which circulatory system is guided the orders of spaces dictated through pathways.

Connectivity to Network The growth of the connectivity in hierarchy system starts from one major node to successive minor nodes in spaces via circulatory system, which emerges the networking of the whole organization. As in Critical Mass by Philip Ball described how network system is composed:

NETWORK AND CONNECTIVITY GRAPHES 1

Hillier, Bill and Hanson, Julienne. “Social Logic of Space”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. p. 143.

012

Understanding the University Campus University Campus Organization

“Paul Erdos … with his colleague Alfred Renyi clarified the properties of networks called random graphs … a graph is simply a series of points connected by lines. The points are called vertices and the lines are edges. … The vertices could be cities, and the edges the roads that join them: the graph then represents a road transportation network.”2 The virtual relation graph is represented cities in geographical reality, which the importance feature of networking is the system of connection that in mathematic is called the topology that virtual graph becomes actual spatial graph. The feature of the graph is possibility to travel by some route form one vertex to any other vertices create interconnected relations from direct to indirect routes in optimization of the paths. The growth could be sprawl not to be decentralized and spaces will be weaved randomly to the new arrangement. Through the exploration of scale free networking the relationship of the growth spaces will interrelated to the origin and successive previous point in formulated a network of a small world and how it behaves will be described through another paragraph in Critical Mass by Philip Ball: “What does a scale-free network actually look like? In a random graph most vertices have roughly the same number of edges, and the network looks rather uniform. In a scale-free network most vertices have only one or two links, yet a small but significant proportion are highly connected … These highly linked nodes provide the short cut that make the network a small world.” 3 From micro to macro connectivity, university campus is organized by circulatory systems to build its formation to endless growth of networking based from hierarchy system that constituted the campus internal environment to achieve communicative community from its integrated parts to the full function university that co-exists with its surrounding environment.

SCALE-FREE NETWORK GRAPHs 2 3

Ball, Philip. “Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another”. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004. p. 452.

Ball, Philip. “Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another”. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004. p. 484.

unPROTO

Communicative Interaction University Case Studies

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT is the core case study, which we look through the programs organized in spaces. William Welles Bosworth designed the original master plan of MIT. The central group of interconnecting buildings built in 1916 continues to encourage interaction between departments and schools. The 1960 campus master plan was the decision to develop a ‘complete campus community’ with the academic, researcher, residential and recreational areas. The academic buildings are at the east and more residential, athletic and community facilities are to the west that has been developed on the elongated site along Charles River overtime. The continuous focus of the renew master plan is on pedestrian circulation routes and public gathering places attempts to integrate new and existing buildings into a coherent urban fabric for an interactive community.4 Because of the massive size of the university itself, the attempt to create communicative community at the public level is not yet achieved. It is showed through the analysis diagram of the school cluster in associated subjects, which the building placements are only concentrated to the adjacent buildings to form a closed parameter/territory. This is not promoting the ideology of communication in the diffusion of knowledge in the evolution of the university growth. However in the smaller scale of the building organization, it has been achieved the transformation of traditional learning environment to the new facility of learning for this century by these two buildings that the heart of the design is laboratory, which extremely expressing into two distinct building designs of the same architectural typology: Stata Center and Brain and Cognitive Science Complex (BCSC).

4

Mitchell, William J. “Imagining MIT: designing a campus for the twenty-first century”. Boston: MIT Press, 2007.

014

Understanding the University Campus Communicative Interaction

Stata Center MIT engages the task of reinventing laboratory for the twenty-first century. The needed arose for the growth of research in the area of information science and technology. The Stata Center had been initially conceived as a straightforward facility for the student and faculty research center, which attention in design focuses on social spaces. At the ground level, the building continues to define circulatory systems by using a corridor. Instead of a straight and narrow corridor flanked by anonymous doors that offered little invitation to linger, few opportunities for encounter and social interaction.

It has seating places, which transformed a usual corridor to conceive into an informal workplace to exchange conversation. On either side lined social uses such as a cafĂŠ, auditorium, classroom, health club and even childcare center. On the upper floor, it aligns with various types and sizes of laboratories, which all laboratory spaces are organized for long-term flexibility and to maximize the opportunities for interactions among research groups.5 Stata is highly articulated and particularized in form; it challenges the industrial-era orthodox standard of modular repetition of cube stacking. It becomes its own identity and important icon for new era laboratory and research building.

It is the place to encourage collaboration of group working, which is a crucial property in the human resource of creativity.

5

Mitchell, William J. “Imagining MIT: designing a campus for the twenty-first century�. Boston: MIT Press, 2007.

unPROTO

mit schools organization WHITAKER COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Clinical Research Center (CRC) Human Genomics Laboratory

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF BRAIN & COGNITIVE SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT OF EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND PLANETARY SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS MICROBIOLOGY PROGRAM MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

WHITAKER COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGOCAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEEERING DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Computation for Design and Optimization (CDO) Computational and Systems Biology (CSB) Engineering Systems Division (ESD) Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology (HST) Leaders for Global Operations (LGO) Program in Polymer Science and Technology (PPST)

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING MEDIA LABORATORY CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE CENTER FOR ADVANCED VISUAL STUDIES

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

ANTHROPOLOGY PROGRAM COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS FOREIGN LANGUAGES & LITERATURES HISTORY SECTION LINGUISTIS, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY LITERATURE SECTION MUSIC PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY PROGRAM (STS) WRITING AND HUMANISTIC STUDIES PROGRAM

MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM MBA PROGRAM MIT SLOAN FELLOWS PROGRAM IN INNOVATION & GLOBAL LEADERSHIP EXECUTIVE MBA PROGRAM MASTER OF FINANCE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES LEADERS FOR GLOBAL OPERATIONS (LGO) SYSTEM DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT (SDM) BIOMEDICAL ENTERPRISE PROGRAM PHD PROGRAM EXECUTIVE EDUCATION

016

Understanding the University Campus Communicative Interaction

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, ARTS AND S. SCIENCES

MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

Brain and Cognitive Science Complex (BCSC) The BCSC project needed not only to cluster brain and cognitive scientists at one location, but also to create the conditions for the intense intellectual community that encourage connection and interaction, and to maximize the value of having so much scientific talents in one place. It needed to humanize the scale of the massive building that the program demanded. The floor space specific in the program was 450,000 sq.ft. A major atrium space at the center of the complex becomes the main artery pathway, around which are located many of the most important community facilities such as tearoom, seminar rooms and conference rooms. The functional heart of the BCSC Building consists of laboratories; many of them highly serviced wet labs. These must be built to the exact requirements of the scientist who will use them, and they allow architects little freedom to design. They are highly constrained through the requirement of equipment layout and service system, which work best in organization into large modular floor plates that can be subdivided into laboratories in the efficient flow corridors to handling a large body of researchers. Social spaces such as seminar rooms fit comfortably into narrower, less regular allotments of floor space that they benefit most form daylight and view. Here the building would provide opportunities for researchers to mix and interact in the most comfortable and relaxed environment.6

6

Mitchell, William J. “Imagining MIT: designing a campus for the twenty-first century�. Boston: MIT Press, 2007.

unPROTO

Science and Humanity Schools Both highly designed scientific buildings are celebrating the diffusion of knowledge and that crucial to an evolution of the growth in the university. From MIT research, we extended our research to understand university campus organized into the dichotomy of science and humanity, which defined their different characteristics in spaces through these two examples: Future University Hakodate for ‘science’ and Zollverein School of Management and Design for ‘humanity’.

Future University Hakodate for ‘science’ Future University Hakodate is another example of science typology. The main difference of the science school to humanity school is its demands for laboratory. In this university, atrium and corridors become the features of the design to free the traditional sub-division modular laboratory spaces into an opened plan space layout. Merging corridors in multi-storeys form a huge atrium to create an opening to all research rooms and research labs onto the Hakodate natural landscape, which separated both research rooms and research labs into the front and other programs that constituted the university campus, are placed at the rear of the building. From the third level, other functions are introduced such as library, museum and sport field. The fourth level is auditorium, office and lecture hall. The last level, the fifth floor, is continuing auditorium from the floor below and student club. This five-storeys building, its sequence of spaces started from large public atrium to private research rooms and research labs. What make this school success in planning is turning regular corridors into the real communicative interaction spaces.7

7

Klauser, Wilhelm. “Riken Yamamoto”. Basel: Birkhauser, 1999. p.110

018

Understanding the University Campus Communicative Interaction

Zollverein School of Management and Design for ‘humanity’ This school in particular is arranged each floor centralized by auditorium that surrounded it by different programs. Once entering the building, it receives people at its atrium where people will be distributed throughout the building.

On each floor, the auditorium becomes the center point and other programs are distributed by stacking up in verticality into five-storeys in five different programs started from cafeteria, design studio, library, classroom and roof garden in the order of public to private relationship. Each floor distributed program spaces outward in concentric rings, where auditorium synchronized opened floor plan only enclosed where it is necessity such as auditorium, lecture room and some classrooms. Cafeteria, design studio and library are freely open field that freely reconfiguration at all times by the users that flexible furniture are their marking territory.8

8

Feireiss, Kristin. “Zollverein School of Management and Design, Essen, Germany”. Munich: Prestel, 2006.

unPROTO

Communicative Buildings Communicative interaction space is introduced in the conversation as a key to create communicative community in university campus that it could diffuse knowledge to the evolution of university growth, which in our process of searching, we studied for this feature element in different schools from the newly university building designs.

The Juilliard School Once entering the building, the grand stair appeared to lead to the floor above and it has a diverse function as an opened auditorium that is not just connected one floor to another but created vertical communicative interaction building element.9 Cooper Union The same idea of opened atrium is in the Juilliard School, but it is longer into the shaft of stair that connected the whole building and also diffused light onto the floors, which it becomes the centerpiece of the whole building for greater communicative community among the residents.10 Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) The campus is organized around two main axes; the living and learning spines, which overlap to create a central point, binding together all corners of the SUTD. These thoroughfares create a 24/7 campus of seamless connectivity, enhancing direct interaction through both proximity and transparency. In turn, an open forum of learning is established by bringing professionals, alumni, students, and faculty together to interact both on an academic and a social level. The proposal experiments with incorporating a non-linear connective relationship between the students and faculty as well as their spaces and their interactions as Van Berkel explained: “The main aim of the design for the Singapore University of Technology and Design was to create a campus that celebrates both teaching and learning in an open and transparent way. The network of horizontal, vertical and diagonal vistas within the double quadrant organization of the campus enables professors, students and faculty members to see, meet and communicate with each other through a network of crossing points, presenting opportunities for continuous interaction and exchange”11 University of Sydney-Sydney Law School The first university established in Sydney had great vision and ambition that inspired the new design of this project as an opportunity to redefine and reinterpret the architectural dialectic between city and campus: to extend the public domain and create a new opening of the University to the community, parkland and city beyond, with the study of law balanced carefully at this edge; to transform a great turn-of-the-century campus, damaged by post war development, into a more open, welcoming environment reflecting contemporary social values and aspirations. The complex and extensive programs are placed into podium and superstructures, which allowed the creation of an extended public domain of lawns, terraces and plazas onto the podium level. Within this solid podium are the library and teaching spaces accessed from the terraces. Suspended above the podium are a series of superstructures that split and splinter the remaining programs into fragments. The project has also developed from a focus upon the process of learning – combining the structured and unstructured, the formal and informal, the expected and unexpected, and the physical with the virtual – all within an uplifting environment characterized by fresh air, comfort and natural light that seeks to both enable and inspire students to learn in this new environment.12

9 Saieh, Nico. “The Juilliard School / Diller Scofidio + Renfro Architects with FXFOWLE, by Iwan Baan”. 22 Nov 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Feb 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/40448> 10 Saieh, Nico. “The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art / Morphosis Architects”. 12 Nov 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Feb 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/40471> 11 Cilento, Karen. “Singapore University of Technology and Design / UNStudio + DP Architects”. 24 Nov 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Feb 2011. <http:// www.archdaily.com/91407> 12 Rosenberg, Andrew. “Faculty of Law, University of Sydney / FJMT”. 14 Feb 2011. ArchDaily. Accessed 14 Feb 2011. <http://www.archdaily. com/109736>

020

Understanding the University Campus Communicative Interaction

JUILLIARD SCHOOL New York, United Sates DANCE, DRAMA, MUSIC

COOPER UNION New York, United Sates ART, ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING

SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY Singapore TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

SYDNEY LAW SCHOOL Sydney, Australia LAW

unPROTO

Knowledge Defined Program Distribution In university campus as in MIT, the school is organized in the dichotomy of science and humanity. Campus today still organized in the traditional way from hierarchy system, which the sequence of spaces is placed consecutively from one to another to form a continuous network system as a whole. The hierarchy system associated relationship of spaces in a reversed pyramid formation, which circulatory system guided the order of spaces dictated through pathways. The distribution of spaces emerged in relation with hierarchy system from shared facilities in public place to labs and researches in the most private place.

In our investigation, most university campus organized clusters of similar subjects into a confined area, where knowledge diffusion is circulated within the similar subjects and there is very little diffusion with other subjects. We see this is the essential problem to achieve communicative community in the campus design. To reorganize university campus, we investigated further on ‘knowledge’ to understand the true meaning and respond to the problem with the design solution.

First, knowledge is complex cognitive process in learning and association through reasoning that the students accumulate information by access. As Igor Aleksander wrote about the unique capability of human brain, it is extremely good at perceiving analogies and forming associations between seemingly unrelated items.13 That’s why the importance of the communication between the different fields of knowledge is the necessity in the university growth.

Second, communication between different fields is the way to reorganize university campus by distribution of communicative spaces to increase interactions among the users, which informed the concepts of re-associated constantly and re-generated new information of knowledge to increasing the expansion of knowledge in the different fields to the evolution of university development. In Communication Theory, the knowledge can be transferred through communication. We do not simply send facts and data to one another, but we take facts and data, which they acquire encoding and decoding for meanings through the process of communication, or through interaction with others, which can be shown through the Berlo’s SMCR Communication Model: “sender / source / encoder (evolving the idea) message channel receiever / destination / decoder”14

13 14

Aleksander, Igor. “Introduction to neural computing”. London: Chapman and Hall,1990.

Berlo, David K. “The Process of Communication”. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.

022

Understanding the University Campus Knowledge Defined Program Distribution

Third, we know the advantage of knowledge diffusion. It creates diversity and endless growth of information that the power of re-linked the traditional knowledge association to our new propose linkage will elevate the organization such as the university campus to the highest complexity through communication. The university will become the place of multiple learning, accumulation of diversity of knowledge and the open-sourced and exchanged knowledge center that evolving side by side with our society, which has been stated through Kevin Kelly’s book, What Technology Wants on the evolution of knowledge: “The evolution of knowledge began with relatively simple arrangements of information. The simplest organization was the invention of the fact. Not by science but … Science adopted this useful innovation. Overtime, the novel ways in which knowledge could be ordered increased. This complex apparatus for relating new information to old knowledge … In this way, evolution wants to evolve”15 The richness of the communicative environment will create the richness of the learning environment to its fullest, which communication will prove the way to reorganized the university campus via re-linked knowledge in response to space distributions for the most given and provided learning environment in the evolution of knowledge and the growth of the university.

15

Kelly, Kevin. “What technology wants”. London: Viking Books, 2010. p. 338 & 340

unPROTO

HUMANITIES SCHOOLS RELATIONS

ARTS

LIBERAL ARTS

ECONOMICS

LAW

024

Understanding the University Campus Knowledge Defined Program Distribution

SOCIAL SCIENCES

SCIENCES SCHOOLS RELATIONS

MEDICINE

LIFE SCIENCES

ENGINEERING

unPROTO

026

Understanding the University Campus Knowledge Defined Program Distribution

Proposal Proto/Typology Design-Reorganization through Branching System Our proposal, re-linked knowledge with spatial distribution to create a multi-layered communicative community as an application for proto/typology communicative campus design, where neutral design methodology could be applied to any site in different environmental placement that branching is the model for the system organization. Parametric tested for formation variability and semiology created the diversity of architectural language for the richness of the university, where it is the center of higher learning that humanity evolution is based on from today to tomorrow.

unPROTO

Branching System Branch form dictionary has many definitions; two main meanings are: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Branch noun 1) a division or subdivision of the stem or axis of a tree, shrub, or other plant.

2) any member or part of a body or system; a section or subdivision: the various branches of learning.â&#x20AC;?16 Branch is a system in nature and also man-made. The same patterns of branching and interconnections are found through out nature, in waterway, tree and leaf, cracking and even lighting. Our man-made creations, our webs show similar trail of patterns of divisions or subdivisions that grown out form the main artery as a connected network, which branching is an integrated system of transferable of substance.

16

B ranch. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/branch (accessed: January 19, 2012).

030

Branching System The nature of Branching

The nature of Branching Branching in Nature to Circulatory System

Branch in nature comes in any shape and size from a small twig to the complex network of delta waterway. The characteristics of the branch are generation (length), bifurcation and angle that give branch variability. How different forms of branches are working in the same branching system is shown through the parallel studies of biologist, Cecil Murray: “ … the similarity in form of trees and the blood circulatory system might be no coincidence.

Both are vascular networks, they are formed from hollow tubes that carry fluids. Veins and arteries are like pipes of varying width, while the wood is like a bundle of narrow tubes that separates into bunches at branching points”17 Branching is the integrated system of transferable interconnectivities to a network; it transports substance from one destination to another so that the pathway could be referred to as a circulatory system.

17

Ball, Philip. “Branches: Nature’s patterns: a tapestry in three parts”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 134.

unPROTO

032

Branching System The nature of Branching

RIVERS DELTAS MISSISSIPPI RIVER

unPROTO

034

Branching System The nature of Branching

FLOWERS AND TREES GIANT LILY PADS

unPROTO

036

Branching System The nature of Branching

CRACK PATTERNS DRIED EARTH

unPROTO

038

Branching System The nature of Branching

RIVERS DELTAS COLORADO RIVER unPROTO

RIVERS DELTAS GUADALQUIVIR 040

Branching System The nature of Branching

unPROTO

042

Branching System The nature of Branching

FLOWERS AND TREES PLANTS LEAVES unPROTO

044

Branching System The nature of Branching

ELECTRICITY DISCHARGES LIGHTNING STORMS

unPROTO

A Circulatory System The analogy of branching system to architecture is circulatory system where a generation of branching architecture is the path of people movement in the hierarchy campus organization. Our experiments focuses on confined spaces in different set numbers of three and four entrances connected with internal path connectivity that the results will give the varieties of branching connections and how spaces can be emerged along circulation on different levels or floors.

ENTRANCES _3 DIRECTIONS _3 LEVELS_1

ENTRANCES _3 DIRECTIONS _3 LEVELS_2

046

Branching System The nature of Branching

ENTRANCES _4 DIRECTIONS _4 LEVELS_1

ENTRANCES _4 DIRECTIONS _2 LEVELS_4

unPROTO

Branching Control with Generative Algorithm The precise description of the branch is its generation, bifurcation and angle that create the variations of the same genetic specie by parametric testing strategy, which controlling above factors in generative algorithm to formulate proto design. The algorithm mimics the essential characters of the branch to generate the diversities by using the branch characteristic controls, which for example the same algorithm could create both cypress and oak formations. From the book, Branches by Philip Ball wrote about how algorithm works: “A more complex algorithm for making tree-like branching structures was proposed by Japanese biologist Hisao Honda in 1971, and runs as follows: 1. Every branch forks into two ‘daughter’ branches at a single branching point.

2. The two daughter branches are shorter than the ‘mother’ branch by constant ratio r1 and r2.

3. The two daughter branches lie in the same plane as the mother branch, and diverse from it at constant angles a1 and a2.”18 With a few minor changes, this set of rules can be used to define algorithm that produced a whole range of branching patterns closed to the real tree that suggesting the semiology distinctions in architectural expressions.

We use the script to understand how the branch grows in space, which we will be able to control the growing process illustrated by the angles, the length of twigs, number of generations that will establish the final result of branching formation from an individual branch to a cluster of branches in a network formation. The branching system shows a feature of fractal when the generation is increased. The overall shape at the end of the branch will gradually become smaller.

In generative algorithm, selective pathway and directional growth of the branch become the most important control to generate distinction of the branches. An order is set as the main control, 0 means grow in the same direction as a basic first line of a branch. 1 means turning right on an angle and -1 means turning left on an angle. Then inside [ ], each number means how sub-division branches are created and where the distinctions of braches are taken place. Then any type of branches can be generated from this basic script.

Our parametric testing, first experiments are focused on generating the variety of the branches to understand characteristic distinct formulations. Secondly, the cluster formation of the branches becomes a network, which we focus on 60 degrees formulation to form an octagon global composition. If the setting in each branch inside the octagon changed, the branch will show strong distinction and a sharp boundary between the clusters, which this study will lead to the possibility in initialized global organization for the university campus.

18

Ball, Philip. “Branches: Nature’s patterns: a tapestry in three parts”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 135.

048

Branching System Branching Control

2 GENERATION

5 GENERATION

3 GENERATION

6 GENERATION

4 GENERATION

7 GENERATION

unPROTO

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 1

0 1 0 -1 0

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 2

0 [-1 0 -1 1] 0 0 [1 -1 1 -1]

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 3

[0 1 0 -1]

0 1 0 -1 0

GENERATION 4

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 5

0 [1 -1] 0 [0]

0 [ [-1] 0 ] 0 [0 [0] ] -1

050

Branching System Branching Control

Distinction of the Branch These are the results of distinctions of the braches through the generative script by the differentiations of the generation, bifurcation and angle.

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 1

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 2

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 3

0 1 0 -1 0

GERATION 4

Six branches with different angle

Six branches with different angle and size

unPROTO

Branching emerges Space Branching becomes circulatory system that the spaces are emerged form single to multistorey building, which spaces could be placed as a parallel extrusion to sequence of sub-division spaces along the circulatory paths.

052

Branching System Branching Control

unPROTO

054

Branching System Branching Control

unPROTO

Branching becomes Organization System From algorithm of the branching to parametric testing methodology, we tested branching in different school organizations to search for the ultimate proto communicative campus design.

There are four organizations of four schools form MIT school structure: hierarchy to architecture and planning school, insertion to engineering school, layer to management school and cluster to liberal arts school.

Hierarchy

056

Branching System Branching becomes Organization System

The first organization is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the hierarchyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which has been applied to the architecture and planning school. The school organized into three levels from:

All school departments

Degrees within the department

Programs that constitutes the department

Organization

Prototype

Control Elements

unPROTO

058

Branching System Branching becomes Organization System

The hierarchy relationship of the departments in the school created the building formation. From branching algorithm, the overall school configuration is the branch of the school that sub-divided into three twigs of departments.

In the studies, we focused on the opportunities to grow the spaces along circulation. We abstract three types of spaces; small sized spaces are dispersed according to the branches. Medium sized spaces can grow along the branches and at the end parts of the branches. Large sized spaces are filling the gaps along the branches and to enclose the building. At the end parts, if the branches were overlapped, one of the two branches would rotate and become higher than another branch. The important notice is when the angle changes, the sizes of the spaces will change correspondingly. The benefit of this organization is the direct transformation of hierarchy system into the branching building and the most compact in built space.

unPROTO

The second organization is called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the insertionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which has been applied to the school of engineering. As MIT science school organization, there are composed into only two levels:

All school departments

Degrees within the department

insertion

060

Branching System Branching becomes Organization System

It is another hierarchy relationship with the most expanded school space for the nature of science school space requirement. The feature of this formation is where the spaces between the branches will be used for the research facilities like public lab or research centre to share among the school departments. The shared spaces between the departments created interconnectivities among the researchers, which the design of these areas will be opened and transparent. So we used a similar algorithm unit of hierarchy type, but different in composed angle, which the result of the building mass is fully-grown into the space. For this type, there are also overlapped spaces at the end parts. Then we used changing of the height at the ends of the branching to construct levels. The benefit of this organization is the most expanded organization that reflects the floor space requirement in the science faculty, which a large field of shared research centre could be placed adjacent to any related department for the diffusion of higher education.

Organization

Prototype

Control Elements

unPROTO

The third organization is called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the layerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, where MIT management school model is constituted into three internal research groups, which are programs, research centres and the faculty openings:

Programs of all departments Research centres of all depts.

Faculty opening of all departments

+

Vertical cross-connectivity bridging each school

layers

062

Branching System Branching becomes Organization System

Each layer/ floor is where the disciplines of the same research group distributed across all four departments in the school of management, which are finance, science of management, management and enterprise to create the communicative community of exchange and diffusion of knowledge across the disciplines. Once all layers of the internal research groups have been placed. The vertical connectivity will take place to connect all the disciplines that belong to one department together. In algorithm composition, we let the branches grow and interact with each other and deleting the overlapped branches to generate interaction spaces for vertical cross-connectivity, which this feature the merging connectivity both horizontal and vertical, making this organization to be interactive environment that connection go beyond one dimensional adjacency to three dimensional cross connectivity bridging all disciplines into one network.

Organization

Prototype

Control Elements

unPROTO

The forth organization represented liberal arts is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the clusterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The school separated the study into three disciplines of major courses, minor courses, and interdisciplinary majors:

Major courses Minor courses Interdisciplinary majors

+

Radiant connectivity through related disciplines

Major is the point of origin, where connectivity is radiant out to connect related minor courses and Interdisciplinary majors successively. Major and minor courses are the main branch, and interdisciplinary can be generated

cluster

064

Branching System Branching becomes Organization System

consequently. The branches overlap, the communication can also be active. Here, we test two types of cluster formations for their interactions. One is two clusters of the branches grow outward from the same origin point. Another is two clusters grow to the opposition direction from one another. Both of two testing clusters, their main connectivity spots are at the end tips of the organizations. The benefit of the cluster is to create the most interactions of all.

In conclusion from the parametric studies of the four types of school organizations, we combined the result of these organizations to the ultimate organization that we based the new campus organization on hierarchy system that the system will be improved by creating multi-level connectivity that evidences through the studies of the layer type of three dimensional connectivity and the cluster type of radiant connectivity to the new and improved proto organization.

multiple clusters Organization

Prototype

Control Elements

unPROTO

Branching in Organization and Interaction From a branch to branching system that represented four different types of the schools organization, the key word in global organization is ‘interaction’, where the dichotomy of the schools could meet and the diffusion of knowledge will generate a better communicative community for higher learning that the most connectivity is where the two faculties of science and humanity clusters meet face to face. Where the end tips of both faculties, are generated in the deepest internal zone of the university to become ‘private-public’, which marking the university to become an integrated branching network system as a whole.

066

Branching System Branching in Organization and Interaction

CIRCULAR

LINEAR

LINEAR

LINEAR

LINEAR

LINEAR

OPPOSED

OPPOSED

OPPOSED

OPPOSED

CONFRONTED

CONFRONTED

CONFRONTED

CONFRONTED

CONFRONTED

unPROTO

Proto Design Proto/typology campus design is neutral design methodology that could be applied to any site in different environmental placement that branching is the model for the system organization. Parametric tested for formation variability and semiology created the diversity of architectural language for the richness in university design.

University Campus with Data From the previous investigation in branching system, we understand branching is a circulatory system that spaces are emerged. We use branching as an improved hierarchy system that the whole organization of university campus becomes multi-layers of a communicative community. Starting with our proposed school is organized in school dichotomy of science composed of three schools of medicine, natural sciences and engineering and humanity composed of five schools of arts, liberal arts, social science, economics and law, where communicative interaction spaces distributed along side with the school programs in every level from departments to the whole campus. Each of the eight school lots is determined by the relationship of students and faculties, which classify into four school sizes: XL arts and natural sciences, L liberal arts and social sciences, M medicine and engineering and S economics and law.

The initial internal sequence of spaces is starting from public, office, classroom, lab and research. With the Data, we can determine our size of the university campus is 335,344 square meters of floor space for the population of 16,022 people.

070

Proto Design University Campus with Data

faculties graph

schools graph

zones graph

unPROTO

Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

CAMPUS ORGANIZATION 1 UNIVERSITY

2 FACULTIES

8 SCHOOLS MEDICINE

SCIENCES

NATURAL SCIENCES

ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

ARTS

SOCIAL SCIENCES

HUMANITIES

LIBERAL ARTS

LAW

ECONOMICS

072

Proto Design Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

48 DEPARTMENTS Medicine Nursury Dentistry Biomedical Pharmacutics Celular Philosophy Nuero Science Biology Marine Sciences Env. Sciences Chemistry Geology Astronomy Physics Mathematics Computation Mechanics Ind. Engineering Electricity Civil Engineering Architecture, LS, Urb Plastic Arts Fine Art Music & Theater Television & Cinema History of Art Aesthetics Philosophy Languages Literature History Cultures Political Science Inter. Relations Geopolitics Geography Sociology Anthropology Psychology Public Policy Social Workers Education Pedagogy Law Accounting & Ad. Business & Ma. Economics Finance

ANGLES AND INTERACTIONS Elements composed into branching system are generation of growth, bifurcation and angle that give the characteristics of the branch and formation of the spaces in parallel with communicative interaction spaces. Eight schools categorized into 4 sizes, which variations give the distinct reflections of physical spaces. We determine each individual lot in relationship with others as a whole. Starting from placement of the genetic spaces alongside circulation to see the approximate end of each lot, which we will have the distinct size of each school. Step two, we have to learn the parametric variations of generation of growth, bifurcation and angle in cause and effect to the design of spaces and campus organization.

SPACES RELATIONS DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC

SCHOOL SHARED

Medical Lab / Animal Facility Nursery Workshop Dentist Lab Biomedical Lab Pharmaceutical Lab

Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall

Cellular Philosophy Lab Neuro Science Lab Biology Lab Marine Sciences Lab Environmental Sciences Lab Chemistry Lab Geological Lab Observatory Physics Lab Mathematical Lab Computational Lab Machanical Lab Industrial Engineering Lab Electrical Lab Civil Engineering Lab Studio Studio Studio Music Studio Dancing Studio TV and Film Studio Preformance Studio Boardcasting

Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall

FACULTY SHARED

Faculty Offices Main Auditorium Open Exhibition Cafeteria Informal work Spaces Gattering Spaces Gardens and Patios

Wood Workshop Metal Workshop Plastic Workshop Material Workshop Assembly Room Material Room / Storage 3d Print / Laser Cut Large Printing Room Silkscreen Workshop PhotoLab

CULTURAL SPACES Exhibition / Gallery Central Library ADMINISTRATION Government Admissions Services Health Services Students Union FACILITIES Main Cafeteria Stationary School Store

Recording Studio Performance Theater Viewing Screen Studio Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall

CAMPUS SHARED

Faculty Offices Main Auditorium Open Exhibition Cafeteria Informal work Spaces Gattering Spaces Gardens and Patios

Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall Library Classrooms Computer Room Lecture Hall

unPROTO

074

Proto Design Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

unPROTO

ANGLES TYPOLOGIES HUMANITIES FACULTY SCHOOLS Law

Economics

S. Sciences

Liberal Arts

30 DEGREES

45 DEGREES

75 DEGREES

076

Proto Design Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

Arts

SCIENCES FACULTY SCHOOLS Engineer

N. Sciences

FACULTIES ORGANIZATION Medicine

unPROTO

TYPOLOGICAL ORGANIZATIONS STUDIES

2 SEEDS SPREADING 30 DEGREES

45 DEGREES

75 DEGREES

078

Proto Design Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

2 SEEDS STACKING

3 SEEDS STACKING

unPROTO

Generation of growth determines the lot end, bifurcation determines the character of the branch and where the program is separated and angle is where interaction is created. In parametric design, we study through these changes for best possibility in design from one branch to campus organization. Angle is the most physical change and the most effective one in creating the interaction space, which we study 30, 45 and 75 degrees to the x-axis for the best result organization. In 30 degrees, best internal interaction, but least external interaction. 45 degrees is uniform and the most elongated planning. 75 degrees is least internal interaction, but most extreme external interaction. Our design threshold of our branch will be generated in the range of 30-75 degrees to the x-axis.

We generate the campus organization through our threshold angle-formations of 30-75 degrees to the x-axis into three different methods: 2 seeds horizontal spreading, 2 seeds vertical stacking and 3 seeds vertical stacking in respond to the dichotomy of science and humanity, where these two faculties are face to face to create communicative interaction spaces in different levels. The sequence of spaces in both organizations start forming public: academic, semi-public: media, workshop and classroom, semi-private: studio and lab and private: research to create at the end of the branch tips where the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;private-publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is emerged and true cross connections of space and diffusion of knowledge will happen and transform the design concept to a proto/typology communicative university design.

080

Proto Design Composition of a Branch to University Campus Organization

unPROTO

Massing

Volumetric Studies

three-Clusters Massing Volumetric Interactions

From initial angles threshold to three methods of campus organization, our further development proto-scenario redefines initial campus organization to final organization, which a complete campus is organized into three massing: the dichotomy of two faculties and the facility. The three main bodies or buildings are formulated from the three seeds spreading organization method. We decided to make another analogy to the branching system by having the bigger bodies closed to the root (external grows inward direction), which begins to decrease in sizes (length, width, and height). When the sections of the building branch out, having the smaller bodies gradually at the ends. The radiant organization starts form public to private, where the three bodies meet at their end tips are their private-public zone. It is the most internal part of the campus and the most concentrated interconnections are taking places.

Case 1 Exterior Response

Case 1 Neighbours Respons

Case 2 Exterior Response

Case 2 Neighbours Respons

082

Proto Design Massing

Case 3 Exterior Response

Case 3 Neighbours Respons

Case 13 Exterior Response

Case 13 Neighbours Respons

unPROTO

Distribution of Spaces Inside of the building is organized into two main sections of faculty level, where all schools in the same cluster shared the same programs in public/academic area and school level, which its sequence of spaces starting from media, workshop, seminar/classroom, studio/lab and research/PhD, where at the end tips reconnected and diffused privatepublic spaces to create more communicative interactions between schools. We focus and testing on the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;private-publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; internal part for better organization, which responds for better fluid interaction that continues for the whole school network, to search for the best organization in proto communicative university model. We find that the end tips face internally is the most direct and the most interesting interaction.

084

Proto Design Massing

Facility & Faculty Buildings [Humanities and Sciences] PUBLIC & PUBLIC + PRIVATE

Buildings are composed of two sections: faculty level and school level, which are reflected to the architectural expressions of the buildings. Two faculty buildings of science and humanity are composed in both faculty and school levels. For the facility building, since it has only public programs, the building is only composed in one level. Therefore three buildings will shared the same architectural expression in faculty level but at the end tips of science and humanity are different semiology expressions because of the nature of different space requirements.

unPROTO

SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW

SCHEMATIC SECTION

CIRCULATION-SPACE RELATIONS pUBLIC AREAS

SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW CIRCULATION-SPACE RELATIONS PRIVATE AREAS

086

Proto Design Massing

SCHEMATIC SECTION

Circulation to Interaction There are multi-level interactions through out the campus from internal of the building to external cross-faculty.

Inside the building, the interactive spaces are distributed to create interactions via circulatory system. In the public area, it acts as circulation, atrium and sometime opened auditorium that people could interact and exchange conversation. The circulation could become a large gathering place for any public event. Move to the end part of the building, the circulation becomes smaller and taper, so it acts as a transferable path or informal work space that the university could use to integrate the private areas to have more interconnections among the research groups, where the most concentrated of knowledge and evolution of our culture to create the network connectivity of the whole campus.

unPROTO

angles differentiation

angles differentiation interactions studies

angles differentiation interactions studies

angles differentiation interactions studies

088

Proto Design Massing

shape differentiation interactions studies

Semiology Three distinct buildings are represented into two architectural expressions that are composed from three branching characteristics that can be differentiated through generation of growth, bifurcation and angle. In cluster of science faculty, generation of growth factors down the spaces from large to small, where the end tips are concentration of individual labs and research rooms. Bifurcation is separating three of the schools in the cluster. And angle is creating the approximate interaction from internal school departments to external school departments both adjacent and cross-adjacent from science to humanity faculty for the flow of communication of the whole school. The distinction between the science and humanity faculty is the overall shape that humanity cluster is constructed by the generation of growth in more expansive area, where its public/academic area has larger atrium than the science faculty. In response with generation of growth, bifurcation and the angle will use the maximum size of the threshold degrees to create the possibly expand lot because these five schools have more numbers in student-faculty bodies. At the end tips of humanity cluster, they are placed of the groups of research rooms, where the center of each group is the communicative interaction space that the researchers will use this space to interact among themselves. Facility cluster shares the same property of faculty level/public formation and becomes the most clean external form in reflective of only having public programs inside the building to distinct itself from both clusters of academic buildings that their last generations of branching in the private-public end tips created the distinctions for these two schools, which our proto/ typology communicative university design reflected initial architectural language in two morphology forms of three branching characteristics to formulate three buildings in three distinct semiology.

unPROTO

Interior Spaces are emerged alongside from the circulatory branching system, where the spaces respond to the branching characteristics of bifurcation and angle, which determine the size and how much irregularity of the room. In connecting the sequence of spaces, the property of traditional spaces of orthogonal formation transformed into continuous curvilinear surface that responds to the organic of the branch natural formation. Circulation will become the place for interaction, where communicative interaction spaces are emerged throughout the campus. The circulation will create different flows of connectivity from opened, merge, dictated and separation, which public to private accesses are permissible to each individual differently and the security of the campus.

090

Proto Design Interior

unPROTO

092

Proto Design Interior

unPROTO

Proto Building Proto/typology campus building is the refined result from parametric testing of proto design that the building and the campus organization is accumulated to be the finest communicative building with the full potential of branching system and its architectural semiology as an application in the design methodology.

Rethinking the Organization in Organization both Plan and Section

We know the actual size of our proposed university, it is the medium sized university with 335,344 square meters floor space for the population of 16,022 people, is consisted of three buildings of faculty of science, faculty of humanity and facility, where their organization systems grow inward to form â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;communicative communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; at the most inner part of the university. Each cluster of faculty is organized into two main sections of faculty level, which is public area shared with all the schools in the same cluster and school level, which individual program spaces are placed in each school. In the mass study, the more the buildings branched out, the more interactions are acquired at the end of the branches.

The building semiology is responded to distinctions of faculty and facility through generation of growth, bifurcation and angle. We test proto-scenario campus into two different organizations: one in all the same level spreading and another is vertical stacking.

096

Proto Building Rethinking the Organization

First organization is testing the placement according to the privacy level of the spaces in public to private relationship under 3 seeds horizontal spreading that all programs placed in the same level. This generated two main drawbacks. A very disperse programs are created with extremely long distance between different areas in the same school and an almost exclusive privileging to the most private areas of the building such as research, which does not correspond to the ideology of flow interconnectivity. For this reason, we re-analyze the relations between the areas to generate a new occupation strategy, which the result we hope for the desired interactions through the second testing.

Second organization, here the vertical position of the spaces also reflects its privacy. Therefore the closer to the origin and the ground is the most public spaces and the further and the higher will be the most individual private spaces. The permissible of the space grows privately both horizontal end and vertical end at its highest. In this case scenario, campus organization is more compact and fluid in accessibility

unPROTO

Sequence and Emergence of Spaces The new sequence of space distributions, the building is organized differently starting from faculty level, academic to school level, media, workshop, seminar/classroom, studio/lab and research/PhD, where at the end tips reconnected and diffused private-public spaces to create more communicative interactions between schools.

Under the new relationship of public to private, the spaces are dispersed both horizontal to vertical. The building is organized its sequence into four storeys building. The lengths and heights of the sections now are not simply driven as the branches extruding out, but by the types of spaces that will take place in the sequence. The biggest height is four storeys in the most public area, the academic, followed by a double size height for the media and workshop in two storeys, leaving all the ending spaces with single height of seminar/classroom on the first and second floor, studio/lab on the third floor and research/PhD on the forth floor. Applying proto application will vary the results according to the school origin disposition, and also the environmental response.

098

Proto Building Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

1 GROWTH 1.1 ACADEMIC [FACULTY LEVEL]

1 GROWTH 1.2 ACADEMIC [SCHOOL LEVEL]

1 GROWTH 1.3 WORKSHOPS / LABS [SCHOOL LEVEL]

1 GROWTH 1.4 SEMINAR [SCHOOL LEVEL]

1 GROWTH 1.5 STUDIOS [SCHOOL LEVEL]

1 GROWTH 1.5 RESEARCH / PhD [SCHOOL LEVEL]

unPROTO

1 GROWTH

2 OCCUPATION

3 SURROUNDING SPACE

4 INTERIOR / PLATFORMS

5 STRUCTURE

6 ARCHITECTURE

100

Proto Building Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

Interior, Structure and Semiology Proto building is constituted in layers of branching grows into the circulation system of a building. Once the generation, bifurcation and angle have been set to define the building lot, the spaces are emerged alongside with the circulation, where the demarking of the surrounding of the spaces finalized the overall space occupancy. The internal space are sub-divided into platforms where its sequence of spaces are placed into different floors in the relationship of public to private both organizing in horizontal and vertical into four storeys building from four storeys large atrium in the most public area, followed by sub-division double storeys height, leaving all the ending spaces with single height where communicative interaction spaces are interacted at the end of the branches. Circulation folds itself into the building structure, where the density of the structure gradually spreads out at the end of the space occupancy. The skin is the last or outer most layer that represented the semiology of different buildings.

The Proto building represented the most neutral design for proto/typology communicative campus design as an application to generating the building in parametric variations with semiology through semiology distinctions in architectural language that will shifted and changed in respond to the applied site condition.

102

Proto Building Interior, Structure and Semiology

unPROTO

The structure of proto building is inspired from the nature of branching.

From the dragonfly wing to butterfly wing that the branching structure is the subdivision of the main axis. In proto building, the building structure folding from circulatory system and gradually branching out to the end of the building, where the semiology could be expressed through the building skin in three distinctive buildings.

104

Proto Building Interior, Structure and Semiology

unPROTO

Proto Campus Form Proto Building to Responsive Building Proto building is an application to formulate a neutral building that will be placed in any site location with the transformation to be responsive building to the site environment.

Urban Analysis Defined the Site Location

Chiswick is a large suburb of west London, England and part of the London Borough of Hounslow. It is located on a meander of the River Thames, 9.7 km. west of Charing Cross and is one of 35 major centers identified in the London Plan. It was historically an ancient parish in the county of Middlesex, with an agrarian and fishing economy. Having good communications with London from an early time the area became a popular country retreat, and as part of the suburban growth of London in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which in 1965 Chiswick has become part of Greater London.

The district is built up towards the north with opened space in the south, including the grounds of Chiswick House and Dukes Meadows. The river forms the southern boundary with Kew, North Sheen, Mortlake, Barnes and Castelnau in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. In the east Goldhawk Road and British Grove form a border with Hammersmith in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. To the west, within Hounslow, are the district of Gunnersbury and Brentford.

Chiswick High Road contains a mix of retail, restaurants, food outlets and expanding of offices and hotel spaces. The wide streets encourage cafes and restaurants to provide pavement seating. Being situated between the offices at the Golden Mile Great West Road and Hammersmith, office developments and warehouse conversions to offices began from the 1960s.

Chiswick is accessible to central London and to the west and the south of the country. Chiswick is situated at the start of the North Circular Road (A406), South Circular Road (A205) and the M4 motorway, the latter providing a direct connection to Heathrow Airport and the M25 motorway. The Great West Road(A4) runs eastwards into central London via the Hogarth Roundabout where it meets the Great Chertsey Road(A316) which runs south-west direction, eventually joining the M3 motorway.

The southern border of Chiswick runs along the River Thames, which the crossing in this area are Barnes Railway and Foot Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Kew Railway Bridge and Kew Bridge. River services between Westminster Pier and Hampton Court depart from Kew Gardens Pier just across Kew Bridge. The nearest National Rail stations are Chiswick and Kew Bridge. South West Trains operates a regular service to London Waterloo via Clapham Junction.19

19

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Chiswickâ&#x20AC;?. 4 Jan 2012. Wikipedia. Accessed 1 Feb 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiswick>

108

Proto Campus Urban Analysis

unPROTO

LOCATION AND ACCESIVILITY

110

Proto Campus Urban Analysis

SITE RIVERFRONT

SITE RIVERFRONT

unPROTO

uRBAN CONTEXT: cOMPANIES & ENTERPRISES - Green & cultural

112

Proto Campus Urban Analysis

chiswick park

Barn Elms Octopus Office Building

Kew Gardens

Thames valley University

Chiswick House

unPROTO

Generative Branching and Parametric Scenario We generate the first placement of the building into the site from branching algorithm that the first genetic of the branches will be responded to the site condition in three different branching growth patterns that are constituted the campus organization.

The patterns grow from outside in and we try to keep the semiology of the three different buildings to be distinct between the braches, which the parametric testing scenarios will be used to search for the building organization that best fits to the site condition.

114

Proto Campus Urban Analysis

unPROTO

environmental Constraints

nodes of growth

growth and connection

116

Proto Campus Urban Analysis

Proto campus Design Apply Proto Building STRATEGY to the site

Our proposed site is Dukes Meadows, which is the huge opened green space at the southern boarder of Chiswick.

The site condition at the north is the intersection of M4 Motorway and National Rail track. By the south, it is next to the River Thames. To the east is the residential and another lot of Dukes Meadows and to the west is the University of Westminster Sports Ground. The site is a huge opened triangular green space and we selected the portion of the site to develop proto/typology communicative campus.

We chose the area next to the M4 Motorway. Where about half of the site, we proposed to build the internal crossroad form north to south to identify the proposed site boundary. So our built lot is a smaller elongated triangle within a larger triangle. With this smaller lot, the new condition of the site is changed. To the west, M4 Motorway is intersected with the new proposed road at the east. The south boarder of the site is still next to the Thames River. M4 Motorway leads up to the north to the previous intersection of the larger lot with the railway track that the closer stations are Chiswick Station by the north and Barnes Bridge Rail Station by the south across the river from the site. The opposite south end of M4 Motorway leads to Chiswick Bridge in connecting the campus with the south bank. Along the river, the site is integrated with the Thames Cycle Path that the proposed site could be reached by car, public transportation, cycling and walking.

An application of proto building, the branching buildings grow inward to form the communicative interactions at the internal end tips of the branches, which proto design will transform the key design elements to respond with the site condition. Three nodes begin the buildings at the corners of the triangular site grow inward by which the facility at the top corner, science faculty next to M4 Motorway and humanity faculty will be next to the proposed road. With respect to the site, the interaction tips of building clusters will face one another and shift interaction spaces toward the river.

unPROTO

surrounding space

surrounding space

architectecture definition

118

Proto Campus Proto campus Design

Sequence and Emergence of Spaces The condition of the site dictates the growth position of the nodes; from the boundary of the site introduces the internal ring road that bridges the site to its environment with three entrances: first closed to Chiswick Bridge, second at the north and third at the south of the proposed road, where the band of parking lot is located next to these two entrances. Further into the site is the external plazas are placed in front of the buildings, where buildings grow inward to private-public shared internal plaza. There are three-types of accessibilities within the site from the outer most is the internal ring road. Second the two types of cycling paths, one: integrated Thames Cycle Path on the waterfront of the site and two: pathways that lead up to the frontal of the buildings. Last the pedestrian pathways that both external and internal of the buildings form circulation networking of the campus. By the front of the river is the recreation park such as amphitheater is a place to interaction.

From the external plaza where the building begins, the building is organized that the closer to the entrance and the ground is the most public space and the further and the higher will be the most individual private spaces. The permissible of the spaces grow privately both horizontal end and vertical end at its highest. The sequence of the spaces inside is distributed into two sections of faculty level and school level where the buildings is organized its sequence into four storeys buildings. The lengths and the heights of the sections in the building are associated, where the biggest height is four storeys in the most public area, the academic, followed by a double size height for the media and workshop in two storeys, leaving all the ending spaces with single height of seminar/classroom on the first and second floor, studio/lab on the third floor and research/PhD on the forth floor, where the branches end tips are communicative interaction spaces interact all three buildings at private-public zone, which all these spaces are facing toward the river in response to the site condition.

Interior, Structure and Semiology The building grows from branching system into the circulation system of the building. The spaces are emerged alongside with the circulation, where their occupancies demark the surrounding spaces in the sub-division platforms where the sequence of spaces is placed into different floors. Circulation folds itself into the building structure, where the density of the structure gradually spreads out at the end of the building platforms. The skins, the outer most layer, cover the three buildings that are reflected architectural languages into two morphology forms from three branching characteristics to formulate three buildings in three distinct semiology. First generation, the same language is generated for the public area to all the buildings. Second generation, bifurcation and angle are differentiated in different faculties by the building physical width and length respective with the ratio of space and population that the science faculty has the overall form smaller than the humanity faculty. Third, the most evidence is communicative interaction spaces at the end tips of each faculty, where the semiology represented the most differentiation for science and humanity, where labs and research rooms of the end cluster of science building are more private and individual that the cluster cells are compact. However at the end of humanity cluster, cells are more sociable and collective, which transform the spaces into solid block. Since facility constitutes only public program, the overall building formation is continuous surface that covers its interior of opened public spaces. The branching building is communicative architecture, where the clusters of buildings are interacted and exchanged from efficient flow circulation to knowledge diffusion.

unPROTO

120

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

122

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

124

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

126

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

128

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

130

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

unPROTO

132

Proto Campus Sequence and Emergence of Spaces

Conclusion Reorganization to become ‘Communicative Community’ with Branching, Parametric and Semiology.

“Our proposal, re-linked knowledge with spatial distribution to create a multi-layered communicative community as an application for proto/typology communicative campus design, where neutral design methodology could be applied to any site in different environmental placement that branching is the model for the system organization.

Parametric tested for formation variability and semiology created the diversity of architectural language for the richness of the university, where it is the center of higher learning that humanity evolution is based on from today to tomorrow.”

AADRL 2011-2012 unPROTO Proposal We will quote our proposal statement that proto/typology communicative campus design as an applied application, it could be proved that it can generate the communicative campus into ‘communicative community’ both at local and global levels that proto/typology communicative campus could become typology of any communicative building.

unPROTO

complete Masterplan

134

Proto Campus Conclusion

complete Masterplan

unPROTO

complete Masterplan

136

Proto Campus Conclusion

complete Masterplan

unPROTO

facilities building

138

Proto Campus Conclusion

facilities building

unPROTO

humanities faculty building

140

Proto Campus Conclusion

humanities faculty building

unPROTO

humanities faculty building

142

Proto Campus Conclusion

humanities faculty building

unPROTO

sciences faculty building

144

Proto Campus Conclusion

sciences faculty building

unPROTO

sciences faculty ending branches

146

Proto Campus Conclusion

Humanities faculty Ending branches

unPROTO

sciences faculty ending branches

148

Proto Campus Conclusion

Humanities faculty Ending branches

unPROTO

00_cover.pdf 1 14/02/2012 03:58:46 p.m.

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

MArch Architecture and Urbanism Architectural Associantion School of Architecture Design Reasearch Lab [Proto Design v2.2] 2010-2012

unPROTO

unPROTO

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

unPROTO

00_cover.pdf 1 14/02/2012 03:58:46 p.m.

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

MArch Architecture and Urbanism Architectural Associantion School of Architecture Design Reasearch Lab [Proto Design v2.2] 2010-2012

unPROTO

unPROTO

Proto-Design: Parametric Semiology DRL Proto Design v2.2

unPROTO