UNDISCIPLINED CMU 8”
16” 8”
A Design-Build Masonry Architecture Studio
BUILD IT IF YOU WANT
Marcelo Lรณpez-Dinardi | Pier Paolo Pala | Chau Tran | Yuliya Veligurskaya
Originated in a 2nd year undergraduate architecture designbuild studio competition at the School of Architecture of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, the UNDISCIPLINED CMU (concrete masonry unit) assembly was an assignment intended to produce a mock-up of a paper-project for a police station in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Although the competition had requirements and agenda of its own, the design studio expanded the given program and material theme. Shifting from the expected representation of the building in a mock-up, the focus was given to the exploration of the material parameters and cultural dimension of the project on the given site of a 6’ x 8’ x 8’ volume. The typical CMU was chosen due to its commonplace status in the construction industry stimulating unexpected readings challenging its cultural implications. The design process was not linear and it required simultaneous exploration and production through digital, physical, and analog methods. The immersion into systematic thinking that
was embodied in the framework of the studio was key to the iterative process that allowed the final result, it is the product of the networked connections of the masonry industry and its architectural aspirations. The project also went through moments of uncertainty and frustration, as the results seemed always unpredictable or unexpected. Each step forward was treated as an accomplishment with excitement, yet research and critical inquiry were daily ingredients that encouraged the studio. Primarily this publication documents the build (or CMU-Monument), however, it showcases the individual work of a group of students including the final selection from which this project was based. While the built project is meant to last a year, this book is a long-lasting record of the process that produced it and the varied realities that were provoked through it. The book is a counter-cronology, as you advance on it you will encounter the projects and exercises that led to the constructed object.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BUILD EXPLORATIONS BUILD IT IF YOU WANT CMU OVERLOAD
p.98
STUDIO PROJECTS
p.130
INITIAL DRAWINGS
p.158
AFTERWORD
p.182
p.8
p.44
8’
8’8’
8’
8’
8’
6’ 8’
Spatial Parameter
8
6’
Material Parameter—Masonry
9
Starting Point—Linear Aggregation Drawings
10
Study Models of Cast Stone and CMU Walls
11
Study Model of Cast Stone and CMU Walls
12
Study Models of Cast Stone Walls
13
Drawing Exploration with CMU
14
Drawing Exploration with CMU
15
CMU Exploration—Initial Cuts
16
8”
16” 8”
CMU—Final Cuts
17
Susceptible to Breaking Becomes Rubble/ Scrap
Diagram—Susceptible to Breaking CMU Cuts
18
Susceptible to Breaking Becomes Rubble/ Scrap
Diagram—Susceptible to Breaking CMU Cuts
19
Selected CMU Cuts
20
Structural Concerns
21
Structural Concerns
22
Structural Concerns
23
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
24
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
25
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
26
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
27
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
28
Basic Cuts—Longitudinal, Transversal, Diagonal
30
Diagram—CMU Cuts Matrix
31
Wall 1
Wall 2
Wall 3
Wall 4
Wall 5
Build Digital Model
37
Wall 5 High
Wall 4 Intermediate
Wall 3 Low
Wall 2 Intermediate
Wall 1 High
Physical Model Explorations
Diagram—Wall Complexity
38
Diagram—View and Perception
39
Build Physical Model—Material Explorations
40
Build Physical Model—Material Explorations
41
BUILD IT IF YOU WANT
INSTRUCTIONS 1. Decide you want to build a monument to Concrete Masonry Units. 2. Convince a group of friends and masons to join you in this endeavor. 3. Acquire 353 CMUs plus additional 5% for contingency, and mortar. 4. Acquire or rent a masonry saw. 5. Create a concrete pad 6’x8’x4” thick; draw plan on pad. 6. Cut the CMUs in no less than 14 different ways, as illustrated in the following pages. 7. Divide the CMUs into batches corresponding with the order of assembly, as shown. 8. Using the Construction Documents (included), and will (not included), begin assembly. 9. Finish assembly; if accomplished in two days or less, marvel at your insanity. 10. Celebrate by documenting the process in book form and eating brick oven pizza.
45
EQ.
EQ.
A.1
A.1
BATCH 1—8 BATCH 2—7 BATCH 3—7 BATCH 4—9 BATCH 5—3 BATCH 6—5 TOTAL—39
Type A Cut
EQ. EQ.
B.1
B.1
BATCH 1—10 BATCH 2—10 BATCH 3—18 BATCH 4—11 BATCH 5—4 BATCH 6—2 TOTAL—55
Type B Cut
EQ.
EQ.
C.1
C.1
BATCH 1—10 BATCH 2—7 BATCH 3—13 BATCH 4—7 BATCH 5—3 BATCH 6—2 TOTAL—42
Type C Cut
D.1 CORNER TO CORNER
D.1
BATCH 1—10 BATCH 2—10 BATCH 3—18 BATCH 4—11 BATCH 5—4 BATCH 6—2 TOTAL—33
Type D Cut
CORNER TO CORNER
E.1
E.1
BATCH 1—6 BATCH 2—4 BATCH 3—13 BATCH 4—7 BATCH 5—5 BATCH 6—3 TOTAL—38
Type E Cut
EQ.
EQ.
EQ. EQ.
EQ. EQ.
AB.1
AB.1
AB.1
AB.1 BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—0 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—4 BATCH 6—6 TOTAL—10
Type AB Cut
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
AC.1 EQ.
EQ.
AC.1
AC.1
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—0 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—7 BATCH 6—2
AC.1
TOTAL—9
Type AC Cut
CORNER TO CORNER EQ. EQ. EQ. EQ.
AE.1
AE.1
AE.1
AE.1
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—0 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—7 BATCH 6—7 TOTAL—14
Type AE Cut
EQ. EQ. BC.1
EQ.
EQ.
EQ. EQ.
BC.1
BC.1
BC.1
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—3 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—7 BATCH 6—4 TOTAL—14
Type BC Cut
CORNER TO CORNER
EQ. EQ.
EQ. EQ.
BD.1
BD.1
BD.2
BD.2
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—12 BATCH 4—11 BATCH 5—6 BATCH 6—8 TOTAL—37
Type BD Cut
CORNER TO CORNER TO CORNER
EQ.
EQ.
CD.2
EQ.
EQ.
CD.1 CD.1
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—5 BATCH 4—2 BATCH 5—7 BATCH 6—6
CD.2
TOTAL—20
Type CD Cut
CORNER TO CORNER
EQ.
EQ. EQ. CE.1 EQ.
CE.2
CE.2
CE.1 BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—4 BATCH 4—1 BATCH 5—8 BATCH 6—11 TOTAL—24
Type CE Cut
CORNER TO CORNER
CORNER TO CORNER
CORNER TO CORNER DD.1
DD.2
DD.2
DD.1
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—2 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—5 BATCH 6—4 TOTAL—11
Type DD Cut
CORNER TO CORNER
CORNER TO CORNER
EE.2
CORNER TO CORNER EE.1
SCRAP
EE.1
EE.2
BATCH 1—0 BATCH 2—0 BATCH 3—1 BATCH 4—0 BATCH 5—5 BATCH 6—1 TOTAL—7
Type EE Cut
Batch 1: Wall 3 - Lower half Batch 2: Wall 3 - Upper half Batch 3: Walls 2&4 - Lower halves Batch 4: Walls 2&4 - Upper halves Batch 5: Walls 1&5 - Lower halves Batch 6: Walls 1&5 - Upper halves
Wall 5
Wall 4
Wall 3
Wall 2
Wall 1
60
Sidewalk
N
Street 0 in
4
8
16
A101
Roof Plan
0 in
4
8
16
A102
Course 1 Plan at 3�
A103
Course 1 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A104
Course 2 Plan at 3�
A105
Course 2 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A106
Course 3 Plan at 3�
A107
Course 3 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A108
Course 4 Plan at 3�
A109
Course 4 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A110
Course 5 Plan at 3�
A111
Course 5 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A112
Course 6 Plan at 3�
A113
Course 6 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A114
Course 7 Plan at 3�
A115
Course 7 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A116
Course 8 Plan at 3�
A117
Course 8 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A118
Course 9 Plan at 3�
A119
Course 9 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A120
Course 10 Plan at 3�
A121
Course 10 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A122
Course 11 Plan at 3�
A123
Course 11 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A124
Course 12 Plan at 3�
A125
Course 12 Plan at 6�
0 in
4
8
16
A200
Wall 1 North Elevation
A201
Wall 1 South Elevation
0 in
4
8
16
A202
Wall 2 North Elevation
A203
Wall 2 South Elevation
0 in
4
8
16
A204
Wall 3 North Elevation
A205
Wall 3 South Elevation
0 in
4
8
16
A206
Wall 4 North Elevation
A207
Wall 4 South Elevation
0 in
4
8
16
A208
Wall 5 North Elevation
0 in
A209
4
Wall 5 South Elevation
8
16
CMU OVERLOAD
¿? No conocía esta historia del monumento al CMU ¡qué interesante! 99
!!
Build Preparation—CMU Marking and Cutting - Day 1
100
Build Preparation—CMU Marking and Cutting - Day 1
101
Build Pad - Day 1
102
Build Process - Day 1
103
Build Process - Day 1
104
Build Process - Day 1
105
Build Process - Day 2
106
Build Process - Day 2
107
Build Drying Process - Day 2
108
Build Drying Process - Day 2
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
Physical Model of Build in Process (already 10 days)
128
Physical Model of Build - 2 Weeks to Finish
129
STUDIO PROJECTS
Not good, not bad
131
132
Masonry Design Competition - Studio Entry
133
134
Mariza Antonio
135
136
Spoorthi Bhatta
137
138
Brian Mourato
139
140
Chit Yee Ng
141
142
Pier Paolo Pala
143
144
Elliot Pérez
145
146
Lauren Rose
147
148
Roman Schorniy
149
150
MarĂa Silva
151
152
Chau Tran
153
154
Yuliya Veligurskaya
155
156
Jeffrey Youmans
157
INITIAL DRAWINGS
I Context Analysis
II Vision for the City
III Vision for the Project
159
I
II
III
Mariza Antonio
160
I
II
III
Spoorthi Bhatta
161
I
II
III
Brian Mourato
162
I
II
III
Chit Yee Ng
163
I
II
III
Pier Paolo Pala
164
I
II
III
Elliot Pérez
165
I
II
III
Lauren Rose
166
I
II
III
Roman Schorniy
167
I
II
III
MarĂa Silva
168
I
II
III
Chau Tran
169
I
II
III
Yuliya Veligurskaya
170
I
II
III
Jeffrey Youmans
171
Mariza Antonio
Spoorthi Bhatta
Unit Aggregation
174
Brian Mourato
Chit Yee Ng
Pier Paolo Pala
Unit Aggregation
175
Elliot Pérez
MarĂa Silva
Roman Schorniy
Unit Aggregation
176
Lauren Rose
Jeffrey Youmans
Yuliya Veligurskaya
Linear Aggregation
177
Chau Tran
Brian Mourato
Spoorthi Bhatta
Linear Aggregation
178
Mariza Antonio
Elliot Pérez
Pier Paolo Pala
Linear Aggregation
179
Chit Yee Ng
MarĂa Silva
Roman Schorniy
Linear Aggregation
180
Lauren Rose
Jeffrey Youmans
Yuliya Veligurskaya
Linear Aggregation
181
Chau Tran
UNDISCIPLINED CMU is the second iteration of a project in which a physical construction is developed as part of a 2nd year undergraduate architecture studio focused on masonry. The studio is part of the core curriculum of the School of Architecture of the New Jersey Institute of Technology I taught in the Spring of 2015, and was run as an intra-studio competition sponsored by the Masonry Contractors of New Jersey (as they have done it for more than a decade). Each student is asked to design a building-project based on the material theme of masonry and tectonics complemented with a program. Later, after an internal review they select one project that will be developed by the whole studio to compete with all 2nd year studios, and after a period of two and a half weeks design and build a mock-up of the proposed building within a 384 cu.ft. space. The project was based on the assigned program by the former studio coordinator –in this case a rather charged program of a police station in a high Hispanic population in Perth Amboy New Jersey aspiring for funding for a Traffic Oriented District town. After reviewing our studio projects with the most potential to be developed collectively, students selected María Silva’s out of sixteen in an internal strictly student-based jury, and quickly moved into a vibrant period of translation of the project’s ideas into what we commonly called the build; or sometimes the CMU Monument.
consider as an extremely ordinary, non-valued, cheap, docile, yet systematic and widely used construction material that suggested no clear alternatives other than stacking it in different patterns. The studio operated mostly as a combination of visual and formal subtraction, knowledge suspension, systematic geometrical investigation and, cultural and disciplinary inquiry. The building project was elaborated after the rigorous development of geometrical aggregation studies as a pedagogical strategy for erasure of precepts of buildings as square footage or programmatic arrangements, to explore the formal capacities of architecture to have consistent spatial and networked relations. Linear and unit geometrical aggregation drawings were developed before approaching the project’s formal stance, and social, cultural and politically charged collages were created in parallel to formulate each student’s critical position. Once a formal and visual language was developed understanding their systematic connections and capacities, building program, site complexities and larger cultural, social or political issues were brought back in to explore the architectural strategies and their limits to support the latter ambitions. Highly autonomous or internally-logical objects were transformed into spatial devices for community engagement, hybrid programmatic assemblages, legibility inquiries, or counter-surveillance situations. The projects are formally bold, argumentative rather than solutionist, juxtapositions rather than compositions, and investigated architectural formal and spatial capacities in dialogue with their cultural site readings and critical positioning.
We found out that we were more interested in translating the project and the studio’s framework rather than formalizing a construction mock-up of the selected project; the idea of constructing representative fragments of the building as a reaffirmation of the drawing seemed futile and limiting as a pedagogical tool and a lost opportunity to explore the material in a one-to-one scale considering the amount of energy that is spent in the project. We wanted to build an argument, not only a mock-up. We decided instead to formulate a project of its own inquiring the masonry theme, the culture that is contained within it, and asking questions to the construction industry and the architectural culture attached to it. The first attempts were crass examples of misunderstanding concepts and scale in translating the building project more than the studio framework into a one-to-one scale object. Most of the attempts replicated the project’s diagrammatic geometries or tried to disproportionately convey ideas of spatial continuity that would have made no sense in a 6’-0” x 8’-0” x 8’-0” object. Given the variety of materials provided by the masonry contractors to be used in the project, we considered them trying to avoid their visual and semantic value, and tested caststone as a piece we would need to shape and contextualize, until we ran out of time and clarity of how and why to use it. Going back to the studio framework of systematic and networked relations helped to clarify the research. The CMU (concrete masonry unit) seemed a good option to
The material used, the CMU, is the single most common construction element in the industry along with dry wall framing. It is at the same time the least considered in its capacity to produce unexpected results other than its use as infill wall, primarily because it is not designed to perform in any other way. For the studio this material was investigated as a physical and discursive given condition, it was inquired culturally and analyzed formally. It was (and still is) stripped down of its capacity to only be used as seen or received, it was challenged to overcome its industry standard mode and was transformed into an unexpected and enigmatic piece after intense exploration. The build is a massive concrete construction that, as an architectural device, opened the possibilities of reimagining and reconsidering the banality of a typical and non-valued material in architecture and the construction industry, by literally cutting it. The implications are varied, as the build proposes questions of how we produce artifacts based on principles of construction, or cultural-industry, as well as what is the role of architecture in manipulating a given material conditioned by its marked
Afterword
182
use. It also speaks about the docility that is embedded in architectural practices in the form of received (material) knowledge. Our motivations are less those of an articulation of a design process; they are above all a pedagogical tool for learning to un-do while constructing concrete arguments, realconcrete-arguments, to reinforce the tautology.
that is allowing them now to reconsider an assignment beyond a problem-solving logic. Three students, Pier Paolo Pala, Chau Tran and Yuliya Veligurskaya besides having developed a high level of team work during the intra-studio competition, kept working on the project over the summer and edited and designed this book that collects the project’s process, including the complete set of drawings to construct a version of it and a documentation of the final result.
A critical mode of operation for the project is that we did not just “apply” the masonry material as a physical component to represent an architectural idea –a wall– the material became the conceptual and physical idea itself by rigorously investigating it. The typical CMU block was subdivided and cut following its main geometrical axes (based on its strength) and the resultant pieces were reconfigured into five “walls” that formally expressed the complexity of the operation. The wall with the least complex cuts is located in the center as evidence of the investigation origin, and expanding to the given volume perimeter the walls become the evidence of the amplified capacities of the usage of the created “undisciplined” pieces. The walls are not “facade” explorations nor screens or enclosures, they are the formal and material manifestation of the research on the material. They are architectural in their own right as aggregations, as walls, as conjecture, as experiment, as construction.
The studio provoked many discussions related to tectonics and masonry and also prompted discussions about reality, concreteness, the sources of ideas, enthusiasm and the capacities of physical objects. Students were also confronted with a different set of realities that challenged their initial ideas about the built work. The mock-up competition jury formed by architects, members of the masonry industry as well as the school’s administrative leaders, described after a rather long hesitant explanation a statement about the power of the project, yet were astounded by its enigmatic character and the difficulty it poses in being legible, in being architecture or architectural. This was suggested by a member of the jury in saying that when projects are “real” (referring to having a design and building practice) they need to be able to be constructed by a series of clear set of documents and follow budget and time constraints. However, the physical presence of the CMU construction a few feet from us built in two days and with the same limited resources available to all was apparently not real enough to be the evidence of reality, or at least not enough a building reality. At that moment, students had already confirmed their suspicion about the real, built-work, its images, appearances and ghosts. We built the argument we explored creating architectural tools for learning to un-do –the CMU achieved its own independent value from the industries that produces it– its physicality proved its value, not as reaffirmation of the expected or what can be build, but as argumentative un-disciplined construction.
Undisciplined CMU is a research project that evidences the capacity of a work to overcome its expected disciplinary use by undoing among various things, the docility that is transferred in its assumed contained knowledge. The project produced is not only the physical manifestation of an idea, it is a built argument about the production of undisciplined work that aims to remove the docility that is impressed by disciplinary knowledge, utilizing the same means it provides to subvert it. The student’s learning outcome exceeded the project’s general ambitions as set in the 2nd year program, while following the parameters and scope of the studio. Students did not only get enthusiastic for doing a design-build project, they learned about the limits and complexities of a material capacity beyond its use as a passive application; inquiring for example, its cultural form. The course was designed in a way that students developed their own critical positions in order to not just manage or use a material theme –masonry– but to use it as a media for constructing knowledge based on its research and analysis, allowing themselves to create the unexpected while not necessarily searching for it a priori. The studio ambition offered the students a systematic mode of thinking that was not only helpful during the intense short period in which this project was developed (2.5 weeks of design including only 2 days for construction), but as a tool
Marcelo López-Dinardi
Afterword
183
This edition, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Use the book as instructed. Editors are not responsible for personal endeavors based on the content of this book. Printed in the USA ISBN: 9781364855161 Edited by Marcelo López-Dinardi Pier Paolo Pala Chau Tran Yuliya Veligurskaya Graphic Design Pier Paolo Pala Chau Tran Yuliya Veligurskaya Graphic Design Adaptation Andrés Macera Build Photography Credits Marcelo López-Dinardi and Andrés Macera Studio Participants, Spring 2015 Mariza Antonio Spoorthi Bhatta Rawad El-Aawar Monica Girgis Freddy Martínez Brian Mourato Chit Yee Ng Joel Nuñez Pier Paolo Pala Eliott Pérez Lauren Rose María Silva Roman Schorniy Chau Tran Yuliya Veligurskaya Jeffrey Youmans The editors would like to thank Michael (Mike) Schmerbeck past president of the Masonry Contractors of New Jersey and their co-sponsors: the New Jersey Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Labor Management Committee for making this event; to Julio Figueroa for coordinating the studio; to the jury James Boland, Alan Chimacoff, School of Architecture Director Richard Garber, Dean Urs Gauchat, Carlos Jimenez, Maria Viteri and David K. Williams; to staff, bricklayers and laborers Eric Schaffer, Joe Acchione, Robert Alesandro, John Fajnor, Charlie Shea, Mark Wells, Rob Lostocco, John Potter, John Bensal, Scott Price, Tom Parsons, Amirilldo Horst, Robert Kockan, Joe DiSilva, Dave Zehnbauer, Jefferson Lopes, Manny Oliveria, Jack Lima, Antonio Markis, Mike Pudelka, Gazment Ceko, Steve Jobman, Ren Englehardt, Jeff Anderson, James Anderson, Charlie Sternaimolo, Dan Wysinski, Chuck Bartell, Mark Wells Jr., Jimmy Carden, Chuck Pilliphs, Danny Rutkowski, Rinaldo Jimenez and Chris Viana; and to our allies the sawmen Sam Barry and Michael Alesandro. School of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design.
®
Marcelo Lรณpez-Dinardi | Pier Paolo Pala | Chau Tran | Yuliya Veligurskaya
