Christopher James Botham Master of Architecture Candidate, Columbia GSAPP Selected work: 2013-2016
Architecture must embrace and capitalize on contextual forces commonly blocked against, or worse, ignored. As a corollary, the resultant form becomes functionally didactic and formally efficient, rather than applique as an afterthought.
Skin is not enough. A conceptual framework must extend beyond the skin and engage at all levels across site, structure, skin, and interior. It is through this relationship that architecture most often finds success, and is allowed to transcend a single building and create a larger impact on culture.
CONTENT[studiowork] [penn]STATION
Advanced VI Studio CRITIC: V. Chakrabarti Ruchika Modi YEAR: 2016 Spring
PLACELESS[ness]
Advanced V Studio CRITIC: Thomas Phifer Gabriel Smith YEAR: 2015 Fall
[ebb]&FLOW
Advanced IV Studio CRITIC: David Benjamin YEAR: 2015 Spring
[re]GEN HOUSING
Core III Studio CRITIC: Charles D. Eldred YEAR: 2014 Fall
HOW CAN INFRASTRUCTURE KNIT ITSELF INTO ITS SURROUNDINGS? WHAT IF YOU COULD EXIT A TRAIN IN THE CITY RATHER THAN IN A CAVE? CAN BUILT ARCHITECTURE BE PLACELESS? HOW CAN SPACE CONNECT EVERY HUMAN-BEING WHO HAS EVER LIVED? HOW CAN WE UTILIZE EXISTING TIDAL CURRENTS? CAN WE RETHINK OUR HYDRO-INFRASTRUCTURE? HOW DO WE GIVE THE GRAND CONCOURSE A PROPER TERMINUS? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CREATE A STREET?
[brooklyn]SKYGARDEN
CAN AN URBAN BUILDING ENGAGE THE PUBLIC WITH THE FARM-TO-TABLE PROCESS?
FLOWING[horizontality]
HOW CAN WE GIVE THE TOWER ITS PARK BACK?
Core II Studio CRITIC: William A. Arbizu YEAR: 2014 Spring
Core I Studio CRITIC: Galia Solomonoff YEAR: 2013 Fall
HOW CAN PARAMETRIC TOOLS ASSIST IN THE DESIGN PROCESS?
Every work of architecture is a representation of the designer’s phyche. An honest manifestation of how the mind operates. Only through these works can the designer’s true character and values be expressed in phyical form. It is because of this that architecture is able to inspire one’s thoughts and provide compelling experiences for those within it, Thus tapping into areas of the mind so prime to one’s existence as to allow a person to feel alive and be affected by space. When a person experiences my work, I speak to him or her through built form. We have conversations through the architecture without a single word ever articulated. -Christopher James BOTHAM
[penn]STATION GSAPP: Advanced VI Studio CRITIC: Vishaan Chakrabarti; Ruchika Modi YEAR: 2016 Spring LOCATION: Penn Station, New York City PROJECT: Penn Station Re-design: 1960-2050 PROGRAM: Train Station, Sports Arena, Park, Tower THE CONTEXT: Midtown Manhattan The project seeks to re-design Penn Station in Midtown Manhattan, beginning in 1960 and ending in 2050. The design responded to both McKim, Mead & White’s original station and the current design, each of which treats the platform experience as cave-like and disconnected from the city. The new station opens up the train platforms to the surrounding city and replaces the original station’s civic and centralized parti with an urban and dispersed model, allowing the station to knit into its surroundings and act as a catalyst for development in the neighborhood. At the urban scale, the station is one of four urban elements that come together to act as a new urban core between Midtown and Chelsea. To the east, a grand public space fronts Broadway and acts as a forecourt to the new station. To the north, a tower and podium element directly connects to the station and its concourse, acting as a revenue generator and re-instating the hotel function of the demolished Penn Hotel. To the west, a re-designed Madison Square Garden completes the ensemble and acts to pull development energy to the west.
HOW CAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE KNIT ITSELF INTO ITS SURROUNDINGS? WHAT IF YOU COULD EXIT A TRAIN IN THE CITY RATHER THAN IN A CAVE?
Major parti sketches outlining the response of the project to the original station and the current condition, pictured below.
[TIMELINE: 1960] Existing condition. Immediate context of Penn Station, Farley Post Office, and Penn Hotel to be re-designed, while buildings of interest along 34th Street to be preserved.
[TIMELINE: 1965-1980] Penn Station and Madison Square Garden re-designed.
[TIMELINE: 1980-2016] Four elements in place, with a network of smaller pedestrian walkways cut into the surrounding blocks. Park, station and Madison Square Garden act together to extablish an east/west axis beginning at broadway
[TIMELINE: 2016-2050] Station acts as center of new development in the area, with a more traditional New York City fabric to the east and south, with more modern and dense fabric to the west and north.
PLAN - 1960 URBAN CONTEXT
[SITEMAP] EXISTING CONTEXT: Site exists between Midtown and Chelsea, with a dearth of open space and a lack of urban distinction.
PLAN - 2016 URBAN CONTEXT
[SITEMAP] NEW CONTEXT: Open space completes the chain of parks along Broadway, and station bridges over 8th Avenue, adding urban distinction to the site and creating a hub of activity between 33rd and 31st Streets.
[SITEPLAN] EXISTING CONTEXT: The urban ensemble of open space, train station, tower and sports arena serves to create an urban hub around the station and will allow the area to develop around these landmarks. Furthermore, to increase visibility throughout the area, the adjacent blocks have been sliced through with pedestrian streets that contain shops and pubs, providing breathing room for the users of the ensemble.
BOH
RESTAURANT BOH OFFICE LOBBY
COURTYARD DINING
RETAIL
RESTAURANT HOTEL LOBBY
CAFE RETAIL
RETAIL
RETAIL CAFE
RESTROOMS
RESTROOMS
[FLOOR PLAN] Concourse Level
[FLOOR PLAN] Platform Level
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 01: Column grid established to align with platforms, placing structure between tracks to free up platforms.
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 02: Tributary areas identified for each column location.
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 03: Lines of structure added within tributary areas to create diamond pattern.
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 02: Diamonds connected along east/west axis to allow more light at ends of roof, densifying in the middle.
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 05: Diamonds pulled down at column locations to create space for self-supported umbrella structures around each column.
[ROOF DIAGRAM] 06: Umbrella enclosure capped and infilled by linear skylights, aligned with platforms below.
[ROOF TECTONICS] Steel truss network creates the umbrella form, clad underneath by aluminum panels. Structure is only placed between tracks, resulting in linear skylights above aligned with plaforms below.
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD KNIT INTO ITS SURROUNDINGS AND SHOULD ENHANCE THE URBAN EXPERIENCE FOR THE USER. The project took an optimistic view of the city and tied into a larger fascination with the urban condition, crystalized by New York City. The original station turned its back on the city, and in many ways the design proposal was a direct dismissal of this approach. The urban experience is something to embrace and, as a corollary, a train station should be a direct manifestation of this. The semester allowed me to wrestle with and clarify many ideas and attitudes I have toward the city, and represented a personal declaration of love and passion for the urban experience, and in particular New York City.
DIAMOND[facade] GSAPP: Technology Elective: Advanced Curtain Wall CRITIC: Robert Heintges YEAR: 2016 Spring LOCATION: New York City, NY, USA Midtown Manhattan PROJECT: Supertall Tower Facade PROGRAM: Office Tower THE CONTEXT: The Sky [01] Base massing
[02] Diagrid established
[03] Triangulation by pulling base midpoints out from structure line
[04] Corners pushed in
[05] Floor plates created
[06] Curtain-wall module identified
The project began with a steel diagrid at the perimeter of a tower mass. This diagrid set the base geometry for the facade design, which was approached as a unitized curtain-wall system that directly relates to the structure beneath. The triangles resulting from the diagrid were then pulled out from the facade at the midpoint of each base line to create a crystalline form that defines the facade and massing of the tower. At the facade level, each triangulated plane is a repeatable element, which maximizes repetition within the system. Each diagonal member is expressed on the facade, while the spandrel panels of the curtain-wall units are centered on lines of building structure, allowing the geometry at the facade edge to remain pure, rather than being offset to align with the floor slab. This splits the spandrel into two halves; the top aligns with the floor slab, and the bottom aligns with the ceiling plane. What results is an architecture that is directly related to its structure. The project seeks to argue for the close relationship between the two; both architecture and structure should always be in dialog with one another, and each should be informed by and enhanced by the other.
2
3
1
ELEVATION - TYPICAL FACADE SCALE: 3/16"=1'
D1 3'-0" TYP
3
PLAN - TYPICAL FACADE SCALE: 3/16"=1'
EQ
SPANDREL TOP
EQ
CENTERLINE OF BLDG STRUCTURE
12'-0"
SPANDREL BOTTOM
EQ
SPANDREL TOP
EQ
CENTERLINE OF BLDG STRUCTURE SPANDREL BOTTOM
12'-0"
9'-4" TYP
D4
EQ
SPANDREL TOP
EQ
CENTERLINE OF BLDG STRUCTURE SPANDREL BOTTOM
12'-0"
D5
EQ
SPANDREL TOP
EQ
CENTERLINE OF BLDG STRUCTURE SPANDREL BOTTOM
2
ELEVATION - TYPICAL FACADE SCALE: 3/16"=1'
[DETAIL ISOMETRIC] Spandrel detail at diagrid member, showing exterior and floor condition
D3
PLAN DETAIL - ANCHOR SCALE: 1"=1'
D1
PLAN DETAIL - TYPICAL FACADE SCALE: 1"=1'
D2
PLAN DETAIL - FACADE CORNER SCALE: 1"=1'
[DETAIL ISOMETRIC] Spandrel detail at diagrid member, showing interior and ceiling condition
SMOKE SEAL FIRESAFING STACK JOINT AT CENTERLINE OF BUILDING STRUCTURE
MOLDED GFRP SPANDREL PANEL PERIMETER DIFFUSER SHADING SYSTEM
D4
SECTION DETAIL - SPANDREL SCALE: 1"=1'
D5
SECTION DETAIL - SPANDREL SCALE: 1"=1'
STACK JOINT AT CENTERLINE OF BUILDING STRUCTURE SITE-INSTALLED JOINT PANEL AT CENTERLINE OF BUILDING STRUCTURE, SPANNING MULTIPLE UNITS
D6
SECTION DETAIL - SPANDREL SCALE: 1"=1'
VERTICALITY[manifesto] GSAPP: Independent Study SUPERVISOR: Danil Nagy YEAR: 2016 Spring HUMAN PROGRESS EXISTS BECAUSE OF VERTICALITY AND OUR PRIMAL NEED FOR HEIGHT.
Our bi-pedal bodies stand vertical, and point upwards. As a species, we exist perpendicular to the surface we inhabit; we point up to the sky through our bodies. Thus, our lives are, and have since been, defined by ascension. Each of us, throughout our lives, must evolve from crawling to standing, and each of us grows upwards as we gain wisdom through our experiences. Our individual lives are microcosms of our species’ evolution.
OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF THIS. The following manifesto outlines human progress through the lens of verticality and our primal need for height. The research is the fruits of an on-going fascination of mine with the subjects of evolutionary psychology and anthropology. The narrative is an attempt to connect these subjects with our built world, all under the lens of the human species, dealing with how we interact with and shape the world around us. It begins with our ancestors who lived in the trees, and ends with current technology and a projection into the future.
INCEPTION Our ancestors, who lived in the trees, were quite familiar with heights. They had ascended into the trees to escape grounddwelling predators; height equaled safety and survival. Falling equaled death (the fear of heights common among our species stems from this). As we evolved, we descended from the trees and out onto the grasslands. The flat surface meant less protection from predators, so we again needed height to facilitate our survival. We became bi-pedal, which symbolizes our first act in overcoming gravity. We began a timeless struggle with height that still continues today. Our course as a species had been fundamentally altered, and we would now look at the world in terms of verticality. As a result, the trajectory of our progress through verticality was inevitable.
Rudolph F. Zallinger, March of Progress, 1965
BEGINNINGS The first bi-pedal humans struggled to make sense of their newly-evolved vertical relationship with the earth. We lived on the savannah as hunter/gatherers, and our vertical bodies allowed us to survey the landscape for predators. Taller individuals had a better view, and therefore had a better chance at surviving. Height still equated to safety and survival. We were still confined to the surface of the earth, however. This led to an abstraction of the space above us. we looked to the sky for light, yet we were constantly pushed away from it by gravity. Height led to the unknown. As we gained more control over our surroundings, we were able to produce our own light (fire), and our own shelters (architecture). PRIMITIVE HUT Unknown date and height Our primitive shelters represented our first constructions, and they were based on the presence of material above us to protect us from the elements. These structures were our first attempt at externalizing our drive for verticality, and represented our nascent need to alter our surroundings in order to improve the human condition. Our species had an inner drive towards verticality since becoming bi-pedal, and thus had a curiosity towards the unknown above us. Through time, our attitude towards verticality would shift and evolve, but would remain the fundamental force through which the human species has progressed.
GREAT PYRAMID (circa 2580 BC) 146.5m (481ft)
Our first attempts to get closer to God were re-creations of what we knew: mountains. The Great Pyramid of Ancient Egypt was a re-creation of a mountain in the desert, and it points to the sky with its form. Furthermore, it was oriented to correspond to celestial movements in order to facilitate the connection between surface and sky. The Ancient Egyptians were attempting to move closer to the unknown space above us. They were trying to escape the surface.
The Primitive Hut, first conceptualized by Vitruvius, represented here from the frontispiece of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s Essay on Architecture (1755).
TRANSCENDENCE As we exercised more and more control over our environment, certain needs for height went away, and were replaced with others. Once we no longer needed to constantly tend to food and shelter, the aforementioned unknown of the space above us became the focus of our efforts here on land. We invented stories about transcendent worlds that represented escape from our surface-dwelling condition. These stories enabled large groups of us to cooperate under a common cause, and thus enabled us to build at a much larger scale. In order to transcend our surface-dwelling nature, we needed to be closer to the sky. We needed to be closer to God.
The Ancient Greeks continued this tradition with smaller buildings, but satisfied their need for height by placing religious buildings on hilltops and high ground. This was an attempt to coax the world above us to descend down to the surface. We were creating houses for the Gods here on the surface. Instead of escaping the surface, we wanted the Gods to descend down to us.
PARTHENON (circa 480-400 BC) 13.7m (45ft)
EGO The need to transcend this world by means of escape spawned large networks of cooperating people. These large networks were organized and assembled by small groups of people in positions of power. These small groups needed to distinguish themselves from other belief systems in order to secure a populace under their command. They needed to use transcendence, and therefore height, to do so. The earliest versions of this duality between transcendence and ego were single entities. Religion was the state. Through time the two have related to each other in varying ways, but until very recently, both have always been present, and each has used height to express itself. LIGHTHOUSE OF ALEXANDRIA (circa 280 BC) 120-137m (393-450ft)
Height in Athens was reserved for the most important buildings in the city. The Parthenon was placed on the Acropolis, which was the highest ground in the city, and was therefore the most important. It was closest to the sky. Therefore, it was the perfect place to locate a house for the Gods. In addition, it was the most defensible site in the city due to its height, so the buildings placed there were more easily protected from external threats. Height created hierarchy within the built environment.
Transcendence would continue through time as a motivator for height, however a new competitor would soon emerge: our primal need to compete with each other. This was originally for mating purposes; however it would now manifest itself through height, and would take attention away from our need to be closer to God. Our Ego would begin to fight Transcendence in our quest for verticality.
With its construction, the Ancient Greeks set the precedent for modern tower design. An evolution of the mountain metaphor, the lighthouse had two setbacks and sits on a massive plinth. The plinth raises the building off the ground, giving it more height, thus making it more important. The use of the building as a lighthouse was ancillary; it was a showpiece of Greek building technology. It displayed the power of the Greek people through its height, and it was the first major vertical construction by our species that wasn’t completely based on transcendence.
The trend of cooperation among humans to achieve larger goals continued to expand with the Roman Empire. This rampant expansion led to a shift in our attitude toward the heavens. The aforementioned duality between Transcendence and Ego, would develop into a new attitude toward the Gods and the heavens.
CHARTRES CATHEDRAL (1194-1250) 113m (377ft)
PANTHEON (118-128 AD) 43.3m (142ft)
The Romans built the Pantheon as a house of the Gods, and the entire building is meant to draw attention up to the sky with the dome and oculus. The construction of the dome is significant not only because of its span, but because the Romans were driven by their need to recreate the heavens through their architecture. The dome represents a shift in thinking of the dichotomy between Transcendence and Ego. It is a mixing of the two. The building is a house of the Gods, much like the Parthenon on the Acropolis before it; however it isn’t built high above the city, and makes a direct connection to the sky through the oculus, which is the focus of the entire interior. It is of the human world but is looking up to the heavens. Instead of moving closer to the heavens, the Romans were trying to re-create the heavens upon the Earth.
At Chartres, the trend of re-creating the heavens on earth is alive and well, however the building goes one step further to remove the actual sky from the interior experience. The Pantheon had its oculus, which brought the actual sky into the experience of the building. At Chartres, each vault is closed off. This relatively small move represents a crucial subversion of the actual heavens within our re-created heavens on earth. The interior architecture at Chartres draws the eye upward through verticality, but the apex was no longer the sky; It was our own construction. Our re-creations of the heavens were just as important as the heavens themselves; the world of man had become just as important as the world of God. The inherent verticality of the architecture is another crucial development. The building, both exterior and interior, literally points to the sky. The building showcases two major steeples, as well as myriad pointed arches and pinnacles throughout its form; each of these expressions works much like the Great Pyramid; it draws the eye upwards and points to the heavens. On the interior, the vertical proportions of the nave and the groin vault work towards the same goal. A dichotomy has arisen that epitomizes the struggle between Transcendence and Ego; the entire building points up to heaven, but simultaneously closes itself off to it.
Throughout the rest of the medieval age, architecture would continue pointing to the sky while actively trying to re-create the heavens on earth. With the rise of the Renaissance in the 14th century, we see a return to singular expressions of verticality, however the balance between the world of God and the world of man had tipped in favor of man. FLORENCE CATHEDRAL DOME (1420-1436) 114.5m (376ft)
The Florence Cathedral dome furthered the trend of Ego overtaking Transcendence through our built forms. This trend would continue until the 18th century, which would see much larger and sweeping changes to the human condition. We would begin to find new ways to utilize our primal need for height, but we would need to create our own land to do so.
INDUSTRIALIZATION The shift from Transcendence to Ego would complete with the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1760-1820). Our ongoing need for height would begin to be driven by our need for density, and technological progress would provide us with the means to continue achieving it. CONTRASTING SKYLINES (from Contrasts, 1836)
Brunellechi’s dome represents a return to singular expressions of verticality, much like the Pantheon. The dome represents a different attitude toward verticality and the heavens, however. At Chartres, the entire building serves to point upward towards the sky, while the interior experience of verticality was disseminated throughout the nave and transept. At Florence, the building does much less to guide the eye upwards through its architecture. It instead relies on a singular expression of height: the dome. This singular gesture is still closed off to the sky, meaning the world of man continues to be at least equal to God, but here, a singular expression of verticality carries that attitude. We were beginning to forget about our need for transcendence.
Catholic Town in 1440. Verticality is defined by Transcendence in the form of church steeples.
The Same Town in 1840. Transcendent Verticality has been replaced by the needs of man and his industrial progress.
Agustus Pugin, in his 1836 work Contrasts, crystalizes the shift from Transcendence to Ego in one of his illustrations comparing two skylines. The first, from 1440, illustrates a skyline clearly defined through religious structures. Steeples compose the town skyline, symbolizing the importance of Transcendence through their height. The scond, in 1840, shows that the same church steeples have been overcome by the densification of the town buildings and smoke stacks of industry. Transcendence had been replaced by Ego.
HOME INSURANCE BUILDING (1884) 42m (138ft)
The need to congregate in larger numbers had begun to create higher levels of density in our cities, and humans responded with technological inventions and innovations in order to achieve higher levels of density. We needed to aggregate, and we would use verticality to do so.
AGGREGATION The Industrial Revolution spawned myriad new technologies and materials with which to build, and the aforementioned pressure on density meant that a new demand was placed on verticality: we needed to create new land in order to sustain new levels of density. The solution to this was to build vertically, and stacking was our means to do so. This was a crucial shift from our previous relationship with verticality. Previous attempts to re-create the heavens on earth dealt with creating tall spaces, but ultimately kept the human experience at ground level. Now, through the pressures of density, we began to move humans vertically. We were beginning to escape the surface.
The Home Insurance Building in Chicago represented a pure extrusion of a site, resulting in the creation of new land in the form of building floors, resulting in the stacking of people on top of one another. This was made possible through the invention of the elevator and the steel frame. As a result of the stacking, the building suffered from Isolation by Stratification; each new level of land is stacked on top of the previous one, resulting in an abstraction of the surface, and the use of the elevator cuts off space experientially and psychologically. We were escaping the surface of the earth and entering another world. We were disconnecting ourselves from the surface.
This escape from the surface represented the fulfillment of all our previous attempts to transcend the surface of the earth, but it brought about new challenges for the human experience. The severing of space through the use of the elevator was inherently inhuman due to our surface-dwelling nature. As higher heights were achieved, other uses for verticality were discovered, and previous manifestations of verticality would re-emerge due to contemporary interests. Our need for verticality had ceased to be driven by the unknown. It was now driven by our need to congregate and distinguish ourselves from each other.
ICONOGRAPHY As skyscrapers evolved, the quest for verticality began to be synonymous with human achievement. As such, verticality began to be used as a symbol of importance for an individual or group of individuals. Rather than just re-creating land by extrusional stacking, buildings began exhibiting systems of setbacks, symbolizing a return to the mountain metaphor of our distant past. This established a hierarchy through stacking; higher levels contain less space, and were therefore more exclusive, and thus more valuable than lower levels. Height represented value and exclusivity. Concurrently, skyscrapers began to distinguish themselves from each other through the use of elaborate crowns that didn’t contain occupiable spaces. They were pure manifestations of our need for height, and were used to project an identity of an individual or group of individuals, and ultimately our cities. We were using verticality to derive an identity for ourselves, our groups, our cities, and our cultures. CHRYSLER BUILDING (1928-1930) 319m (1046ft) With the Chrysler Building in New York City, each element of Ego-based verticality comes together in a single edifice. First, the mountain metaphor has been resurrected here, but the edifice still suffers from isolation by stratification. This is partially mitigated by the setbacks, however, which create terraces at privileged levels to allow for access to the sky. Second, the elaborate crown is an attempt to distinguish the building, and thus the Chrysler Corporation, and thus New York City, from other skyscrapers, corporations, and cities, respectively. Chrysler was projecting an identity to the world through verticality.
This re-emergence of our first exercises with Verticality would be short-lived, however; our technological progress would soon enable us to forget our previous interactions with verticality and completely abstract the relationship between humans and their environment. We embraced the disconnection from the surface, and began designing spacecraft.
ABSTRACTION The rise of Modernism and the International Style in the 20th Century saw a shift away from the mountain metaphor and Iconography. The battle between Transcendence and Ego was over, and Ego was the clear victor. We no longer needed to distinguish our buildings from one another. We needed full control over the environment within our newly-created lands in the sky. We needed full abstraction within our newly created land to symbolize our success at escaping the surface. This was driven by technological advancements in structure and enclosure, and led to a globalization of verticality. We had completely forgotten our original drive and need for height.
SEAGRAM BUILDING (1958) 157m (516ft)
The Seagram Building represents a complete disregard for our surroundings and need to compete with each other through height. The building is a spacecraft; it is an abstract, hermetically sealed box without operable windows. Its interior is climate-controlled, and it was designed to be acontextual. It can exist anywhere on Earth and the interior experience would remain the same. There is no mountain metaphor or expressive crown here. Every floor is the same size and shape; thus, the building suffers from Isolation by Stratification. It is a pure manifestation of the human need to escape the surface. We had achieved full control over our abstracted environments through verticality. Skyscrapers would continue their ascent into the cultural zeitgeist of the time; however the monotonous stacking of single floors would soon give way to more spatial variety, leading to a more holistic approach to verticality. We began to rebel against the abstraction of Modernity.
EROSION The drive for verticality had led to the proliferation of the tower as a building type; however the human experience of stacking was foreign to our surface-dwelling nature. We had succeeded at organizing our species vertically and achieved unprecedented levels of verticality and density; however we were limited in the type of space we were able to create in the sky. The severing of contiguous space through opaque elevators de-humanized the experience further. Higher levels of variety were needed in our newly created space. We needed to re-create more varied types of space in the sky. We needed to humanize our approach to verticality.
COMMERZBANK TOWER (1994-1997) 300.1m (985ft)
As the human experience continued to be a growing factor in our built works, the need to express our individuality as human beings grew in tandem. Traditionally, the building interior was where individual expression reigned, however as technology progressed, said individuality began to penetrate the faรงade and express itself throughout the building massing. Buildings began to manifest themselves as stacked aggregations of smaller components rather than a single, cohesive whole. The diversity of the human experience began to manifest itself in our vertical constructions.
IRREGULARITY MAHANAKHON TOWER (2011-2016) 314m (1,030ft)
With the Commerzbank Tower, three crucial aspects of the human condition at the surface had been re-created through verticality. First, the severing of space through the experience of the elevator was mitigated by placing vertical transportation at the exterior of the building and opening it up to the surrounding context; the user was now able to visually experience the act of vertical movement through a tower. Second, the solidity of the tower form was eroded away in favor of larger communal spaces and an open central core. The building no longer suffers from isolation by stratification; it opens up to itself to reveal larger spaces. Third, the larger communal spaces throughout the tower are designed as gardens. The green space at the surface has been re-created in the sky. Verticality no longer needed to be an inhuman experience.
At MahaNakhon, the individual experience had become the driving force of the building massing, and thus the architectural whole of the project. Each floor of the building was given a unique experience, and each had access to its own outdoor spaces. These outdoor spaces allowed for visual access to adjacent floors, and as a result the building occupants visually connected to a larger idea of the building, rather than suffering from isolation by stratification. Every floor of the building had an equally varied experience, and each created a sense of place for the occupant. The drawback was through the pseudo-randomized arrangement of the terracing; the building had become an artifact, like so many other icons before it. Its perceived irregularity served to make the form prohibitively expensive for the common architectural budget. Technology would soon solve that problem, however. This humanizing of our vertical experiences would continue with further technological advancements. With the rise of 3D printing technology, repetition would no longer be a requirement for affordability, and systems of irregularity would be attainable in the aggregate. Our individual experience of verticality could be just as varied as our horizontal experiences. SYSTEMIC STRATA (2020-2021) height variable
With the proliferation of the Systemic Strata construction system, our species was able to make irregularity commonplace. The design allowed for high levels of variability within a single modular system that involved stacking four repeatable floor plates in myriad different arrangements. The tower pieces, pictured here, were meant to be placed on top of individually designed podium elements that could respond to site constraints, while the towers above could provide a fully variable human experience anywhere on earth. The tower no longer suffered from Isolation by Stratification, and our species had finally succeeded at escaping the surface, creating our own land, and providing a vertical experience that approached the experience at the surface.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, Chris. Sky High: Vertical Architecture. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2003. Al-Kodmany, Kheir, and Mir M. Ali. The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design. Southampton: WIT Press, 2013. Beedle, Lynn S., Mir M. Ali, and Paul J. Armstrong. The Skyscraper and the City: Design, Technology, and Innovation. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007. Binder, Georges. 101 of The World’s Tallest Buildings. Victoria: Images Pub., 2006. Conway, Donald. Human Response to Tall Buildings. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977. Eisele, Johann, and Ellen Kloft. High-Rise Manual: Typology and Design, Construction, and Technology. Basel: Birkhäuser-Publishers for Architecture, 2003. Höweler, Eric. Skyscraper. New York: Universe Pub., 2003. Huxtable, Ada Louise. The Tall Building Artistically Reconsidered: The Search For A Skyscraper Style. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. Korom, Joseph J. The American Skyscraper, 1850-1940: A Celebration of Height. Boston: Branden Books, 2008. Riley, Terence, and Guy Nordenson. Tall Buildings. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2003. Sassen, Saskia. “How Downtown Can Stand Tall and Step Lively Again.” The New York Times, January 26, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/arts/artarchitecture-how-downtown-can-stand-tall-and-step-lively-again.html. Wells, Matthew. Skyscrapers: Structure and Design. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2005. Yeang, Ken. The Green Skyscraper: The Basis for Designing Sustainable Intensive Buildings. Munich: Prestel, 1999. Žaknic, Ivan, Matthew Smith, and Dolores B. Rice. 100 of The World’s Tallest Buildings. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press, 1998. Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Wright, Ronald. A Short History of Progress. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2005.
PLACELESS[ness] GSAPP: Advanced V Studio CRITIC: Thomas Phifer, Gabriel Smith YEAR: 2015 Fall LOCATION: Fort Tryon Park, NY, USA PROJECT: Zen-do Meditation Space PROGRAM: Meditation room for an urban park. THE CONTEXT: Fort Tryon Park The project seeks to facilitate a sense of placelessness by existing as a wooden pavilion within an urban park. Wood is used because of its organic character and tendency for degradation, allowing the object to embody the passage of time. Placelessness is not achievable through the built form alone; the most architecture can achieve is to provide space that is conducive to fewer distractions, and thus to assist the human consciousness with focus. The pavilion provides both, by focusing on the three most primal drivers of ‘place’ that are common to every human being who has ever lived: A sky (something above), a ground (something below), and the ever-changing landscape in-between. The three aforementioned drivers set the trajectory for the design process, and the end result is a moveable pavilion that can become each state through on-site rotation. The building thus becomes placeless, and can be introduced to any open field with a relatively flat surface to exist on.
CAN BUILT ARCHITECTURE BE PLACELESS? HOW CAN SPACE CONNECT EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO HAS EVER LIVED?
Place is a universal concept within the human condition. Ever since our species became bipedal, our bodies have existed perpendicular to the ground we stand on, pointing up to the sky; thus, ‘place’ becomes defined by three elements: a ground plane (something below), a sky (something above), and the ever-changing visual surroundings in-between. This is the universal condition of place experienced by every human being who has ever lived.
Placelessness is the absence of these three elements. It cannot be achieved through space alone, but can be achieved within the mind through focus and meditation, and architecture can facilitate this focus in order to assist in achieving it.
Architecture can facilitate placelessness through three means: 1. Provide a focus on the aforementioned three elements. 2. A tension between interior and exterior: when you are placeless, you recede into your mind through focus, yet this is not a pure state; there is always an awareness of your surroundings. 3. Be placeless (siteless). Allow the same experience to exist in multiple locations at multiple times in order to highlight the transient/fluid nature of these states of mind.
[PLAN & SECTION MATRIX] The pavilion was designed to rotate and become each of the aforementioned three states. By rotating on the site, the project changes over time and can provide a different experience on repeat visits. This is analagous to meditative experiences in general, that can occur in different places and each is different and unique.
[SITE PLAN] Two sites within Fort Tryon Park were chosen for their open space and relative flatness. Multiple pavilions on multiple sites allows the experience of two different states on a single visit to the park, with one state not present, necessitating a second visit at a different time.
SITE 1 CLOSE TO MAIN PARK ENTRY ADJACENT TO MAIN ROAD NEARLY FLAT
SITE 2 DEEP WITHIN PARK ADJACENT TO MAIN ROAD FLAT
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 01: Getting to the site. The pavilion is designed to arrive at the site on two truckloads, and be constructed by six individuals without the need for heavy machinery. The wood, Eastern White Pine, was chosen for its local availability, its resistence to rot and its commonality on the East Coast. Construction takes place completely on site and consists of 7 different plank types.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 02: Two main sides are set out on the ground.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 03: Construction of sections are stacked up.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 06: First rotation on site: ground room.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 07: Second rotation on site: view room.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 04: After sections are stacked up, second main side is lifted into place.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 05: Completed object on site.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 08: Third rotation on site: sky room.
[PROCESS DIAGRAM] 09: Each rotation allows pavilion to decay as part of placement on site through two means. First, the ground on the site is imprinted by past states, and second, sides of the pavilion that previously were in contact with the ground decay at a faster rate.
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] View Room
[INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Sky Room
[INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] View Room
[INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Ground Room
[PHYSICAL MODEL] The studio was model-based, and physical investigations were crucial to understanding the behavior of light within the space. The wooden members are held apart slightly in order to allow light in and to reduce the perceived solidity of the form.
[EXPLODED ISOMETRIC] The pavilion is built with mortise and tennon joinery, along with a system of steel tension cables that can be re-tightened after each rotation to maintain structural integrity. This creates a duality of materials and structural function: wood functions in compression while the steel functions in tension.
[TECTONIC RATIONALE] The pavilion is constructed with a single detail that repeats itself throughout the built form. A wooden mortise and tennon joint strengthened by a steel tension rod is the heart of the design. At each rod end, an open joint allows for re-tightening, and is capped off to achieve a clean appearance while also allowing access.
[SKETCHBOOK RESEARCH & PROCESS] The semester represented a personal challenge to return to a more analog process of design. Models and reductive concepts were more important than anything else; thus, the result represents an antithesis to the rest of the work presented. A reductive simplicity based not on function or data, but on the realization of an artistic concept.
ARCHITECTURE IS A PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF THE HUMAN CONDITION. IT IS A RESULT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE HUMANITY. The project was set up to explore the relationship between architecture and human consciousness. Meditative experiences are intensely personal, and require a willing mind to participate. As such, the pavilion invites the user to focus on a single element of the human condition, and provides a space to have a meditative experience. By using this project to represent an antithesis to my other projects throughout the GSAPP studio curriculum, I allowed myself to shed the baggage of parametrics, structural expression and the urban condition in order to explore other avenues of design. The result is a project that is still imprinted with the aformentioned interests, yet transcends them in the name of artistic expression. It is a product of the studio brief and the designer’s mind.
MODULAR[hotel] GSAPP: Technology Elective: Modular Architecture CRITIC: David Wallance YEAR: 2015 Fall LOCATION: New York City, NY, USA Gowanus Canal at Union Street PROJECT: Modular Hotel PROJECT TEAM: Christopher James Botham; Tatiana A. Tatarintseva; Shuman Wu PROGRAM: Hotel, Bar/Restaurant, Canalside Public Path THE CONTEXT: Gowanus Canal The project seeks to improve the surrounding area by engaging the waterfront and bringing it into the site for a kayak launch, and by providing rooftop terrace spaces with views of the surroundings for building occupants. The building accomplishes both by establishing a massing strategy of L-shaped plans in three groups, each rotated around the center of the plan to allow for terracing and setbacks. As a modular building, the design of the hotel floors began with a grid of ten foot square modules. This grid drives all space planning for the project and simplifies the question of modularity by making the key dimensions bi-directional. Each ten by ten is structured with a cube of five-inch steel tubes, and diagonals where needed. In order to reduce structural impact on the ground floor, modules are paired together and supported every two bays (20 feet). This requires cantilevers and trusses to be designed, which provide stability to the structure, reinforced laterally by the two cast-in-place concrete cores at each end of the plan.
HOTEL REAR LOBBY
LOADING DOCK/ BOH
RESTAURANT KITCHEN
KAYAK LAUNCH
BAR/ RESTAURANT
LOBBY BOH
HOTEL LOBBY
[GROUND FLOOR PLAN] Scale: NTS
LIFT B
LIFT B STAIR B
STAIR B ROOF TERRACE HOUSEKEEPING / BOH
SERVICE LIFT
SERVICE LIFT
COMMON AREA
ROOF TERRACE
ROOF TERRACE
COMMON AREA
STORAGE / BOH HOUSEKEEPING / BOH
STAIR A
STAIR A
LIFT A
LIFT A
ROOF TERRACE
ROOF TERRACE
[TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN] Level 03 | Scale: NTS
[LEVEL 01 PLAN]
[LEVEL 02 PLAN]
[LEVEL 02 PLAN]
[TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN] Level 04 | Scale: NTS
[LEVEL 02 PLAN]
[LEVEL 02 PLAN]
[LEVEL 02 PLAN]
[LEVEL 02 PLAN] Scale: NTS
LEVEL 08 EL. +84.50ft LEVEL 07 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +64.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +54.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +44.50ft LEVEL 03 EL. +34.50ft LEVEL 02 EL. +24.50ft LEVEL 01 EL. +14.50ft
LEVEL 00 EL. +0.00ft
[TRANSVERSE ELEVATION] Scale: NTS
LEVEL 08 EL. +84.50ft LEVEL 07 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +64.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +54.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +44.50ft HOUSEKEEPING / BOH
LEVEL 03 EL. +34.50ft HOUSEKEEPING / BOH
LEVEL 02 EL. +24.50ft HOUSEKEEPING / BOH
LEVEL 01 EL. +14.50ft
LEVEL 00 EL. +0.00ft MECHANICAL / BOH
[TRANSVERSE SECTION] Scale: NTS
MECHANICAL / BOH
MECHANICAL / BOH
LEVEL 08 EL. +84.50ft LEVEL 07 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +64.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +54.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +44.50ft LEVEL 03 EL. +34.50ft LEVEL 02 EL. +24.50ft LEVEL 01 EL. +14.50ft
LEVEL 00 EL. +0.00ft
[LATERAL ELEVATION] Scale: NTS
LEVEL 08 EL. +84.50ft LEVEL 07 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +64.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +54.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +44.50ft LEVEL 03 EL. +34.50ft LEVEL 02 EL. +24.50ft LEVEL 01 EL. +14.50ft BAR / RESTAURANT
LEVEL 00 EL. +0.00ft MECHANICAL / STORAGE
[LATERAL SECTION] Scale: NTS
[MODULE INDEX] Structural Isometric With Locations
[MODULES] Overall Module Layout
[STRUCTURAL AXON] Scale: NTS
[TECTONIC ISOMETRIC] Typical lateral section showing modules and tectonic rationale
[ebb]&FLOW GSAPP: Advanced IV Studio CRITIC: David Benjamin YEAR: 2015 Spring LOCATION: Governors Island, NY, USA PROJECT: Subsurface Current Research Facility PROGRAM: Laboratory, Testing Facility, Education Center THE CONTEXT: Buttermilk Channel, New York Harbor Ebb and Flow exists as an experimental laboratory for studying subsurface currents in the New York Harbor. The architectural form channels tidal flows to create zones of high and low speed; the result increases energy generation potential in high-speed zones while simultaneously creating new marine habitats in low-speed zones. The design process was based on computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations meant to test the effectiveness of different forms at speeding up river currents. These were then coupled with a formal geometric system of obliques meant to evoke the bi-directional currents of the river and the function of the building as an experimental laboratory for testing and learning about the flow and behavior of our waterways. Throughout the design process, there was an ebb and flow between the computational tools and more traditional methods of design. This push and pull was part of a larger goal to understand and explore how said tools can integrate and harmonize with a more analog way of working. The result is an edifice borne out of a convergence between computational simulations based on function and a formal system evocative of the surrounding context.
HOW CAN WE UTILIZE EXISTING TIDAL CURRENTS? CAN WE RETHINK OUR HYDRO-INFRASTRUCTURE?
[PARTI SKETCHES] The three main project goals: first, locating the project out on the water in order to provide the user with a strong connection to the surrounding tidal forces and flows. Second, create a building form that derives from performance metrics rather than energy generation as applique. Third, develop a formal vocabulary that evokes the changing water levels: one above the water, one below, and one at the surface.
2.5kn
HOURLY FLOW SPEEDS (NORTHWEST)
2.0kn 1.5kn 1kn 0.5kn 0kn
2.5kn
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
HOURLY FLOW SPEEDS (WEST)
2.0kn 1.5kn 1kn 0.5kn 0kn
2.5kn
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
HOURLY FLOW SPEEDS (SOUTH)
2.0kn 1.5kn 1kn 0.5kn 0kn
2.5kn
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
HOURLY FLOW SPEEDS (NORTHEAST)
2.0kn 1.5kn 1kn 0.5kn 0kn
2.5kn
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
HOURLY FLOW SPEEDS (EAST)
2.0kn 1.5kn 1kn 0.5kn 0kn
2.0m
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
2014 JULY 2
2014 JULY 3
2014 JULY 4
2014 JULY 5
2014 JULY 6
2014 JULY 7
2014 JULY 8
TIDAL HEIGHTS
1.5m 1.0m 0.5m 0m
2014 JUNE 30
2014 JULY 1
SOUTH
TOTAL POWER POTENTIAL: 171 30° POWER PERCENTAGE: 82%
WEST
TOTAL POWER POTENTIAL: 271 30° POWER PERCENTAGE: 85%
NORTHWEST TOTAL POWER POTENTIAL: 277 30° POWER PERCENTAGE: 64%
[SITE SELECTION STUDY] The currents surrounding Governers Island were studied for speed and direction in order to find the site best suited for the project. The Buttermilk Channel had the highest speeds and the strongest directionality, and was thus chosen as the project site.
NORTHEAST TOTAL POWER POTENTIAL: 306 30° POWER PERCENTAGE: 71%
EAST
TOTAL POWER POTENTIAL: 316 30° POWER PERCENTAGE: 99%
UTILIZING THE VENTURI EFFECT TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM FLOW SPEED HIGH SPEED Formal optimization process based on maximum speed achieved in funnel space. The result is used as the subsurface structure of the project, harnessing the elevated flow speeds in the funnel to generate power and to test out new turbine prototypes. LOW SPEED
3.899 m/s
1.949 m/s
0 m/s
4.621 m/s
2.310 m/s
0 m/s
LEVEL 00 (SUBSURFACE)
EL. -23.00’ Below Sea Level (East Wing) EL. -18.50’ Below Sea Level (West Wing)
TURBINE YIELDS 60kWh @ 2m/s flow speed TURBINE IN FUNNEL YIELD: 2084 kWh per day NY HARBOR SCHOOL requires 1945 kWh/day Average NYC household uses 4200 kWh/year Single turbine per year at site: 362.625 mWh Single turbine per year in funnel: 760.751 mWh School power usage per year: 710 mWh
Data Sources: Verdant Power (Report GO18168); Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology; Business Energy Advisor
LEVEL 02 (DECK)
EL. +21.50’ Above Sea Level
LEVEL 01 (SURFACE)
EL. +5.00’ Above Sea Level (East Wing) EL. +8.00’ Above Sea Level (West Wing)
LEVEL 03 (TERRACE)
EL. +37.00’ Above Sea Level
4.315 m/s
2.157 m/s
0 m/s
4.113 m/s
2.056 m/s
0 m/s
[FLOW SPEED DIAGRAMS] Surface currents for low and high tide events and bi-directional flows. The program at the surface level is designed to work with low and high tide oscillations rather than protect against them.
3.875 m/s
1.937 m/s
0 m/s
3.705 m/s
1.852 m/s
0 m/s
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Daytime Low-Tide
[INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Daytime Low-Tide showing high-speed flow under structure
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Nighttime High-Tide
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Nighttime storm surge event
[EXPANSION STRATEGY] As the project gathers data and knowledge about subsurface currents, the formal language will expand to cross the Buttermilk Channel in order to test new geometries and relationships. The goal being to create a new type of dam: one that mitigates flow to reduce impact on theexisting currents and ecosystems located in the Channel, simultaneously generating energy and habitat.
TERRACE GARDEN 1020sqft
GATHERING NODE 630sqft
MAIN LAB GARDEN 1275sqft
OUTDOOR TERRACE/ LOOKOUT 1045sqft
MAIN OUTDOOR LAB 2850sqft
NORTH GARDEN LAB 1585sqft
NORTH GARDEN 755sqft CLASSROOM/LAB 2305sqft
SOUTH GARDEN LAB 915sqft
MAIN LAB SPACE 3885sqft
GATHERING NODE 740sqft
SOUTH GARDEN 845sqft
TIDE POOL 2070sqft TIDE POOL 695sqft TIDE POOL 110sqft
ENTRY/VISITORS CENTRE 1940sqft
TIDE POOL 290sqft GATHERING NODE 750sqft
CLASSROOM 1060sqft
CLEAN POOL 2620sqft
LOCKERS/ RESTROOM 1665sqft INLET POOL 2020sqft
IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE TO JUST GENERATE ENERGY. IT MUST ALSO GENERATE HABITAT. Existing hydro-structures serve as flow barriers, and disrupt pre-existing natural systems. Infrastructure in our waterways should also generate livable habitats alongside energy generation. Ebb & Flow exists to provide a new archetype of waterway infrastructure; one that will act less as a flow barrier and more as a flow mitigator that simultaneously generates energy while creating new marine habitats.
[re]GEN HOUSING GSAPP: Core III Housing Studio Christopher James Botham & Zaw Lin Myat CRITIC: Charles D. Eldred YEAR: 2014 Fall LOCATION: Bronx, NY, USA Exterior Street at Madison Avenue Bridge PROJECT: Multi-Family Housing Project PROGRAM: Residential, Commercial, Cultural Hub THE CONTEXT: Port Morris, Bronx on the Harlem River [re]GEN takes an urban approach to the site by giving an end to the Grand Concourse, a major thoroughfare in the Bronx that currently terminates at an on-ramp for the Major Deegan Expressway. The project extends the Grand Concourse to the Harlem River, providing public space along the way that will become an activity hub for the soon-to-be-developed Bronx waterfront, while regenerating the urban fabric that was severed by the construction of the Major Deegan. Architecturally, the project utilizes a system of terracing in order to increase the visual exposure of the user while rethinking the meaning of the street in the urban context. Across the site, low, mid and high-rise building elements combine to provide a variety of housing conditions, while the direct expression of structural elements conceptually connects the architecture to its infrastructural surroundings. What results is the regeneration of the urban fabric and a proper terminus to the Grand Concourse.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CREATE A STREET? CAN INTERIOR SPACES BE PART OF THE STREET?
[SITE PHOTOS] The existing site condition is relenteless urbanity and infrastructure (above). The Grand Concourse ends at an on-ramp and an unwelcoming street condition (below).
[01 EXISTING CONTEXT] Grand Concourse and Special Harlem River Waterfront District Re-zoning established as main external opportunities at site
[03 SITE AND MASSING INTEGRATION] Integration with river, massing elements and subway stop create a single composition across the site
[02 SITE MASTERPLAN] Grand Concourse brought to Harlem River and block structure established
[04 HEIGHT ADDITION] Mid-rise and high-rise elements established to anticipate towers from Special Harlem River Waterfront District Re-zoning
[GROUND LEVEL STREET] Asymmetrical massing creates different street conditions at ground level
[ROOF LEVEL STREET] Roof level provides alternate path to river and ample green space for users
[HIGH-RISE SPIRAL STREET] Tower levels spiral to create vertical path connecting floors to one another
[05 FINAL MASSING AND STREET INTEGRATION] Street explorations weave through massing to provide a varied user experience. The result is a variety of street conditions with different uses throughout the masterplan.
IMPROVED SUBWAY STATION 1 Current station is abysmal and uninviting; acts as front door to site. RETAIL MAGNET STORE 2 Major function acting as anchor for plaza. MARKET / GROCERY STORE 3 Removes need for market due to the existing food desert at site. LIVE/WORK UNITS 4 Provides retail and commercial function at street level. COMMUNITY CENTRE 5 Injects a public function onto the riverfront in order to give non-residents space to exist within the project. THEATRE PREFUNCTION / RESTAURANTS 6 Integrated with plaza and water, acting as the front door to the project off of the main river plaza. THEATRE SPACE 7 Bridging over water that integrates with courtyard, capitalizing on river views and expressed structure
8
RESTAURANTS 8 Cantilevered into river to capture axial view down Manhattan’s Park Avenue
7
6
3
5
4 1 2
[OVERALL CUTAWAY ISOMETRIC] Showing major program elements throughout the site.
[SITE PLAN] Ground Level
[SITE PLAN] Roof Level
[FLOOR PLAN DIAGRAM] Layering Strategy Scale: NTS
[FLOOR PLAN] Typical High-Rise Floor Scale: NTS
[FLOOR PLAN] Typical Mid-Rise Floor Scale: NTS
[FLOOR PLAN DIAGRAM] Structural Grid Layout Scale: NTS
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Courtyard view with framed tower
[INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] View to courtyard and to adjacent neighbors in tower
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE] Showing relationship between exterior and interior, with rooftop promenade and street below
[SECTION PERSPECTIVE] Showing tower cross-section at opening.
[TOWER SECTION] Scale: NTS
WHENEVER POSSIBLE, ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING SHOULD ENGAGE EACH OTHER AS PART OF A LARGER CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK By giving an end to the Grand Concourse, reGEN transcends the world of architecture and engages with larger planning concerns of the South Bronx. The architecture of the project challenges the nature of the street and domestic privacy. Generally, spaces in tall buildings do not relate to each other, and the user is unaware of others nearby. This ‘isolation by stratification’ is mitigated through the façade terracing, allowing the user visual access to surrounding spaces in order to enhance the sense of place.
[STUDY MODELS] Exploring strategies for terracing and subtractive massing.
RIB[cage] GSAPP: Architectural Technology V CRITIC: Sandra McKee; Jason Stone; Jeff Huang YEAR: 2015 Fall LOCATION: New York City, NY, USA Port Morris at Bronx Kill PROJECT: Industrial Loft Building PROJECT TEAM: Christopher James Botham; David Kagawa; Zaw Lin Myat; Andrea Tonc PROGRAM: Commercial loft space for artisan workshops The project began as an investigation into monocoque structures, and evolved into a design for a structural rib system that allows for column-free floor plans. the ribs themselves are the main expressive element of the building, and serve to provide lateral stability while braced-frame cores at either end of the structure provide longitudinal stability. The lozenge shape was chosen to allow the ribs to be continuous, and allows for a seamless transition between wall and roof. The facade design is heavily influenced by the expression of the ribs, and was designed to provide shading on the south facade through a system. The glazing line is offset from the line of structure in order to achieve this. On the south facade, the glazing pushed inwards to allow the structure to provide shading, while on the north facade, the glazing pushed outwards in order to create a more sleek aesthetic where direct sunlight is less of a concern. A custom unitized curtain wall system was designed to deal with the irregular faceting of the form while keeping installation as simple as possible.
[CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 01] Core framing is constructed followed by rib assembly beginning along cores and progressing inwards.
[CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 02] Pre-cast hollow-core planks follow the rib framing upwards to create floor slabs.
[CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 03] Unitized facade system attached to completed ribs, completing the building enclosure.
[CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 04] Completed building
A
A1
B
C
20'-0" 10'-5 1/2" 9'-6 1/2"
1.1
20'-0"
D 20'-0"
E 20'-0"
F 20'-0"
G 20'-0"
H 20'-0"
J 20'-0"
K 20'-0"
L 20'-0"
M 20'-0"
N
P
20'-0"
P1
20'-0"
Q
20'-0"
D9
2.1
3 3.1
5'-5" 4'-10"
2
10'-7 1/4"
11'-8 1/2"
1
ELEC
ELEC
DOWN
27'-0"
DOWN
FREIGHT/ PASSENGER ELEVATOR
MECHANICAL ROOM
FREIGHT/ PASSENGER ELEVATOR
MECHANICAL ROOM
JAN
JAN
5
11'-10 1/2"
12'-10 1/2"
4
6 6.1
[TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN] Scale: NTS
A
A1
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
ROOF EL. +130.00ft
TOP OF CORE EL. +103.00ft LEVEL 07 EL. +88.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +60.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +46.50ft LEVEL 03 EL. +32.50ft LEVEL 02 EL. +18.50ft
ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM
ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
MECHANICAL ROOM
LOBBY
GROUND LEVEL EL. +0.00ft
MECHANICAL ROOM
[LONGINTUDINAL SECTION] Scale: NTS
LOBBY MECHANICAL ROOM
P1
Q
A
A1
B
20'-0" 10'-5 1/2" 9'-6 1/2"
1.1
C 20'-0"
D 20'-0"
E 20'-0"
F 20'-0"
G 20'-0"
H 20'-0"
J 20'-0"
K 20'-0"
L
M
20'-0"
20'-0"
N
P
20'-0"
P1
20'-0"
Q
20'-0"
10'-7 1/4"
2
2.1
3 3.1
5'-5" 4'-10"
11'-8 1/2"
1
ELEC
ELEC
UP
UP
27'-0"
LOBBY FREIGHT/ PASSENGER ELEVATOR
LOBBY
MECHANICAL ROOM
FREIGHT/ PASSENGER ELEVATOR
MECHANICAL ROOM
JAN
JAN
12'-10 1/2"
4 LOADING DOCK
LOADING DOCK
11'-10 1/2"
5
6 6.1
[GROUND FLOOR PLAN] Scale: NTS
A
A1
B
C
C.1
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
M.1
N
P
P1
Q
ROOF EL. +130.00ft
TOP OF CORE EL. +103.00ft LEVEL 07 EL. +88.50ft LEVEL 06 EL. +74.50ft LEVEL 05 EL. +60.50ft LEVEL 04 EL. +46.50ft LEVEL 03 EL. +32.50ft LEVEL 02 EL. +18.50ft
GROUND LEVEL EL. +0.00ft
[LONGINTUDINAL ELEVATION] Scale: NTS
2 ROOF EL. +130.00ft
TOP OF CORE EL. +103.00ft
LEVEL 07 EL. +88.50ft
LEVEL 06 EL. +74.50ft
LEVEL 05 EL. +60.50ft
LEVEL 04 EL. +46.50ft
LEVEL 03 EL. +32.50ft
LEVEL 02 EL. +18.50ft
GROUND LEVEL EL. +0.00ft
[LATERAL SECTION] Scale: NTS
3
4
5
[STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLY] Scale: NTS Detail of structural rib at double-beam.
[TECTONIC BAY STUDY] Scale: NTS Showing the unitized double-skin facade system and its assembly process.
[TECTONIC BAY STUDY] Scale: NTS Showing the interior conditions at the building envelope and the integration of structure and facade.
[brooklyn]SKYGARDEN GSAPP: Core II Studio CRITIC: William A. Arbizu YEAR: 2014 Spring LOCATION: Brooklyn, NY, USA Fulton Street at Bond Street PROJECT: Didactic Growing Tower PROGRAM: Market, Office, Public Plaza, Urban Farm THE CONTEXT: Albee Square The Brooklyn Skygarden seeks to reinstate the function of the now-closed DeKalb Market, while building on the function of the already existing Albee Square Farmers Market. The project creates a daily resource for local residents to have access to fresh foods from regional farmers, while providing didactic features that allow the public to access and experience each part of the farm-to-table process. The building organizes itself around four parts of food production: growing, harvesting, cooking, and eating. These four functions manifest themselves through growing areas, harvesting through outdoor classroom spaces, open kitchens to host cooking classes, and a restaurant showcasing dishes produced from the food grown throughout the project. Any local can thus follow and learn about the cycle of food from seed-planting to consumption.
CAN AN URBAN BUILDING ENGAGE THE PUBLIC WITH THE FARM-TO-TABLE PROCESS? HOW CAN STRUCTURE BE BORNE OUT OF AN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT?
PUBLIC
GROW
HARVEST
STORE
PROCESS
COOK
EAT
[01 STATUS QUO] In general, the public only has access to the final stage of the farm-to-table process.
PUBLIC
GROW
HARVEST
COOK
EAT
[02 RESHUFFLED RESULT] Through the Brooklyn Skygarden, the public will have access to all parts of the farm-to-table process.
BROOKLYN BRIDGE
BOROUGH HALL
BARCLAYS CENTER
SITE SUBWAY TRAFFIC
[SITE DIAGRAM] CONTEXT: Downdown Brooklyn Development Corridor and dearth of subway traffic along corridor at site are identified. Project to become locus for activity in order to increase traffic at site and provide public space to accomodate new traffic.
GREENMARKET COMMUNITY GARDEN SCHOOL GARDEN
[SITE DIAGRAM] PROPOSAL: Project will become locus for food related activities in the neigborhood in order to create an urban didactic center for growing, harvesting, cooking and eating.
ALBEE SQUARE
[SITE DIAGRAM 01] EXISTING CONDITION: The site lies adjacent to Albee Square, where an existing farmers market occurs.
[SITE DIAGRAM 02] EXISTING BLOCK STRUCTURE: The plot is divided into three distinct blocks, separated from street traffic.
[SITE DIAGRAM 03] PROPOSED BLOCK STRUCTURE: Adjacent streets removed. Site is now the focus of a new pedestrian node.
[SITE DIAGRAM 04] PROJECT SCOPE: Pedestrian corridors become extension of the project and allow for the creation of a unified whole.
[SITEPLAN] Building placed at the intersection of pedestrian corridors in order to act as focus of newly created plaza.
01 EXISTING STATUS QUO Towers near the site are built with semi-public functions at the base with private spaces above. Views are restricted to building tenants.
02 STATUS QUO RESHUFFLED Public spaces are weaved throughout the project, allowing more of the building to be accessible to the public.
05 TERRACES FOR GROWING Growing areas established on terraces facing South.
06 ECCENTRIZE FLOOR PLATES AND BLEND BASE INTO SITE Terraces are distributed throughout tower to give outdoor access to all floors, and the base engages with the site to provide more growing area.
03 PROGRAM APPLIED TO MASSING Bank offices are surrounded by public and semi-public functions.
04 ENGAGE SURROUNDINGS Massing elements project out into surrounding space, resulting in terracing.
07 SHAPING AND TERRACE OPTIMIZATION Softened corners allow for more growing space.
08 SITE GEOMETRY WEAVES THROUGHOUT TOWER MASSING Stairs integrate with floor slabs, providing terraced garden space and allowing for outdoor movement between key floors.
[LEVEL05 PLAN] Outdoor Classroom / Growing Level
[LEVEL02 PLAN] Public Market Terrace Level
PROGRAM SPACES TIER 3 LEVEL 13 LEVEL 12 LEVEL 11 LEVEL 10
VIEWING PLATFORM PUBLIC TERRACE / GROWING MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE OPEN KITCHENS RESTAURANT
1465 SF 5140 SF 875 SF 3555 SF 3640 SF
TIER 2 LEVEL 09 LEVEL 08 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 05
GROWING FARMING BOH GROWING TERRACE LEARNING CENTER OFFICE OUTDOOR CLASSROOM FARMING BOH
4820 SF 2130 SF 5995 SF 3770 SF 3005 SF 5460 SF 1040 SF
TIER 1 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 01
OUTDOOR TERRACE MARKET SEATING OUTDOOR TERRACE PUBLIC MARKET PUBLIC MARKET
2135 SF 1925 SF 730 SF 2045 SF 3775 SF
LEVEL B1 FARMING BOH LEVEL B2 MECHANICAL
2620 SF 2620 SF
TOTAL PROJECT AREA
58425 SF
[PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM] Program Breakdown
[LEVEL07 PLAN] Learning Centre / Classroom Level
[LEVEL06 PLAN] Office Level
GROWING AREA TIER 3 ROOF GARDENS TERRACED GARDENS BASE GARDENS
3320 SF 1780 SF 1810 SF
TIER 2 ROOF GARDENS TERRACED GARDENS BASE GARDENS
2120 SF 1885 SF 2440 SF
TIER 1 TERRACED GARDENS TOTAL GROWING AREA REQ’D AREA/PERSON TOTAL YIELD
1775 SF 15130 SF 200 SF 75 PPL
LIGHT LEVELS ADEQUATE SUNLIGHT SHADE DOMINANT
13210 SF (88%) 1920 SF (12%)
DRAINAGE YIELD CISTERN VOLUME WATER REQUIREMENT TOTAL WATER NEED CISTERN YIELD
7815 CF 1 IN/WEEK 1260 CF/WEEK 6.2 WEEKS
[PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM] Growing Area Breakdown
[LEVEL11 PLAN] Open Kitchens Level
[LEVEL10 PLAN] Restaurant Level
[STRUCTURAL PLAN] Central concrete core supports cantilevering beams that then support ring beams. Floors are further reinforced by a system of tensile cables that also provide growing infrastructure for climbing vines.
[PERSPECTIVE DIAGRAM] Building Structure Breakdown
A BUILDING SHOULD DISPLAY ITS FUNCTION TO THE PUBLIC, AND ITS STRUCTURE SHOULD BE INTIMATELY LINKED TO ITS FUNCTION. An urban building cannot provide enough growing space to sustain a dense population; in order for any growing space to serve a viable purpose for the city and its residents, it must be didactic. The Brooklyn Skygarden provides a place where the public can access the entire farm-to-table process, and its architecture is expressive of this function; the structural strategy provides cantilevering floor plates that house growing terraces, while a system of tensile cables provide infrastructure for climbing plants to grow. A symbiotic relationship between function and structure is thus achieved, and each is expressed to the surrounding context.
3D-RADIAL[distortion] GSAPP: Architectural Drawing & Representation II CRITIC: Laura J. Kurgan YEAR: 2014 Spring PROJECT: Analog and Digital Drawing Machine The project began with a goal to distort existing geometry through a singularity. This distortion is radial in nature, and involves a mirroring of the input geometry as a function of the pivot point (the singularity). The first analog iteration was a simple two-dimensional translation tool that allowed for the tracing of existing geometry on one side of the pivot point, becoming radially distorted and mirrored as a result on the other side. The second version was digital and parametric in nature, and was built to deal with three-dimensional geometry. Shown here is the system working with a matrix of cubes. The results are a function of radial distortion through a singularity, and allow for explorations into alternative geometry through said distortion.
[01] n=000
[02] n=025
[03] n=050
[04] n=075
[07] n=150
[08] n=175
[09] n=200
[10] n=225
[11] n=250
[12] n=275
[13] n=300
[14] n=325
[05] n=100
[15] n=350
[PROGRESSION] Transition from original state through singularity to distorted state on the other side.
[RESULTANT ELEVATIONS] side views of original state and three states of distortion after passing through the singularity.
[06] n=125
[DISTORTIONc] n=350
[DISTORTIONb] n=275
[DISTORTIONa] n=200
[FINAL RESULT] Showing original state and three states of distortion after passing through the singularity.
FLOWING[horizontality] GSAPP: Core I Studio CRITIC: Galia Solomonoff YEAR: 2013 Fall LOCATION: New York City, NY, USA Columbus Avenue at 103rd Street PROJECT: Community Center PROGRAM: Natatorium, Auditorium, Cafe, Public Park THE CONTEXT: Frederick Douglas Housing Project The Tower in the Park paradigm has been reduced to the tower surrounded by fenced-off green space, punctuated by rectilinear paved paths. In response to this, the project seeks to reinstate the park to the tower while providing a community center to act as a locus for activity on the site. The project reimagines the ground plane throughout the site, creating paths based on natural movement patterns while allowing green space to be open and accessible. The building blends into this landscape and acts as an extension of the site planning strategy. Space flows in and throughout the structure, creating a series of spaces that blur the line between interior and exterior. A low and flowing profile is maintained in order to draw contrast between the building and the existing towers; this structure is of the site, not placed on the site.
HOW CAN WE GIVE THE TOWER ITS PARK BACK? HOW CAN PARAMETRIC TOOLS ASSIST DESIGN?
[SITE PHOTOS] The existing condition fences off green space with rectilinear pathways. This results in gardens rather than parks.
01 EXISTING CONDITION Constrained movement; not park-like
02 NATURAL WALKING PATH Free movement
03 PROPOSAL Paths flow between structures
N
N
[01 SITE PLAN: CONNECTIONS] Building entrances and off-site destinations are plotted and connected.
[DIVERSION RADIUS ITERATIONS] The paths are diverted at various strengths around the existing buildings until a desirable web is formed.
N
N [02 SITE PLAN: DIVERSIONS] Connecting paths are diverted around existing buildings, resulting in a network of paths and cells throughout the site.
104TH STREET
100TH STREET
N
MANHATTAN AVENUE
COLUMBUS AVENUE
AMSTERDAM AVENUE
102ND STREET
N
[03 SITE PLAN: RESULT] A network of freeform paths and cells of green space, with the building site placed along Columbus Avenue.
[OPPOSITE] Form-finding as an extension of the freeform curvature from the site plan. The building is seen as a manipulation of the ground plane, and through iterative explorations a piece of paper is distorted in order to search for a desirable form that can house the required program.
[FORM-FINDING] Parametric models based on the aforementioned physical paper studies are manipulated to approach a desirable and rational result. The corners anchor the form to the ground plane, while the spans along each edge raise up to expose interior spaces. The top surface results in a bowl-like shape that houses a retention pool.
01 SITE BOUNDARY
02 SITE SHAPING Reactive to surroundings
03 GROUND PLANE MANIPULATION Entrances and enclosure established
LOWER POOL
SPA (W)
AUDITORIUM SPA (M)
UPPER POND
CAFE
B
COLUMBUS AVENUE
N
N
[GROUND FLOOR PLAN] Major program spaces are all located at the ground level, reactive to the form of the roof structure.
A
C
04 WATER SOURCE IDENTIFIED Stormwater collection from surrounding towers
05 WATER INTEGRATION Upper pond and lower pool created
06 RESULTANT POROSITY
C
B
A
COLUMBUS AVENUE
N
N
[ROOF PLAN] The roof becomes a public open space with a bridge over the retention pond; the four corners of the structure serve as access points.
[SECTION] Cut A
[SECTION] Cut C
[SECTION] Cut B
[EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES] An extension of the site through a manipulation of the ground plane.
[GEOMETRY PLAN] Freeform curvature is rationalized through a series of tangential arcs. Curvature is also studied as topography to further understand the geometry of the form.
ORIGIN
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6 A7 A8 A9
D7
[ARC] A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12
[RADIUS] 110975 12450 22750 -41500 -8600 -7650 -19150 -9600 30825 9300 7925 149925
[LENGTH] 2520 3395 3845 3405 2670 3225 3685 3445 3630 1470 2135 1850
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9
92025 37325 41525 171050 51925 91625 31125 32700 44550
10185 7150 5800 14435 6920 10805 10135 10155 7020
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
213875 27750 14300 22625 83525 -52725 -18350 -15950 -26000 -31675
4000 2175 4275 3825 5510 4910 5330 5795 4750 11085
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
985125 185875 175050 -76800 -80150 291175 115600
31825 10455 4615 9315 9360 7715 11265
A10 A11
A12
B1 D6
B2 D5
B3
D4
B4 D3
D2
B5
B6
B7 D1
B8
B9
C3 C4 C5 C10
C6 C9
C7 C8
C2
C1
ARCHITECTURE SHOULD NEVER BE LIMITED TO A SINGLE BUILDING; IT SHOULD TRANSCEND THE SITE AND BE PART OF SOMETHING LARGER, AND PARAMETRIC TOOLS CAN ASSIST WITH ACCOMPLISHING THIS. Through a harmonious relationship between masterplan and building, FLOWING[horizontality] simultaneously restores the ‘Tower in the Park’ paradigm while allowing a formal system to develop both a siteplan and a building. This is accomplished through the targeted use of parametric tools that allow for wider explorations than traditional methods of design would within a finite timeframe. The architecture of the project is both reactive and generative; it reacts to existing buildings on the site while generating a new formal language distinct from its surroundings. The park has been restored to the tower through parametric tools.
EVOLUTION[H20] 3 GSAPP: Architectural Drawing & Representation I CRITIC: Joshua D. Uhl YEAR: 2013 Fall BUILDING TO STUDY: Beijing National Aquatics Centre LOCATION: Olympic Park, Beijing, China PROJECT: Representational studies of existing building The Beijing National Aquatics Centre, also known as the Watercube, is here studied though the geometry embedded in its design. The building utilizes a Weaire-Phelan matrix to derive its structure, which is rotated, then cut to achieve the effect of randomness; the resultant facade resembles voronoi geometry and was designed to evoke the idea of water bubbles. The process began with explorations of voronoi geometry, and subsequently uncovered the Weaire-Phelan matrix, which would be the subject of the remaining studies. The final results deal with the progression from the static geometry of the Weaire-Phelan matrix through to the perceived randomness of the built form, and seek to represent this progression from order to apparent disorder.
[PHYSICAL MODEL] Showing the facade cut from the Weaire-Phelan matrix. The facade is rotated to draw attention to the static nature of the matrix
[01] INCEPTION Unfolded weaire-phelan polyhedra [02] MODULE Basic weaire-phelan cluster
[03] SLICED MATRIX Weaire-phelan matrix cut to suit facades
[EVOLUTIONARY AXONOMETRIC] Showing how the abstract geometry evolves into the built form.
[04] COMPOSITE RESULT Structure derived from sliced matrix geometry
STRUCTURE [A] CONNECTIONS [B] MULLION SUPPORT [C] MULLIONS [D] ETFE PILLOWS [E]
[EVOLUTIONARY SECTION] Progressing from abstract geometry to the built form across a section of the building.
CONTENT[credits] STUDIO WORK
ANCILLARY DESIGN WORK
[penn]STATION
DIAMOND[facade]
Advanced VI Studio CRITIC: Vishaan Chakrabarti; Ruchika Modi All content by Christopher James Botham Penn Station platform photo by Matt Johnson @ Flickr
GSAPP: Technology Elective: Advanced Curtain Wall CRITIC: Robert Heintges All Content by Christopher James Botham
PLACELESS[ness] Advanced V Studio CRITIC: Thomas Phifer, Gabriel Smith All content by Christopher James Botham
[ebb]&FLOW Advanced IV Studio CRITIC: David Benjamin All content by Christopher James Botham
[re]GEN HOUSING Core III Studio CRITIC: Charles D. Eldred DESIGN: Christopher James Botham; Zaw Lin Myat OVERALL CUTAWAY ISOMETRIC: Zaw Lin Myat SITE PLANS: Zaw Lin Myat All other content drawn by Christopher James Botham
[brooklyn]SKYGARDEN Core II Studio CRITIC: William A. Arbizu All content by Christopher James Botham
FLOWING[horizontality] Core I Studio CRITIC: Galia Solomonoff All content by Christopher James Botham
MODULAR[hotel] GSAPP: Technology Elective: Modular Architecture CRITIC: David Wallance DESIGN: Christopher James Botham; Tatiana A. Tatarintseva; Shuman Wu All content drawn by Christopher James Botham
RIB[cage] GSAPP: Architectural Technology V CRITIC: Sandra McKee; Jason Stone; Jeff Huang DESIGN: Christopher James Botham; David Kagawa; Zaw Lin Myat; Andrea Tonc CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DIAGRAMS: David Kagawa BUILDING PLANS/SECTIONS: Zaw Lin Myat; Andrea Tonc BAYSTUDY AND DETAILS: Christopher James Botham
3D-RADIAL[distortion] GSAPP: Architectural Drawing & Representation II CRITIC: Laura J. Kurgan All content by Christopher James Botham
EVOLUTION[H20] 3 GSAPP: Architectural Drawing & Representation I CRITIC: Joshua D. Uhl WATERCUBE DESIGN: PTW Architects; Arup All content drawn by Christopher James Botham
[PARADOXICAL MASSING STUDIES] Ancillary studies as part of the Core II studio, investigating the relationship between form and computation. Aesthetic judgement can be made as a result of computation, but can an aesthetic preference be built into the software?