COMMON GROUND Clemson University School of Architecture | 2016 Comprehensive Studio
For its Spring 2016 project, the Graduate Comprehensive Studio in the Clemson University School of Architecture took on the design of a new student center at South Carolina State University. The desire for a new student center was identified during an earlier campus master plan exercise, completed by Clemson landscape architecture students Brandon Green and Evan Lawson, and their professor, Paul Russell. This master plan, which is included on pages 11-21, called for a new campus entrance from Russell Street and a direct axis into the social heart of the campus, defined by the existing student plaza. These measures formed the basis for the work of the Comprehensive Studio, whose student center proposals were focused on the site of the existing student union, along the western edge of the plaza. There is great potential for a dynamic, vibrant, and synergistic campus core at SCSU, and the following student center designs each offer a vision for this.
FOREWORD
In all, 31 students participated in the Comprehensive Studio, which was led by faculty members Dustin Albright, Ufuk Ersoy and Ulrike Heine. The students worked in teams of two, with one team of three. Each team began with case studies of noteworthy student centers and other influential social buildings. This was followed by a visit to the SCSU campus on January 13th for careful site analysis and communication with user groups. In response, each team was asked to begin with its own variation on the master planning, addressing issues of circulation, phasing, the use of Dukes Gymnasium, and other relevant topics. Careful site design was followed by massing studies and space planning, which drew on the students’ own recommendations for programming in the student center. In the remaining weeks, each design proposal developed in clarity and in technical resolution, including detailed structural, mechanical and façade systems. This book contains an abbreviated sampling from each of the 15 design proposals.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. vi SITE CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................vii PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................viii MASTER PLAN...........................................................................................................................11-21 STUDENT CENTER DESIGN PROPOSALS..............................................................................22-23 GROUP 1....................................................................................................................................24-29 GROUP 2....................................................................................................................................30-35 GROUP 3....................................................................................................................................36-41 GROUP 4....................................................................................................................................42-47 GROUP 5....................................................................................................................................48-53 GROUP 6....................................................................................................................................54-59 GROUP 7....................................................................................................................................60-65 GROUP 8....................................................................................................................................66-71 GROUP 9....................................................................................................................................72-77 GROUP 10..................................................................................................................................78-83 GROUP 11..................................................................................................................................84-89 GROUP 12..................................................................................................................................90-95 GROUP 13................................................................................................................................96-101 GROUP 14..............................................................................................................................102-107 GROUP 15..............................................................................................................................108-113
v
INTRODUCTION
If architecture can simply be defined as the art of building – Baukunst, then, would the task of the architect be limited to the act of building alone, which is, in the present day, usually read as encompassing the technique of putting together solid components of structures. Although the original meaning of the term ‘architect’ refers to a chief craftsman (archi-tekton), the true nature of architectural operation has been under constant debate since publication of the Renaissance architect Leon Batista Alberti’s treatise, On the Art of Building in Ten Books (1452). More recently, the curator of the 13th Venice Architecture Biennale (2012), David Chipperfield contributed to this ubiquitous polemic by inviting architects to critically question the priorities dominating the architectural operation in our time; ”priorities that focus on the individual, on privilege, on the spectacular and the special.” In his view, these priorities, which overlook the normal, the social and the common, relegate architectural production to image, form-making and novelty. The theme of the biennale was “Common Ground.” Inspired by Chipperfield, the Comprehensive Studio will concentrate on a project that asks you to act ethically in view of others’ collective aspirations and without forgetting the collaborative nature of our discipline. Namely, you will design a common ground--a student center that will create a dialogue among students coming from different backgrounds and will give ambition for collective efforts. vi
South Carolina State University was founded in 1896 as a landgrant institution with the stated mission of training the state’s black students in the disciplines of agriculture and mechanical engineering. In this regard its history mirrors Clemson – a land-grant A&M college (established 1889, opened 1893). Over the years SCSU has evolved to what it is today – a modern research university with 2,700+ active students and a very proud history. The central campus in Orangeburg comprises over 100 buildings and 160+ acres. Under the guidance of Dr. Dori Helms (former Clemson provost and current SCSU trustee) and the direction of Professor Paul Russell, a campus master planning exercise was performed in the fall of 2015 by Brandon Green and Evan Lawson, both students in Clemson’s Landscape Architecture department. An overview of this master plan is provided in pages 11 to 21. Among other outcomes, this exercise identified a clear need for a new or rehabilitated student center on the campus. The existing student union suffers from numerous challenges, spatially and programmatically, and it falls short on delivering a relevant Common Ground to the university’s students. This was not always the case. According to Dr. Helms, SCSU alumni recall with fondness an era in which the student union was a hub of activity and central to their college experience. What is missing now? What has changed? What opportunities exist for reviving and intensifying the Common Ground and providing a meaningful pride-of-place?
The initial master plan study establishes a new artery into the heart of the campus, along which would be located new centers for administration as well as student recreation, organization, and fellowship. This study, as shown in the following pages, locates the new student center on the site of the existing facility, and also includes a proposed fitness center across the plaza. A campus setting, such as this, requires especially careful consideration when it comes to siting new structures. Each building caries its own set of interior responsibilities (see Programmatic and Technical Considerations below), as
SITE CONSIDERATIONS
well as exterior responsibilities to the campus. How does the building engage campus circulation? How does it alter or shape campus activity? Is its programming self-contained or does it extend beyond the walls? What is its formal and material relationship to its campus neighbors? Where is the necessary mechanical equipment situated? What about day-to-day access for deliveries, waste pick-up, and other functional requirements? What impact does the building have on adjacent future development?
vii
PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The student center / student union, as an architectural type, has evolved and is evolving. It will be up to you to chart and interpret this evolution. Is it linear? Is it cyclical? What are the current trends? How can we anticipate and design for future changes in priorities and uses? Are there any essential components or characteristics that are universal and therefore defy change?
Your approach to programming will be a profound factor in site selection and concept forming, and in the development of your ultimate proposal. Each design team will have the chance to craft a program based on precedent research, site visits, and conversations with user groups. Each team will likewise consider the functional and technical requirements associated with its programming choices. This will include informed responses to topics such as circulation (including accessibility and egress), technology, acoustics, visual transparency vs. privacy, and others. Whether in programming, or site design, or otherwise, you are encouraged to treat any of these constraints as generative forces, rather than as add-ons to a predetermined scheme. While much of the programming will be left to the judgment of each design team, there are certain basic requirements that must be provided by each proposal. These required spaces are as follows: -Meeting space(s) -Student lounge -Office space for student organizations -Administrative staff offices -Food court-style dining area + support viii
-Bowling alley -Computer lab with printing -Mechanical room(s) of requisite size -Accessible restrooms of sufficient quantity
As a point of reference, Savannah State University, which has much in common with SCSU, recently completed a new student center of its own. This facility has been visited by SCSU students and has been recommended as a positive case-study. The architectural program for the Savannah State facility is available for reference.
In keeping with the precedent at Savannah State, each of your proposals will be subject to the following additional constraints: -Total gross square footage = 45,000 sf or less -Target construction budget = $16 million
Publicly funded buildings in the state of South Carolina are required to achieve a minimum rating of “Silver� through the LEED environmental rating system of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). Full LEED documentation is unfeasible for the Comprehensive Studio project, and we would prefer not to align too closely to a single rating system. That said, each design team should be clearly aware of the general concepts and criteria in LEED version 4 (and other rating systems), and should ultimately aim to meet or exceed these types of base level environmental requirements in their own design proposals.
MASTER PLAN
What follows is an abbreviated overview of the campus master plan study performed by Brandon Green and Evan Lawson, under the direction of Professor Paul Russell. The existing campus footprint is noted and punctuated by photographs of current buildings and other campus features. The new, proposed plan includes a new entrance and approach, as well as tactical enhancements to the campus core, including revised parking strategies, pedestrian-centric circulation, and new centers for student gathering and recreation. These measures were later picked up by the Comprehensive Studio and included as background for each team’s subsequent planning variations and Student Center designs.
11
A
B
D
E
G
H
C
F
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
STUDENT CENTER FROM MILLER HALL I
13
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN
15
STUDENT CENTER DESIGN PROPOSALS What follows are the fifteen Student Center designs from the Spring 2016 Comprehensive Studio. Each abbreviated proposal features key drawings of the site and building(s), as well as conceptual diagrams and rendered images.
23
SARAH GLASS BETH KOEPPEL GROUP 1
South Carolina State University has a vibrant and engaged student body that has expanded beyond their current facilities. This new student union provides students the opportunity for chance encounters and unexpected outcomes through an open and visible plan. Materials work to provide views into and out of the union to engage students or visitors. It becomes a place for students, faculty and the community to meet, engage, and through these experiences leave with a changed perspective.
24
25
HEALTHY BUILDING | PASSIVE VENTING
PASSIVE DESIGN | DOUBLE SKIN ENVELOPE
PROGRAM + CONCEPT | PUBLIC/PRIVATE GRADEINT
SYSTEMS/ ELECTRICAL | DAYLIGHTING
ORDER / WAYFINDING | OPEN CIRCULATION HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE | ACCESS
MECHANICAL + PLUMBING SYSTEMS | CHASE WALLS ORDER + STRUCTURE | SHEAR WALLS
SITE DEVELOPMENT | CHANGING PERSPECTIVES
26
CONCEPT | AXONOMETRIC
SECTION | THROUGH THEATER
SECTION | THROUGH RAMP
ENGAGED COMMUNITY | BUILDING SECTION
27
RENDERING | VIEW FROM MEZZANINE TOWARD COMPUTER LAB BOX
RENDERING | VIEW FROM GEATHERS STREET
29
ALLIE BECK CHELSEA WAGNER GROUP 2
The design aims to double the size of the existing plaza by raising the building off the ground. This provides a shaded area for campus “meltdowns�, greek activities and other campus events. The elevated portion of the building is connected to an accessible green roof ramp, which features an outdoor amphitheater and meets the first floor of the building. The entire elevated building allows light down though to the ground plaza by a series of continuous punctures that are enclosed in a curtain wall structure. They are spaced no more than thirty feet apart to allow maximum comfort and lighting to the ground. The form of the building provides both shaded outdoor space and green space that the campus is severely lacking. On the interior, the program is organized according to noise and activity levels, with the most active spaces on the lower levels and the quieter workspaces on the upper levels. The flexible programmed spaces allow for change in use over time for the student body to grow with while still respecting historical ties and deep traditions.
30
ground Floor 002 003
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 120 1 2 1 1 2 2 123
gross square footage net square footage programmed space circulation space
FLOO R PLANS PROGRAM
first Floor
4619 ft2 mechanical room 250 ft2 mechanical shaft 70 ft2 electrical closet 130 ft2 data room 5380 ft2 bowling alley 405 ft2 bowling equipment room 192 ft2 concessions 80 ft2 women’s restroom 74 ft2 men’s restroom 360 ft2 delivery loading dock 66 ft2 freight elevator 33 ft2 elevator equipment shaft 40 ft2 trash chute 508 ft2 fire stair 1 431 ft2 monumental stair 77 ft2 janitor’s closest 532 ft2 fire stair 2 20965 ft2 public plaza 35 ft2 elevator 1 35 ft2 elevator 2 52 ft2 elevator equipment shaft
001
124
15069 ft2 13369 ft2 13369 ft2 20965 ft2
125 126
UP
127 12 8 129 130 1 3 1
n
UP
93% 42% 36%
+
17850 ft2 green roof ramp 250 ft2 mechanical shaft 895 ft2 ramp access to plaza 3818 ft2 outdoor movie theater 165 ft2 front lobby desk 193 ft2 security office 145 ft2 foo ven or 1 307 ft2 preparation itchen 1 160 ft2 foo ven or 2 1035 ft2 preparation itchen 2 66 ft2 freight elevator 33 ft2 elevator equipment shaft 40 ft2 trash chute 508 ft2 fire stair 1 431 ft2 monumental stair 77 ft2 janitor’s closest 532 ft2 fire stair 2 11625 ft2 circulation space 35 ft2 elevator 1 35 ft2 elevator 2 52 ft2 elevator equipment shaft 394 ft2 men’s restroom women’s restroom 399 ft2 game area 1063 ft2 computer lab 815 ft2 it help desk 868 ft2 dining area 2275 ft2 foo ven or 3 125 ft2 food vendor 4 132 ft2 foo ven or 5 120 ft2 food vendor 6 124 ft2 gross square footage net square footage programmed space circulation space
UP
DN
24717 ft2 22899 ft2 18528 ft2 15996 ft2
UP
DN
UP
UP
second Floor 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 2 1 1 2 1 2 213 214 215 216 217 2 1 8 219 220 2 2 1 222 223 224 225
82% 49% 56%
stu ent office 1 mechanical shaft conference room stu ent office 2 conference room stu ent office 3 secon han outique post office convenience store storage freight elevator elevator equipment shaft trash chute fire stair 1 hair + nail salon janitor’s closest fire stair 2 circulation space elevator 1 elevator 2 elevator equipment shaft men’s restroom women’s restroom stu ent office 1 stora e stu ent office 2 stora e gross square footage net square footage programmed space circulation space
660 ft2 250 ft2 377 ft2 728 ft2 404 ft2 803 ft2 378 ft2 331 ft2 756 ft2 100 ft2 66 ft2 33 ft2 40 ft2 508 ft2 608 ft2 77 ft2 532 ft2 9873 ft2 35 ft2 35 ft2 52 ft2 394 ft2 399 ft2 102 ft2 118 ft2
FLOOR PLANS PROGRAM
third Floor 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 3 1 1 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319
UP
320 321 322 323
86% 69%
21586 ft2 17659 ft2 8655 ft2 9873 ft2
31%
UP
faculty office 1 mechanical shaft faculty office 2 conference room faculty office 3 faculty office 4 ballroom storage catering kitchen catering storage catering walk-in freezer freight elevator elevator equipment shaft trash chute fire stair 1 bulldog ballroom janitor’s closest fire stair 2 circulation space elevator 1 elevator 2 elevator equipment shaft men’s restroom women’s restroom gross square footage net square footage programmed space circulation space
338 ft2 250 ft2 359 ft2 358 ft2 285 ft2 280 ft2 314 ft2 1273 ft2 65 ft2 57 ft2 66 ft2 33 ft2 40 ft2 508 ft2 7118 ft2 77 ft2 532 ft2 5785 ft2 35 ft2 35 ft2 52 ft2 394 ft2 399 ft2
+
UP
21586 ft2 18618 ft2 12833 ft2 5785 ft2
UP
31
CONCEPT | AXONOMETRIC 32
+
FINAL DESIGN
building section through punctures
section: at floating box
SECTION | THROUGH PUNCTURES
SECTION | AT FLOATING BOX
33
RENDERING | VIEW OF ENTRY
34
RENDERING | VIEW FROM GROUND LEVEL
RENDERING | VIEW AT NIGHT 35
2
Level 2 1/16" = 1'-0"
Lower Level
1 2 3 4 5
Garden Atrium Bowling Alley Food Court Retail, Convenience & Barber Shop Basketball Court
1 2 3 4
Auditorium Student Organization Offices Recreation Work Out Room
4
UP
1
5
3 2
DN
Level 1 1/16" = 1'-0"
Upper Level 1
2
DN
3
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
1
4 Level 2 2 1/16" = 1'-0"
37
RENDERING | DINING OVERLOOK
RENDERING | VIEW FROM PLAZA 40
RENDERING | MAIN INTERIOR VIEW
RENDERING | INTERIOR BASKETBALL OVERLOOK 41
ALISON MARTIN CLAIR DIAS GROUP 4
SCSU is in need of an enhanced central gathering place. Rather than using the building as the central focus for this project, we chose to emphasize exterior space as the main driver. Using historic piazzas as a point of reference, we crafted a new public space for SCSU that meets many student and campus needs. The scheme includes two built structures – a large main building housing recreation, event, and meeting space; and a smaller building housing ground-floor retail and second-floor student organization and faculty offices. The third element is an elevated green space – which we call the “invisible building.” It creates a complete boundary for the piazza, provides shaded informal seating and gathering opportunities, and defines the transition at the existing plaza. The notable terra cotta screen on the exterior not only shades the structures during peak sunlight, but also directs prevailing winds into, or away from, the buildings at the appropriate time of year.
42
RENDERING | PIAZZA ENTRY FROM CAMPUS CORRIDOR
46
RENDERING | MAIN INDOOR MEETING SPACE
RENDERING | VIEW FROM PIAZZA
47
MATTHEW HIMLER SPENCER HUTCHINSON GROUP 5
Architecture should be both playful and encouraging of play, capable of eliciting a pleasant, yet instinctual, response to a space. How can the concept of loosely structured play be employed architecturally to allow for stronger social relationships among people within a built setting? The concept of play is presented by creating diverse activity zones with prominent cross-program connections, both physical and visual, in an integrated landscape. In this proposal, the focus on personal and programmatic relationships and multi-functional spaces, seeks to promote mental, physical, and social health for students, at the core of the SC State campus.
48
LEVEL 1 PLAN
LEVEL 2 PLAN 49
I NT EG R AT ED
LAND S C APE
S T R U C T U R AL S Y S T EM
S H AR ED
PR O G R AM
C O M M O NS K I N CONCEPT | DIAGRAMS
50
SECTION | CROSS PROGRAM RELATIONS
SECTION | THROUGH ACTIVITY BUILDING AND OUTDOOR THEATER
SECTION | THROUGH OFFICE BUILDING AND CENTRAL COURTYARD 51
RENDERING | APPROACH FROM DUKES PLAZA
52
RENDERING | DINING HALL INTERIOR
RENDERING | VIEW OF BOWLING ALLEY
RENDERING | COURTYARD AT NIGHT
53
55
SECTION | SPATIAL FLOW
SECTION | SPATIAL QUALITY
56
SECTION | EAST-WEST
SECTION | NORTH-SOUTH
57
DN 4 B4
DN
DN
1 B8
UP
1 B7
1 B1
2 B5 1 B5
1 A8
3 B4
DN
2 A5
DN
2 A5
UP DN
DN
DN
DN
UP
UP
02 UPPER LEVEL
1 A7
2 B4
1 B4
01 GROUND LEVEL
UP
UP
UP
1.5 MID LEVEL
UP
-01 LEVEL BELOW
B3-PLANS
UP
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
A3-PLANS
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
67
RENDERING | VIEW OF ENTRY
70
RENDERING | STUDENT DINING (THE PITT)
RENDERING | OFFICE 71
TYLER SILVERS KINDALL STEPHENS GROUP 9
SILVERS + STEPHENS focuses on creating eco-systemic architecture through physical and phenomenological arrangements to encourage connection. By creating unique connections, each piece of the ecosystem relies on the other for the project to succeed. Our student center proposal seeks to create an ecosystem at multiple scales, beginning at the master plan and tracing through to spatial tectonics. At a master planning scale, a new pedestrian pathway connects the existing residences to the dining hall across campus and provides and enhances the current thoroughfare by removing the car and reducing density. Spatially, the student center is designed to create physical and phenomenological ecosystems – providing socially oriented dining and recreational ecosystems on the ground level and academically focused meeting and study ecosystems on the upper level. Functionally, the building’s structure informs program placement while the mechanical systems allow the building to operate efficiently throughout the year; providing systems that enable parts of the building to be shut down during off seasons.
72
9 10
8
10
2
3 1
1
2
4
2
2 4
5 10
9
5
13
11
8 7
10 10 12
2
8
7
9
8
2 3 2
5
6
10
4 2
6
13
4
3
13
10
8
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
1. RESTAURANT | A-2 | 194 people 2. KITCHEN | A-2 | 6 people 3. DISH ROOM | B | 3 people 4. CAFE + SEATING | A-2 | 87 people 5. LOBBY + LOUNGE | A-3 | 253 people 6. BOWLING | A-3 | 30 people 7. FITNESS | A-3 | 30 people 8. WOMENS BATHROOM | B | 6 people 9. MENS BATHROOM | B | 6 people 10. STORAGE + SERVICE | S | 10 people 11. BARBER SHOP | B | 4 people 12. GAME ROOM | A-3 | 93 people 13. ADMINISTRATION OFFICES | B | 6 people
1. MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM | A-3 | 85 people 2. STUDY LOUNGES | A-3 | 501 people 3. MEETING ROOM | B | 12 people 4. STUDENT GOVERNMENT OFFICES | B | 10 people 5. BALLROOM | A-3 | 190 people 6. WOMENS BATHROOM | B | 4 people 7. MENS BATHROOM | B | 4 people 8. STORAGE | S | 4 people 9. IT + ELECTRICAL | S | 1 person
73
74
CONCEPT | REALIZED PREMISE DIAGRAMS
SECTION | ENTRY
SECTION | RESTAURANT
SECTION | LOBBY- LONGITUDINAL
SECTION | LOBBY- TRANSVERSE
75
RENDERING | PATH SECTION
76
RENDERING | BOWLING ALLEY
RENDERING | LEVEL 2 BOXES
77
15
17
16
25
24
23
18
22 21
12 11
19
20
10
FIRST FLOOR PLAN | Scale 1/16” = 1’ 1 | Game Room [2,742 sf] 2 | Bowling Alley [2,960 sf] 3 | Service + Snacks [302 sf] 4 | Men’s Toilet [151 sf] 5 | Women’s Toilet [155 sf] 6 | Storage [400 sf] 7 | Storage [105 sf]
8 | Shared Kitchen [845 sf] 9 | Convenience Store [775 sf] 10 | Barber Shop [220 sf] 11 | Catering Kitchen [314 sf] 12 | Storage [323 sf] 13 | Men’s Toilet [197 sf] 14 | Women’s Toilet [197 sf]
11 9
14
10
12
13
22 | Storage [312 sf] 23 | Service + Loading Dock [474 sf] 24 | Kitchen [791 sf] 25 | Cold Storage [112 sf] NET SQUARE FOOTAGE | 25,145 sf
15 | Ballroom [5,011 sf] 16 | Lobby [1,755 sf] 17 | Foyer [727 sf] 18 | Food Court [2,964 sf] 19 | Dining Area [2,845 sf] 20 | Men’s Toilet [201 sf] 21 | Women’s Toilet [267 sf]
16
17
18
20
21 23
15
19
22
8
SECOND FLOOR PLAN | Scale 1/16” = 1’ 1 | Yoga/ Flex Space [700 sf] 2 | Fitness Center [2,914 sf] 3 | W’s Locker Room [238 sf] 4 | M’s Locker Room [238 sf] 5 | Service + Office [205 sf] 6 | Weight Room [741 sf] 7 | Computer Lab [868 sf]
8 | Gathering Space [400 sf] 9 | Reading Room [463 sf] 10 | Print + Copy [206 sf] 11 | Gathering Space [400 sf] 12 | Presentation Space [845 sf] 13 | Storage [147 sf] 14 | Women’s Toilet [273 sf]
TOTAL BUILDING NET SQUARE FOOTAGE | 46,379 sf
ROOF PLAN | Scale 1/32” = 1’
15 | Men’s Toilet [213 sf] 16 | Movie Theater [920 sf] 17 | Office [244 sf] 18 | Office [217 sf] 19 | Office [339 sf] 20 | Office [189 sf] 21 | Office [192 sf]
22 | Office [330 sf] 23 | Presentation Space [1,004 sf] CIRCULATION BRIDGE | 8,948 sf NET SQUARE FOOTAGE | 21,234 sf
SECTION | PERSPECTIVE A
SECTION | PERSPECTIVE B
SECTION | PERSPECTIVE C
81
RENDERING | VIEW FROM PLAZA
82
RENDERING | VIEW FROM SOUTH
RENDERING | BOWLING ALLEY
83
88
RENDERING | EXTERIOR FORUM
In its final form, the student center was divided In it’s final form, the student into four structures, each providing a different center programmaticwas function divided into four structures, each providing a different programmatic function.
building a 1
BALLROOM/MEETING ROOMS
2
GROCERY STORE
3
BOWLING ALLEY
4
10 9 8 ction
Se Wall
DN
GAME ROOM
ction
Se Wall
DN
A
C
DN DN
Slope
13 12
0 - 1:2
4
3
DN
11 DN ction
Se Wall
B
2
1 DN Slope
2
- 1:1
Wall
ion Sect
DN e-
Slop
DN DN
7
DN
building b 5 KITCHENS
6
6 SERVING AREAS
DN
5
7
DINING
1:12
7
A
UP
The new path which runs through the buildings moves Thedownward new path which runs through buildings from thetheeast and moves downward from the east and west ends west ends toward the lowest toward the lowest point in the center. Points of point in the center. Points the of pause are created by green spaces throughout path. The placement trees buidesby movement pause are ofcreated green through the path while providing shade between the spaces buildings throughout the path. The placement of trees guides movement through the path while providing shade between the buildings.
building c 8
AUDITORIUM
9
COFFEE SHOP
10 OFFICES 11 STUDENT ORG. OFFICES 12 STUDY ROOMS 13 COMPUTER LAB
building plans 1/64” = 1’-0”
91
The first step in conceptual development was to identify the main pedestrian paths of travel andin enhance through the design. Thetofipreserve rst step conceptual development was to identify
The use of both potential sites took advantage of all pedestrian routes and provided the possibility of more The use of campus bothinclusion. potential sites took advantage of all
the main pedestrian paths of travel to preserve and enhance through the design.
pedestrian routes and provided the possibility of more campus inclusion.
The addition of another path through the site would further diversify the paths of travel taken by students and encourage greater movement.
The final concept was a student center with four distinct parts which surrounds and is surrounded by new and existing paths, providing opportunities for discovery of the site.
The addition of another path through the site would further diversify the paths of travel taken by students and encourage greater movement.
92
The final concept was a student center with four distinct parts which surrounds and is surrounded by new and existing paths, providing opportunities for discovery of the site.
CONCEPT | DIAGRAMS
SECTION | A
SECTION | B
SECTION | C
SECTION | D
93
98
09 | mech + elec
outlets and lighting are concentrated around the perimeter of the building to further intensify the activity along the skin. mechanical systems provide air at the perimeter to maintain comfort and aid the skin’s performance.
08 | healthy building
sliding storefront windows provide natural ventilation into every interior space of the building. these windows also encourage activity between the interior and exterior
07 | life safety
means of egress are located along the active perimeter and exits are provided along the paths. stairs are located outside the envelope to encourage exterior travel.
06 | passive design
a continuous polycarbonate double skin encloses the entire perimeter of the building. this skin naturally reduces heat gains due to its translucent finish and the ventilation of the air cavity between the layers.
05 | structure
a light weight steel frame was developed to support the double skin, and to minimize the visibility of the structure as you look through the building. a steel plate is used to stiffen the frame and to emphasize the plane folding from the landscape.
04 | way finding
clear visual connection horizontally through the building encourages the user to engage the landscape and allows for simple orientation within the space. vertical circulation is concentrated in the central core spaces.
03 | design development
to connect the building to the landscape the floor plates fold out of the landscape creating a fluid vertical connection. a public seating + stair is created adjacent to the student organization offices and the proposed memorial.
02 | program
consistantly active spaces are located on the first level for maximum accessability. two cores provide service to these spaces creating a open periphery creating an active space along the exterior of the building.
01 | site design
lowered pockets of activities are created outside the footprint of the building, encroaching on the skin to encourage interaction. the seating, sizing, and shading provided in each pocket is related to the exterior and interior program.
CONCEPT | DIAGRAMS
RENDERING | SOUTHERN PUBLIC ROOFTOP TERRACE
100
RENDERING | DINING AREA
RENDERING | NIGHT VIEW
101
110
CONCEPT | DIAGRAMS
RENDERING | EXTERIOR VIEW
112
RENDERING | MEZZANINE
RENDERING | 2ND LEVEL
RENDERING | EXTERIOR VIEW AT NIGHT
113
CR DC
College of ARCHITECTURE ARTS and HUMANITIES Community RESEARCH and DESIGN Center