corey loren pope. undergraduate portfolio
Corey L. Pope Undergraduate Design Portfolio: 2010-2015 B.Arch California Polytechnic State University, Pomona. 2015
contents Towards an Ecology of Consumption Non-Mechanical Repetition Found Objects + Ferus Winery Estate Geographies, Anatomies, and Trajectories Hearth House Yosemite Installation Silver Lake Matte Housing Koreatown Elementary School Hardscapes Beach Pavilion
corey loren pope contact email: corey@mitrdesign.com phone: 760.822.4654
fig.1 - Existing Downtown Conversion Center. Waste Management
corey pope coreylpope@gmail.com
Towards an Ecology Of consumptioN instructor - axel schmitzberger
Downtown Diversion: Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste
As a proposition of architectural program, the current function of recycling center or what the Los Angeles Waste Management refers to as downtown diversion, exists as an accidental architecture. Without an existing typology or particular architectural agenda, the diversion center functions as a loosely organized mechanism, undirected in purpose and inefficient in means of productivity. In order to create a tighter more efficient machine, the mechanisms of the diversion center can be disassembled and reorganized as a series of organic parts, substituted for known typologies and configured as means to relate programmatic agencies as a collection of sub parts to the whole. The system then is organized based on a gradient of opacities, in which the inhabitant serves as a fluid constituent circulating within the machine.
Although the interaction between “man” and machine serves as a specific parameter in negotiating the processing of construction and demolition debris, the human component is not the main driver for design and programmatic assembly. Instead two other variables, the vehicle and the machine-part serve as greater drivers of form and function. In the instance where the vehicle serves as the main catalyst for space making, a gravity fed system may seem most efficient in which all infrastructural components are stacked vertically allowing for the accumulation of residual program to stack within the negative spaces created by the machine-parts. This would allow the delineation of a hard street edge, serving as a marker along the termination of the Olympic Blvd. Bridge. In concert with this hard masculine form, a more subdued “feminine” landscape would serve as relief created by soft restrictions in section heights and necessity to define enclosure against neighboring development.
By scrutinizing local context and site specific parameters, a problem and architectural agenda can be defined. The most pertinent issue and driver to create a more effect machine would be the economic value of land and the potential window for future development on the existing site. Currently, the downtown diversion space only occupies twenty-two percent of site’s net area leaving over one-hundred and fifty thousand square feet to be sold for future industry growth or, like recent development in the arts district, development along the Los Angeles River akin to Maltzan’s One Santa Fe project. This future issue would lend justification for creating a more compact and efficient processing plant on half of the existing site.
Following this observation, further deductions can be made about the inherent narrative imbedded with the potential of the site. An argument could be made claiming the idea that a processing plant for construction and demolition would communicate its intent best as a survey of the greater city and critique on the building industry as a cyclic system. While this would provide insight and criticism for our cultural tendencies and necessity to dwell, a survey as such would not produce subjective assumptions rather than tangible metrics of “consumption.”
Non-Mechanical Repetition
Fall Design Studio: Prof. Sarah Lorenzen KRob Entry + VDL II Installation: Penthouse Cloud Submission to Krob Architectural Delineation 2013 Jury: Perry Kulper, Stephan Martiniere, Alex Hogrefe
This design is focused on the architectural constraint of non-mechanical repetition in which all operations on the system can be traced as a linear sequence of delineation. In conjunction with this methodology, the documentation of process and product are tracked between digital and analogue representations. The objective of this study is to catalogue the shift in performance as digital design is translated into built object. As a result of physical material application, properties not inherent within the rigid digital design lend opportunities for flexibility in the physical system. This shift is documented in the construction of the point cloud model as joints become flexible with rubber band connections, allowing gravity and tension to dictate the diagram. The sequence of drawings are an exercise in understanding depth in architectural progression as an idea moves between the representation of planar flat images and three dimensional volumes.
Ferus Winery Estate
Fall 2014 Design Studio: Prof. Robert Alexander Examining Found Objects + Winery Resort Design
The Ferus Estate Winery rests in the east facing valley adjacent to Mulholland Highway north-east of Malibu, CA. The resultant landform architecture of the Ferus Estate Winery rests within a six acre landscape, allowing natural topography to facilitate the process of wine production using a sequential gravity fed system. This passive approach, preferred by traditional vintners allows for grapes to ferment naturally with the least physical input from human and machine contact. The recessed winery also takes advantage of the ground’s geo-thermal properties maintaining a more constant temperature without the requirement for heavy mechanical systems. The winery’s form is a product of manipulating the ground plane in order to create a hierarchy of sequential circulation shared by front of house resort programs and winery infrastructures. Large voids are extracted from formal exercises attempting to visualize the same found object through the different lenses of line texture, figure ground, taxonomy of figure(s), surface, and reinterpreted line texture.
0’
50’
125’
250’
500’
Topographic Lines 20’ Increments
N
Ferus Winery Programming 1. Grape Receiving and Crushing: 1800 SF 2. Fermenting and Processing: 18 FT CLG. 3900 SF 3. Processing: 12 FT CLG. 480 SF 4. Wood Tank Room: 2400 SF 5. Barrel Storage: 12 FT CLG. 6000 SF 6. Bottling Room: 9.5 FT CLG. 528 SF 7. Bottles and Supply Storage: a8 FT CLG. 4000 SF 8. Cased Good Storage: 18 FT CLG. 6500 SF 9. Laboratory: 8 FT CLG. 400 SF 9A. Production Tasting Room: 8 FT CLG. 400 SF 10. Shop, Maint, and Tools: 8FT CLG. 500 SF 11. Mech. Systems, Hot Water, Elect: 10 FT CLG. 500 SF 12. Employee Lounge and Bathrooms: 8 FT CLG. 1000 SF 13. Tasting and Dining: 10 FT CLG. 1500 SF 13A. Kitchen: 10 FT CLG. 750 SF 14. Offices and Conference: 8 FT CLG. 1500 SF 15. Resort Lobby and Receiving: 10 FT CLG. 1500 SF 16. Resort Suite: 9 FT CLG. 800 SF 18 Units 17. Omit 18. Omit 19. Administrative Housing 20. Outdoor Dining Pavilion 21. Indoor Pavilion: Design Option 22. Maintain Present Parking 23. Resort Pool: 1500 SF 24. Pool Deck: 2500 SF Inclusive. Flexible 25. Omit 26. Spa Room: 1250 SF Variable Program 27. Laundry: 8 FT CLG. 200 SF 28. Linen Storage: 8 FT CLG. 200 SF 29. Pool Bathrooms: 9 FT CLG. 450 SF
16. Resort Suite: 9 FT CLG. 800 SF 18 Units
1. Grape Receiving and Crushing: 1800 SF 2. Fermenting and Processing: 18 FT CLG. 3900 SF 12. Employee Lounge and Bathrooms: 8 FT CLG. 1000 SF 13. Tasting and Dining: 10 FT CLG. 1500 SF 13A. Kitchen: 10 FT CLG. 750 SF 14. Offices and Conference: 8 FT CLG. 1500 SF 15. Resort Lobby and Receiving: 10 FT CLG. 1500 SF 20. Outdoor Dining Pavilion 23. Resort Pool: 1500 SF 26. Spa Room: 1250 SF Variable Program 27. Laundry: 8 FT CLG. 200 SF
2. Fermenting and Processing: 18 FT CLG. 3900 SF 4. Wood Tank Room: 2400 SF 5. Barrel Storage: 12 FT CLG. 6000 SF 6. Bottling Room: 9.5 FT CLG. 528 SF 8. Cased Good Storage: 18 FT CLG. 6500 SF 9. Laboratory: 8 FT CLG. 400 SF 9A. Production Tasting Room: 8 FT CLG. 400 SF
APOLLO LUNAR MODULE, GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT, USA, (1969) SCALE 1”= 1’-0“ LEFT: SECTION OF LUNAR ASCENT MODULE WITH ASTRONAUTS RIGHT: SECTION OF LUNAR ASCENT MODULE LOOKING OUT VIEW FINDER. ASTRONAUTS: NEIL ARMSTRONG AND EDWIN ALDRIN.
ENCAPSULATED APOLLO II COMMAND MODULE. APOLLO LUNAR MODULE, GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT, USA, (1969) SCALE 1/4” = 1’-0“ LEFT: COMPRESSED LUNAR MODULE INSIDE SATURN V ASCENT ROCKET MIDDLE: PLAN OF EAGLE. LUNAR ASCENT MODULE RIGHT: LUNAR MODULE AND COMMAND MODULE CONFIGURED FOR SPACE FLIGHT TO MOON ASTRONAUTS: NEIL ARMSTRONG, MICHAEL COLLINS, EDWIN ALDRIN.
GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL 3/32" = 1'-0"
0’
4’
6’
8’ FLOOR 2 PRIVATE PARKING 3/32" = 1'-0"
0’
TYPICAL UNIT PLAN 3/16” = 1'-0"
0’
4’
6’
8’
4’
6’
8’
FLOOR 4 LIVING 3/32" = 1'-0"
0’ FLOOR 3 LIVING 3/32" = 1'-0"
0’
4’
6’
8’
4’
6’
8’
6’
6’