C_ABE PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY
Stephanie Ziegler
_
Megan Sutherland
_
Courtney Reid
TABLE OF CONTENTS PROGRAM ANALYSIS
2
SITE SELECTION
10
SITE ANALYSIS
22
SPATIAL CONCEPT
28
FORM DEVELOPMENT
38
STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
54
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
60
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
68
C_ABE 3
1:
4
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Philadelphia University: College of Architecture and the Built Environment
SEPARATION
between curriculum and learning environments
PROBLEMS
FUNCTION
current spaces overlap in use and do not provide efficient working environments
SUSTAINABILITY
not prevalent throughout campus buildings
GOALS
building will serve as an educational model for tectonics and sustainable architecture building produces energy as students produce work engage community encourage exploration nodes of collaboration passive sustainable systems engage existing campus fabric
C_ABE 5
COLLEGE STUDIES
MAJOR CORE
ELECTIVES
INTERIOR DESIGN COLLEGE STUDIES ELECTIVES
M.S. CONSTUCTION MANAGEMENT
M.S. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN M.S. INTERIOR
ARCH. STUDIES ARCHITECTURE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGMENT LANDSCAPE
curriculum: OVERALL OVERLAP
top: curriculum: OVERALL OVERLAP Represents each major by its curriculum and then shows the overlap in relationship to other majors along the bottom line, proves that there is little overlap between the built enviorment classes and the environment classes. left: curriculum: YEARLY OVERLAP this web shows the overlap in classes over the span of a school year in each major’s year levels. it further show a segregation of collaboration.
The current C_ABE program shows a great amount of overlaps in curriculum in the younger years, but disperses collaboration as the students move up in grade. The current C_ABE program is linear and spread out from the very North to South ends of the campus. This separation between majors and years does not allow for cross-collaboration to happen. right-top: macro democraphics: COMPETITION Whin each .5 mile x .5 mile outlined blocked space is one of Philadelphia’s univeristy campus building maps. Highlighted in yellow the architecture program facilities. Together, delineating that Philadelphia University’s greatest difference - a lack of centralization and grid - characterizes it as a less urban campus within Philadlphia’s fabric.
curriculum: YEARLY OVERLAP
6
right-bottom: linear movment: CAMPUS LAYOUT more linear than centralized like other design schools in Philadelphia, the movement across Philadelphia University’s campus spans a .5 mile distance. In addition, the movement varies by majors according to building program. Overall, the layout proves the necessity for a new C_ABE building, as well as possible areas of congestion for site locating.
macro democraphics: COMPETITION
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
linear movement: CAMPUS LAYOUT
C_ABE 7
Amount of people per program per year:
Square footage need per person:
- total: 626 students
8
PROGRAM ANALYSIS PIE CHARTS KEY:
STUDENT IN STUDIO TO AREA OF STUDIO DESK RATIO
4th + 5th year architecture : B
4th - 5th year
2nd + 3rd year architecture : B 1st year architecture : B
4th + 5th year interior : B 2nd + 3rd year interior : B 1st year interior : B
4th + 5th year landscape : B
2nd - 3rd year
2nd + 3rd year landscape : B 1st year landscape : B
2nd + 3rd year arch. studies : B 1st year arch. studies : B sustainability : M
1st year [hot seats]
interior : M architecture : M
C_ABE 9
Student Activity Levels Throughout a Day:
UNDERGRAD ACTIVITY LEVELS
10
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Proposed Spacial Relationships:
Proposed Sutdio Square Footage:
entry. bike.
Proposed Heights:
40 FT 25 FT 20 FT 15 FT 10 FT
Proposed Support collaboration. Square Footage:
lab.common.
lab.
40 studios.
woodshop.
presentatIon.
65000 FT
CLASSROOM STUDENT SPACE
ARCHIVE
material library. storage.display.
ADMINSTRATIVE
office.assistance.kitchen. bathroom.storage.circulation.
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
2
waste. egress.
C_ABE 11
2:
12
SITE SELECTION
Philadelphia University Campus
COMMUNITY PRESENCE
CRITERIA
ACCESSIBLE
ENGAGING
INADEQUATE FUNCTIONALITY MINIMAL RELOCATION
SUSTAINABLE
improve community access through campus mimic porosity of ravenhill campus
vechicular access to site and parking minimal obstruction to pedestrians and bikers
connection to new university buildings development of new, on-campus quad redevelop under-used parts of campus re-establish fabric of university
least impact on current program spaces
access to natural wind, water, and light passive design development
C_ABE 13
KEY DEVELOPMENT SEED Center: C_ABE Graduate Gallegher Athletic, Recreation, and Convation Center + Parking Garage DEC Center: Industrial Design, Fashion Design, and Business Kanbar Campus Center + Food Service, Mail Services, and Bookstore Gutman Library + Board Room and Media Service
.
left: CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT right: POTENTIAL SITES
Philadelphia University’s development has been widespread over the years. The recent development on the North side of campus has allowed for both accessiblity and engagment two points in the previous site criteria. Therefore, the potential sites were soley chosen from the Northern side of campus.
14
SITE SELECTION
need to demolish :
SCHOLLER HALL
TOWNHOUSES
DOWNS
C_ABE 15
Existing Conditions
SCHOLLER HALL
dormitory 149 people study/social lounges common area bathrooms facilities vending machines Health Center
16
TOWNHOUSES
100 people 5 single bedrooms Living/ Dining Room Area furnished as space permitted Kitchen with oven, refrigerator and sink Bathroom HVC System No Laundry Facilities (must go to Scholler) No Lounges No Vending Machines
DOWNS HALL 12 Classrooms Auditorium Stage Bathrooms Lounge Storage/Backstage
Street access (schoolhouse lane) Main Campus, close to resources (Library, bookstore, SEED, A&D, etc.) Existing parking lot Community face
SITE SELECTION South-East
North-East
South
North
Scholler Hall
Townhouses
Down’s Hall
C_ABE 17
SCHOLLER HALL
site access: Scholler and Down’s have immediate access from the main roads of School House and Henry. The townhouses are set further back from the main roads and require entering the main campus to see them.
18
TOWNHOUSES
DOWNS HALL
SITE SELECTION
DOWNS HALL
The Scholler and Down’s site require longer lengths of distance to relate to the whole campus. The Townhouse site is relatively centralized.
SCHOLLER HALL
TOWNHOUSES
730
distance from building location (in ft)
C_ABE 19
VEHICULAR ACCESS
RAM VAN STOPS
WALKING PATHS
20
SEPTA STOPS
CAMPUS NODES
SITE SELECTION
EASE YIELD OBSTACLE
rate of movement: between the outermost edges of campus to the interior.
EASE YIELD OBSTACLE
STUDENT WALKERS
BIKERS
EASE YIELD OBSTACLE
EASE YIELD OBSTACLE
PUBLIC WALKERS
DRIVERS
C_ABE 21
MOMENTS OF CLARITY MOMENTS OF UNCERTAINTY MOMENTS OF DIFFICULTY
The townhouse site is diagramed to be the most porous site because of the difficulty of the Henry Ave and School House Lane intersection.
22
SITE SELECTION
VEHICULAR SPACE PEDESTRIAN SPACE ENGINEERED SWALES AND DRAINAGE ADJACENT BUILDING FACES
Choosing the townhouse site for C_ABE will allow for an engagement with Kanbar and DEC. It will also provide the chance to engage the existing bioswale and campus road.
C_ABE 23
3:
24
SITE ANALYSIS Townhouse Site
C_ABE 25
WINTER
20’ 40’ 60’
wind and tree studies: describes how natural ventilation can be achieved in the project
26
SUMMER
SITE ANALYSIS
9AM
SUN STUDIES: shows where to achieve optimum amount of daylight
NOON
6PM
SUMMER WINTER
C_ABE 27
water movement water movement ITE CONCERNS
SITE CONCERNS
water movement CITY WATERSHEDS ater movement
ITY WATERSHEDS Looking at the bigger
picture, there are 7 watersheds within Philadelphia's borders. oking at the bigger picture, Zooming in on the northern ere are 7 watersheds side of Philadelphia thin Philadelphia's borders. University’s campus shows ooming in on that the the northern site is divided between the Wissahickon de of Philadelphia Creek Watershed niversity’s campus shows and the Lower Schuykill River at the site is divided Watershed. As such, the tween the northern Wissahickon campus drainage eek Watershed the systemand should/must engage wer Schuykill theseRiver watersheds.
atershed. As such, the rthern campus drainage stem should/must engage ese watersheds. water movement
CAMPUS DRAINAGE The relationship of drainage access outlined in a blue circle to rainwater saturation shows minimal efficiency in dealing with runoff and drainage.
ater movement AMPUS DRAINAGE
he relationship of drainage cess outlined in a blue cle to rainwater saturation ows minimal efficiency in aling with runoff and ainage.
WATER CONCERNS
28
Lower Schuykill River Watershed Wissahickon Creek Watershed
Lower Schuykill River Watershed Wissahickon Creek Watershed
A
SITE ANALYSIS B
A
B
EXISTING SITE SECTIONS
C_ABE 29
4:
SPATIAL CONCEPT Fluidity
TEXT INFO ... 30
SEPARATION
between curriculum and learning environments
PROBLEMS
FUNCTION
current spaces overlap in use and do not provide efficient working environments
SUSTAINABILITY
not prevalent throughout campus buildings
GOALS engagement nodes overlapping movement
circulation TEXT INFO ...
building will serve as an educational model for tectonics and sustainable architecture building produces energy as students produce work community exhibition encourage exploration nodes of collaboration passive sustainable systems
C_ABE 31
FLUIDITY
There is no distinct fluid motion. Some types of movement impede their obstacles to take the path of least resistance, taking over the space in which it interacts with. With fewer obstacles, these fluid paths move faster, while moving slower with more obstacles. However, these fluid paths overcome their obstacles, they eventually overlap and collaborate.
32
SPATIAL CONCEPT
C_ABE 33
FAST movement
change in levels and movement from small to large spaces cause fast movement
34
SPATIAL CONCEPT
SLOW movement
flat, open and transparent spaces cause slow movement
C_ABE 35
CARVED spaces
carving of objects allow for penetration of the natural elements into spaces
36
SPATIAL CONCEPT
FORMED obstacles
formed obstacles are what’s left over after objects have been carved out
C_ABE 37
FLUID MOVEMENT
OBSTACLE
CARVING
INTERIOR CONDITION
concept model process: describes how fluid movement takes on obstables to carve out spaces and create a formed object
38
VOLUME
SPATIAL CONCEPT
FORMED OBJECTS: in relation to program and site
C_ABE 39
5:
40
FORM DEVELOPMENT
A Fluid Learning Environment for Collaboration
FORM DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 41
MAIN DESIRE LINES
desire lines: site studies of where desire lines are laid, site lines are wanted, and site obstacles, lead to the carving away of the overall volume. This caused a separation of program. The classroom pod faces other academic buildings. The studios are placed to interact with DEC, the new quad, and the Kanbar student center. The presentation space allows for integration with the existing bioswale, as well as, capping off the quad.
42
FORMED
SITE LINES
CLASSROOMS
PRESENTATION STUDIOS
FORM DEVELOPMENT
quad development: The previous layout did not provide true space for a quad. the development of form and master plan allowed for a bigger quad to be formed. This also created sub-quads between buildings.
C_ABE 43
early section studies: attempts to connect separate buildings and create carved spaces inbetween.
44
FORM DEVELOPMENT
section studies: exploration of circulation acting as the connector to pods.
C_ABE 45
Development of sections: lack the desired “pod� spaces and connections
46
FORM DEVELOPMENT
winter sun
summer sun
angle formation: walls are tilted to divert direct sun radiation in the summer and allow for passive, thermal heating in the winter.
C_ABE 47
48
FORM DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 49
50
FORM DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 51
final form opens up quad and collaboration spaces are clearly defined
52
FORM DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 53
DEC Center
54 visitor + administrative entry
student stuido entry
classrooms entry
C_ABE
fire stair
classroom entry
atrium entry
stuido entry
presentation space
south elevation
DEC Center
C_ABE
north elevation
Gallagher Athletic Center
FORM DEVELOPMENT a
b
b
a
section a: gives understanding of the classroom to studio, down to presentation composition SECTION B: studio entrance
a
b
C_ABE 55
6:
56
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT from Trusses to Fins
C_ABE 57
transformation: The truss and hollow core concrete system did not succeed in meeting the aethetic desires for a carved concrete look. the need to design a unobstructed concrete building was met with using three different structural systems: Filigree concrete, poured-in-place concrete, hollow core concrete, and a spider clamp, glass fin system.
58
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 59
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
gutter detail
catwalk detail
60
circulation floor detail
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
C_ABE 61
7:
62
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Radiant Floors and Decentralized
C_ABE 63
FILIGREE CONCRETE POURED-IN-PLACE WALL GLAZED ROOF CONCRETE FIN
FILIGREE FLOOR SYSTEM FILIGREE CONCRETE LIGHTING GLAZED FLOOR HOLLOW-CORE CONCRETE
To execute an all-concrete building, Filigree, hollow core, and poured-in-place concrete systems were used.
64
CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATION
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
GLASS FIN SPIDER CLAMP SYSTEM
FILIGREE CONCRETE SYSTEM POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE WALLS HOLLOW CORE SLAB CONCRETE FIN AND BEAM SYSTEM
In the circulation spaces, hollow core slab and concrete fin systems are used. The pods are constructed with Filigree concrete and poured-in place walls. The breakout spaces use glass fin and spider clamp structure.
C_ABE 65
artificial lighting: within the pods, suspended lights are installed. within the circulation space, LED lights are installed under the concrete fins.
66
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
MECHANICAL SHAFT FORCED AIR
RADIANT FLOOR
environmental controls: the building uses radiant heated and cooled floors with a decentrailized forced air system
C_ABE 67
COOLING
HEATING
RADIANT FLOORS
68
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
radiant floor detail
C_ABE 69
8:
70
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Natural Lighting and Landscaping
NATURAL LIGHTING: now that there is natural light being brought in from the central ciruclation space, it would be ideal to have that light redirected into the pods. if we look back to our original “Spatial Concept� model, we can see a strategy for being able to bring natural light into darker spaces by cutting through the walls on angles. This can also allow for those passing by through the circulation spaces to get views into the studio pods.
LANDSCAPING now that there is enough space for a new campus quad, we would like to develop the land using the same architectural language that our building evokes. There can be spaces for presentation and testing ideas outside. The landscaping will also help to make outsiders feel comfortable approaching C_ABE.
C_ABE 71