DANIELGREGORY ARCHITECTURE
PORTFOLIO
University of Kansas | 2015
CV DANIEL J. GREGORY
WORK EXPERIENCE
816-617-5307
Gensler Intern Architect August 2014 - December 2014
djgregory91@gmail.com 934 Indiana Street Lawrence, KS 66044
EDUCATION
DLR Group Intern Architect June 2014 - August 2014
Master of Architecture
University of Kansas August 2010 - May 2015
University of Kansas
Minor in Business
ACTIVITIES | HONORS Caddy Stack’s Volunteer Navigators Leader (J-Team) Member of the AIAS Member of the NSCS Member of the NSHSS Elisha’s Prophets STUCO Intramural Flag Football Intramural Basketball Kappa Sigma Fraternity Member Pledge Class President Academic Honor Roll (3.52 gpa) KU Hawk Week Leader Southwest Junior High Basketball Coach KCAF Scholarship Recipient 2011, 2012, 2014
2 | Daniel J. Gregory
Independent group research project on the Human Scale; Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills, CA; Universal Studios Beijing, China; City Center LA, Los Angeles
The Cliff House Resort and Spa, Maine; BlueHawk Development, Kansas City; University of Houston Football Stadium, Houston
KU Endowment Association
Student Development Associate August 2012 - March 2014 Utilized communications and sales skills to successfully secure over $25,000 in donations; Professionally represented the University of Kansas to the public and alumni; Part of a 1.2 billion dollar campaign
All-Safe Self Storage Leasing Agent 2006-2010
Riverside Self Storage
Leasing Agent 2008-2010 Managed over 1,200 storage units distributed between three locations; Used communications and sales skills to lease units to a wide range of customers; Responsible for solving any issues or problems that occured with our customers; Kept track of the financial books making deposits when needed
SKILLS
INTERESTS
Design Thinking Freehand Drawing Sketching Soldering Project Management Time Management Leadership Communication Sales
Traveling
7 Countries, 28 States
Hiking
Ouchita National Forest, Rocky Mountains
Skiing
Copper Mountain, Winter Park, Park City
Cooking
SOFTWARE
Experimental
Building
Adobe After Effects Adobe Photoshop Adobe InDesign Adobe Illustrator SketchUp KeyShot Vray for Sketchup Autodesk Revit Autodesk AutoCAD Rhinoceros 3D Grasshopper 3D Lumion 2.5 Microsoft Office Suite
Experimenting with various materials
Running
Half marathons, Tough mudder
REFERENCES Paola Sanguinetti
Department Chair and Associate Professor, Architecture
paolas@ku.edu
Kapila Silva
Assistant Professor, Architecture
kapilads@ku.edu
Stephen Grabow
Professor, Architecture
sgrabow@ku.edu
University of Kansas | 3
C ONTENTS MUSEUM STUDY
DALLAS TECHNICAL MUSEUM
Fall 2012
6
LAWRENCE PUBLIC LIBRARY
Spring 2012
16
PARAMETRICS
KINETIC PARAMETRIC FACADE
Spring 2013
20
HYPERDENSITY
CROSSROADS TRANSIT STATION
Fall 2013
28
Summer 2014
38
GENSLER INTERNSHIP
Fall 2014
44
GENSLER CO+OP
Fall 2014
50
RETAIL HOSPITALITY PROXIMITY SELECTED WORKS
BLUEHAWK DEVELOPMENT
FREEHAND DRAWINGS
58
PHOTOGRAPHY
60
M U S E U M
D a l l a s T e c h n i c a l M u s e u m Fall 2012
My Junior year started with a project to design a museum to go in the Dallas Arts District, in the lot adjacent to the Nasher Sculpture Center by Renzo Piano. Looking at the surrounding buildings as well as visiting other museums was helpful to understand the context of the sight and how I could best integrate my building within the fabric of the city. As students, we were allowed to choose what media would be displayed in the museum. I chose to design a museum that shows how mechanical objects are assembled and how they work. The design of the building reflects the media being showed. Exposing how the building is constructed and expressing materiality mimics what is on display inside. In this design, I also felt there needed to be a separation between public and private spaces. The large curved wall creates an axis that serves as the boundary between public and private spaces, as well as a service corridor for circulation throughout the building. The radius of the curve and the location of the building on the site was determined by examining the surrounding buildings’ curves and focusing on the sculpture located in the north lawn of the Meyerson Symphony Center. 6 | Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 7
South Elevation
Section AA
8 | Daniel J. Gregory
Every building has layers to it, and that is something that I wanted people to see as they walk through the building. Thus, the viewing galleries are constructed out of a large box truss system, with a perforated screen layer, as well as an exterior aluminum skin. The layers are visible from within the galleries as well as from the exterior of the building and portray the construction and materiality of the building. These galleries are supported off the ground to create a lower level of galleries and a courtyard space that appears to be uninterrupted. Each gallery is oriented perpendicular to the defining curve of the building and point toward the pendulum sculpture in the North lawn of the Meyerson Symphony center.
East Elevation
Section BB
University of Kansas | 9
1. 1/2” Aluminum Cladding 2. Stainless Steel Custom Bracket 3. Perforated Screen 4. Laminated Double Skin Glazing 5. Steel Plate Encasement 6. I-Beam 7. Steal Plate Connector 8. Hex Nuts 9. Fire Proofing 10. Channel Glass 11. Horizontal Mullions 12. Double Skin Curtain Wall 13. Thermal Air Mass
1 2 3
4
5 6
8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19
32 33
20 21 22 23 24
10| Daniel J. Gregory
20. 2’ Tall Lightweight Steel Truss 21. Drop Ceiling Panel 22. Steel U-Channel 23. 1/2” Gypsum Board 24. Metal Stud 25. Floor Tile 26. Floor Trim Board 27. 8” Thick Fiberglass Insulated Concrete 28. Vapor Barrier 29. 6” Gravel
30. 2” Thick Aluminum Panels 31. Steel Rod Ties 32. Metal Grate 33. Steel L-Channel
7
25 26 27 28 29
14. Acidic Gloss Stain 15. 4” Thick Lightweight Concrete 16. Exterior Limestone Floor Panel 17. Insulation/Thermal Barrier 18. Vapor Barrier 19. 4” Thick Metal Decking
30 31
University of Kansas | 11
Basement
12| Daniel J. Gregory
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
University of Kansas | 13
14| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 15
S T U D Y L a w r e n c e P u b l i c L i b r a r y Spring 2012 Located in Lawrence, Kansas, this project was to design a branch library for the existing Lawrence Public Library. We first looked at the building site and examined the surrounding buildings and how the landmarks affected the site’s exposure to the sun. My design for the library started with building footprint studies, focusing on pedestrian circulation. Vertically extruding a conceptual footprint while pushing in and pulling out different volumes of the building resulted in the current form. The main focus of my design was to group the programaic spaces according to their function.
16| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 17
The building’s entrance is in the south east side of the central courtyard. A cantilevered lounge for reading overhangs part of the entryway. Upon entering the building, a person immediately experiences the main atrium space which serves as an area for the circulation desk. The floor plan of the building is separated into different cores based on public and private areas. One end of the building contains the adult reading room, offices, the archives, and circulation desk. The other core of the library consists of the Children’s room, the Historical Exhibition Gallery, and a small coffee shop. The clear glass stair tower directs people up to the Historical Exhibition Gallery, as well as to the roof of the gallery which is an outdoor patio space/partial green roof.
18| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 19
P A R A M E T R I C S Z
a
h
n
e
r
F
a
c
a d e Spring 2013
Partnered with Zahner Metals in Kansas City, our studio was presented with the challenge to design a faรงade system that utilized Parametric Modeling as the driving design instrument. Zahner agreed to provide us with the materials, and the use of their equipment to manufacture the mock faรงade system. Split into three different groups, our studio presented three different designs to Zahner. Based on the ease of manufacturing, the design intent, and various other factors, Zahner chose to manufacture the faรงade design that was proposed by my group.
20| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 21
My group’s design focus was to create a façade that provided necessary sun shading, while allowing natural light in spaces that need it. We also researched ways that a façade could harvest energy and decided to pursue a design that would allow for the harvesting of wind energy. Small wind turbines became a kinetic aspect to our design, and impacted the overall form of the façade. Using Vasari and Ecotect, wind and sun studies were performed on a study building in the Lawrence, Kansas climate. The data collected from these programs was put into Grasshopper which translated the data to affect the design of our façade. In the Grasshopper definition we created, the wind turbines became attractor points that affected both the perforations in the façade as well as the shape of the each vertical fin of the system. The placement of the wind turbines was determined based on the wind data of the desired building collected from Vasari. The width of the vertical fins was affected both by the placement of the wind turbines as well as the sunlight data collected from Ecotect. 22| Daniel J. Gregory
Wind Data from Vasari
Grasshopper Function
Result in Rhino
I was interested in designing an interactive lighting system that would be part of the faรงade. Using the Arduino Uno, a programmable microcontroller, I was able to come up with a lighting design that would react to people walking in front of the faรงade. LED light strips span the vertical height of each fin and shine through the perforations. As a person gets closer to the faรงade, the lights get brighter.
University of Kansas | 23
24| Daniel J. Gregory
Arduino UNO Power Supply
University of Kansas | 25
The structure of the life scale display became an important aspect since we weren’t attaching the façade to an existing building. The display was free standing, so we had to solve that issue by creating a wooden framework to which the vertical metal fins could be attached. I was largely in charge of the group of people working on the structural component of the system. As a studio, we were asked to design an interactive feature for the full scale display model. We decided to create a bench system that contained some of the same attributes as the façade. Perforations were the biggest part of the bench design which allowed for the bending of solid wood panels to create the surfaces for the bench.
26| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 27
H Y P E R D E N S I T Y T
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
t
a
t
i o n Fall 2013
This project started with a macro evaluation of the Crossroads District in Kansas City. Split into five groups, our studio looked at how cities with mass transit systems differed from cities without those systems. Looking at the population density, demographics, various modes of transportation, my group created a master plan of the Crossroads District to make it a more walkable and pedestrian friendly area. Increasing the population density to make it a hyper dense city would result in a necessity for a mass transit system such as the proposed light rail. Hypothetically, we decided the light rail would become a reality. I was responsible for designing a Multi-Modal Transit Station that would become a center for various modes of transit within the Crossroads District including the light rail system.
28| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 29
30| Daniel J. Gregory
Looking at the existing conditions of the Crossroads district, I collaborated with my group to determine a solution to make the Crossroads district an attraction, rather than a dead space between Downtown KC to the North and the Crown Center area to the South. Increasing population density by proposing multiple mixed use buildings was the first step in the process of creating a more attractive district. Being part of the arts district, it was important to maintain the unique character of the Crossroads by leaving some open spaces in the urban fabric to provide places for street vendors and performances. The master plan proposed changing the layout of the streets, increasing the width of sidewalks and installing bike lanes, reducing the amount of vehicular traffic flowing through the district. This would encourage people to experience the district more directly and engage in the various activities the district offers.
University of Kansas | 31
The main concept behind my building was to create an iconic structure that was unique to the area and acted as a gateway to Kauffman Boulevard, the pedestrian walkway that was proposed in our master plan. The axes of 18th street and Kauffman Boulevard became important traffic corridors and impacted the design of my building. Studying how people would move across and through the site, it was essential to create an experience that was pleasurable and exciting.
The programmatic spaces of my building needed to include a residential portion that included various sizes of apartments, cafĂŠ, bike storage/rental station, micro-garage, and a waiting room for people using the light rail. I separated the residential portion of the building from the transit based areas to provide a buffer between private and public spaces. As a studio, we were urged to use wood construction techniques, specifically Cross Laminated Timber, for our designs.
DN
UP
DN UP
section AA
UP
section AA
DN
DN UP
DN
section BB
section BB
UP
Level 1
32| Daniel J. Gregory
Level 2
Section AA
Section BB
University of Kansas | 33
1
1
1. 12”x12“ exterior tile floor 2. 1/8” moisture barrier 3. 8” cross laminated timber (CLT) floor 4. 6” expanded polystyrene insulation 5. 2” aluminum mounting base 6. 2”x4” top plate
2 2
3
3
4
4
5
5
66
7. l-bracket 8. 8” cross laminated timber wall plate 9. 4” rigid expanded polystyrene insulation 10. vapor barrier 11. air pocket 12. alucobond adonized aluminum panels 13. laminate hardwood flooring 14. 1/8” laminate 1. 12”x12“ exterior tileunderlayment floor 2. 1/8” moisture barrier 15. 8” CLT floor plate 3. 8” cross laminated timber (CLT) floor 4. 6” expanded polystyrene insulation 16. 8” expanded polystyrene insulation 5. 2” aluminum mounting base 6.
2”x4” top plate
17. 1” seamless steel pipe 7. l-bracket 8. 8” cross laminated timber wall plate 18. HVAC duct 9. 4” rigid expanded polystyrene insulation 10. vapor barrier 19. fire sprinkler head 11. air pocket 12. alucobond adonized aluminum panels 20. 2’ x 2’ drop ceiling 21. 6” recessed can light 13. laminate hardwood flooring 14. 15. 16.
77
1/8” laminate underlayment 8” CLT floor plate 8” expanded polystyrene insulation
88
22. 3” rigid foam insulation 17. moisture 1” seamless steel pipe 23. barrier 18. HVAC duct 19. 8” fire concrete sprinkler headslab on grade 24. 20. 2’ x 2’ drop ceiling 21. 2” 6” recessed canconcrete light 25. treated floor 26. 22. flashing 3” rigid foam insulation 23. moisture barrier 27. grate 24. aluminum 8” concrete slab on grade 25. 2” treated concrete floor 28. 26. french flashing grated drainage system 27. aluminum grate 29. corex drain pipe 28. 4” french grated drainage system 29. 4” corex drain pipe 30. vapor barrier 30. vapor barrier 31. 3” rigid foam insulation 31. 3” rigid foam insulation 32. 6” trench footing 32. 6” trench footing 33. 3’ x 3’ limestone pavers 34. 35.
99 10 10 11 11 12 12
1/2” sand bedding 6” gravel
36. 3’ Concrete spread footingpavers 33. x 3’ limestone 34. 1/2” sand bedding 35. 6” gravel 36. Concrete spread footing
17 17
14 14
15 15
16 16
20 21 21 20
19 19
18 18
22 22
13 13
23
23
25 24 25
24
33
26 26
33
34
34
27 27
28
35
35
28
34| Daniel J. Gregory
29 30 30 31 31 29
32
32
36
36
DN
DN
UP
Path 1 68’
Floors 4 & 5
Path 2 49’ DN
Path 3 70’
DN
UP
Path 4 73’
Floors 2 & 3
Egress Diagam
University of Kansas | 35
East Elevation
Level 6 80’
Level 5 65’
Level 4 50’
Level 3 35’
Level 2 20’
South Elevation
36| Daniel J. Gregory
University of Kansas | 37
R
E
B l u H a w k
T
A
D e v e l o p m e n t Summer 2014
The summer before beginning my 5th year of architecture school, I had an internship with DLR Group in Overland Park, Kansas. I was a part of the Corporate team and worked on several projects including commercial retail buildings, hotels, and stadiums. The BluHawk development is Kansas City’s largest mixed-use project by a single developer spanning over 300 contiguous acres and is located in Southern Johnson County. The program includes the following: - 1,000,000 s.f. of luxury, outdoor shopping and dining. - 400,000 s.f. of Class A medical and general office space. - 55-60,000 s.f. upscale grocery store. - 600 Class A apartment units featuring an urban design. - A full service hotel. - A 400 bed hospital operated by a national medical provider along with 240,000 s.f. of medical office space. - 127 single family residences and 52 attached villas.
38| Daniel J. Gregory
I
L
Image courtesy of DLR Group
University of Kansas | 39
SF
F
SF
3
LEASABLE 4953 SF
3
11
4
10.5
4
MEP 102
10
5
MEP 102 5
9
6 2
A5.1
3
2
A5.1
A5.1
3
6
A5.1
8
7 7
7
OTHER MATERIALS
FF
8
LEASABLE 6914 SF
W
FENESTRATION Pedestrian View Plane SF: 576 SF 50% Glazing required: 288 SF Glazing SF provided: 310 SF Glazing %: 53.8%
PAINTED EIFS
LEASABLE 6914 SF
R
LEASABLE 6914 SF
MATERIAL LEGEND
01
AZTEC BRICK
06
GOLDEN TAN
R
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF BERRIDGE - DARK BRONZE
3 5/8" STUD COPING FRAMING PREFINISHED METAL COPING
8 3
A5.1
CONT. EXT GRADE 2X WOOD BLOCKING EIFS SHAPE
2
A5.1
HARD MATERIALS CALCULATIONS Total Facade SF: 1449 SF 50% required: 725 SF Hard Surface provided: 810 SF Hard Surface %: 56%
02
ROCKIES BROWN
07
BARLEY HARVEST
6
9
M
EIFS REVEAL
EAST ELEVATION
11' - 11"
9
FACADE OFFSET CALCULATIONS Facade Length: 85’ Offset required: 3% of 295’ = 2.55’ Offset provided: 9’
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT MULLIONS - MATTE BLACK
03
DRIFTWOOD
08
BARBADOS SAND W
6" COLD FORMED METAL STUD FRAMING
STAINED ROUGH CUT CEDAR 20' - 0"
MEP 102
5
10
5/8" GYPSUM BOARD SHEATHING
2" DRAINABLE EIFS
10 10.5
04
LIGHT KHAKI
09
STONE HEARTH EIFS REVEAL
10.5
4
11
LEVEL 02 114' - 0" 05
BRICK PILASTER BEYOND
OLIVE BRANCH
11
BACKER ROD AND SEALANT TYP AT PERIMETER STOREFRONT
MASONRY AND STONE
STOREFRONT SYSTEM
3
STEEL COLUMN
FB 02
BRICK- BORDEAUX BLEND
CS
CAST STONE CONTINENTAL 1103 ST THOMAS TAN
10' - 0"
LEASABLE 4953 SF
GROSS AREA: 13318 SF
OUTDOOR PATIO: 1310 SF
BRICK- LIGHT SANDSTONE
E
C
B
A
LEASABLE AREA: 11867 SF
E
C
B
A
HARD MATERIALS CALCULATIONS Total Facade SF: 1574 SF 50% required: 787 SF Hard Surface provided: 793 SF Hard Surface %: 50.4%
FB 01
CONCRETE SLAB 1
COMPRESSIBLE FILLER
2
A5.1
LEVEL 01 100' - 0"
1
FACADE OFFSET CALCULATIONS Facade Length: 77’ Offset required: 2’ 4” Offset provided: 2’ 8”
A5.1
CONCRETE FOOTING
WEST ELEVATION MANUFACTURED STONE EL DORADO SAWTOOTH RUSTIC LODGE
B L U H A W K D E V E L O P M E N T BUILDING SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
ELEVATIONS
A5.1
4
BUILDING 1C
40| Daniel J. Gregory
A
B
BB
C
D
CC
1
MS
BUILDING WALL SECTION SCALE: 3/8” = 1’-0”
07 30 2014
GROSS AREA: 13318 SF LEASABLE AREA: 11867 SF OUTDOOR PATIO: 1310 SF
A5.1 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10.5
11
E
D CC
MEP 102
R
W
FENESTRATION Pedestrian View Plane SF: 1549 SF 50% Glazing required: 745 SF 4 A5.1 Glazing SF provided: 1065 SF Glazing %: 68.8%
LEASABLE 6914 SF
LEASABLE 4953 SF C
C
HARD MATERIALS CALCULATIONS Total Facade SF: 3317 SF 50% required: 1659 SF Hard Surface provided: 1672 SF Hard Surface %: 50.4%
FACADE OFFSET CALCULATIONS Facade Length: 197’ Offset required: 3% required of 197’ = 5.91’ Offset provided: 12’ 4”
A5.1
SOUTH ELEVATION
3
B
B
BB
A
A A
A
BB B
B 3 A5.1
C
C LEASABLE 4953 SF
LEASABLE 6914 SF
FENESTRATION Pedestrian View Plane SF: 1497 SF 50% Glazing required: 749 SF Glazing SF provided: 289 SF Glazing %: 19.3% **Exception in accordance with standard 4.16.6 HARD MATERIALS CALCULATIONS Total Facade SF: 3015 SF 50% required: 1507 SF Hard Surface provided: 1515 SF Hard Surface %: 50.3% 1
A5.1
FACADE OFFSET CALCULATIONS Facade Length: 187’ Offset required: 5.61’ Offset provided: 10’
MEP 102
NORTH ELEVATION
BOH / MECHANICAL ROOM / TENANT STORAGE** KITCHEN**
CC D
E 3
4
5
6
7
07 30 2014
2
OUTDOOR PATIO: 1310 SF LEASABLE AREA: 11867 SF GROSS AREA: 13318 SF
A5.1
8
9
10
ELEVATIONS
2
10.5
11
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
BUILDING 1C
1
B L U H A W K D E V E L O P M E N T BUILDING
University of Kansas | 41
GROSS AREA: 13318 SF LEASABLE AREA: 11867 SF OUTDOOR PATIO: 1310 SF
A5.1 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10.5
11
180' - 0" 20' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
30' - 0"
20' - 0"
3' - 4"
20' - 0"
5' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
48" Brick Wall - Merlot Sands 42" Bartop
10' - 0"
8"
E 8"
D 8"
48" Cast Stone Railing Supports
37' - 8"
MEP 102
42" Stone/Brick Base Table
27' - 8"
29' - 4"
16' - 0"
CC
8' - 0" 1
LEASABLE 6914 SF
LEASABLE 4953 SF
A5.1
42" Glass Railing
C
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
60' - 0"
C
15' - 0" 11' - 4"
12' - 0"
2' - 8"
12' - 10 1/2"
9' - 2"
4' - 0" TYP.
12' - 6"
9"
4' - 8"
8"
4' - 0"
A
B
8"
3' - 4"
B BB
A
5' - 0" 30' - 5 1/8"
9' - 6"
10' - 6"
3 A5.1
B L U H A W K D E V E L O P M E N T GROUND SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
BUILDING 1C
42| Daniel J. Gregory
FLOOR PLAN
07 30 2014
Image courtesy of DLR Group
University of Kansas | 43
H O S P I T A L I T Y G e n s l e r
I n t e r n s h i p Fall 2014
During the first semester of my 5th year at the University of Kansas, I was fortunate enough to be part of the first Co+Op Studio between KU and Gensler. 80% of my time was devoted to accomplishing Gensler’s goals, while the remaining 20% of my time was devoted to a cooperative research project overseen by University of Kansas and Gensler faculty. I was located in Gensler’s Los Angeles office where I was a member of the Hospitality Studio. During my time dedicated to Gensler, I had the fantastic opportunity to work with some amazing people on very exciting projects. Some of the projects I worked on included the following:
Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills
Universal Studios Beijing
South Town Center in Sandy, Utah
City Center Los Angeles
44| Daniel J. Gregory
Image courtesy of Gensler
University of Kansas | 45
Image courtesy of Gensler
46| Daniel J. Gregory
Image courtesy of Gensler
University of Kansas | 47
Image courtesy of Gensler
48| Daniel J. Gregory
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4+
University of Kansas | 49
P R O X I M I T Y G
e
n
s
l
e
r
50| Daniel J. Gregory
C
O
+ O P Fall 2014
Global population is increasing and people are moving to cities at an exponential rate. The city has responded by introducing a scale of measurement quite different from our own scale. The result has identified the existence of many design deficiencies within our environment. If even more people are moving to the city as predicted, what does that do to the human scale of the city?
There are cites around the world that we define as successful in terms of quality of life. The top 3 according to Monocle’s 2014 Survey (Tokyo, Melbourne + Copenhagen) are measured from two origin points within each city. The average number of amenities occurring within the designated radius is used, resulting in what become the “baseline”. Referencing this baseline within terms of the humanization triangle, one can identify the amenity to density Humanizing the city starts with understanding what Human needs are. ratio of a given origin point, in relationship to the baseline. Our research began with looking at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a framework, in which needs are ranked in order of dependency. History Faith Arts Culinary SelfActualization Events
ry Pant
y
Gro
cery
Recreatio n Space
Food
acy
Fitness
Pharm
ys wa
ital Hosp
er at W
s
rm
cu rit Se
Ge
and
ve L
ucti
Pro d
blic
ral Pu
RASTRUC INF T
n
atio
Educ
Library
Historical Monum
ents
Museu
C
ms
Relig iou
s In
Ce m
Fede
Land
Plazas Green
E TUR UL
te Was
Space
Man
agem
ent
Uti
liti
ete
stit
utio
ns
b Pu
rie
u St
s
dio
e Th r ate
s
urant
Beverage
Resta
lic
es
an Tr
sit
s an d Ar enas
Convention Center
ium
Stad
eT rail s
If the basic human needs are supported by the built environment on a level of proximity, then humans have a greater certainty to a higher quality of life; a quality of life that allows activity, interconnectivity and authenticity to flourish so that humans can genuinely experience a sense of wonder, a sense of place and a sense of discovery in their city.
Sh
Bik
towards a higher quality of life; subsequently redefining the scale of the city.
er elt
HEA LT
E UR
H
The “human scale” measures proximity to basic human necessities, sophisticated urban systems and meaningful places within a universal walking distance of 1.5 mile diameter. A higher quality of life is active, interconnected and authentic on an individual level and as a whole. These innate qualities are the framework used to understand the relationship between physical space and human needs. By bringing health, infrastructure and cultural experiences (HIC) closer to the human, the city becomes a place that supports the journey
fo
Health
The research compared this baseline proximity with the amenity density ratio, or amenity per resident, in reference to two origin points in Chicago, Denver, Houston, and Los Angeles. First, the downtown, and second, the most densely populated location.
nd
Physiological
Infrastructure
La
Safety
Medical Physical Dietary Safety Mental
hic
Social
Culture
Transport Service Open Space Resources Geography
og ra p
Esteem
After the mapping exercise, this study concluded that the proper density is about finding a balance of amenity types. The resulting graphic communication tool has the potential to be used as an urban analysis tool that can be valuable to developers or city planners in the appropriation of amenities in struggling cities, growing cities or future cities.
University of Kansas | 51
C
H
Downtown
83
52| Daniel J. Gregory
I
C
A
G
O
Most Populated
23
D
Downtown
78
E
N
V
E
R
Most Populated
63
L
O
S
Downtown
66
A
N
G
E
L
E
Most Populated
16
S
H
O
Downtown
77
U
S
T
O
N
Most Populated
63
University of Kansas | 53
Most Populated
C
H
I
7
2
Faith
40
70
Arts
62
58
History
Culinary Events
1
Public Services
65
8
Open Public Services
74
43
3
7
12
5
Medical
176 23
Physical
95
31
Dietary
78
70
Safety
22
9
Mental
G
O
Downtown
Health
715 139
54| Daniel J. Gregory
83
2
268 155
Agriculture
A
1211 200
Public Transportation
Geographic Significance
C
Downtown
Downtown
Ratio Analysis
Mapping
23
Most Populated Ratio Analysis
Most Populated Mapping
Infrastructure
Culture
D
E
N
History
16
17
Faith
39
31
Arts Culinary Events
V
E
Downtown
R
Most Populated
Health
Infrastructure
Culture
153 65 193 124 28
78
3
Public Transportation
199 101
Public Services
74
18
Open Public Services
17
23
Agriculture
0
0
Geographic Significance
1
1
Medical
29
37
Physical
50
56
Dietary
37
25
Safety
24
24
Downtown
Downtown
Ratio Analysis
Mapping
63
Mental
326 237
Most Populated Ratio Analysis
Most Populated Mapping
University of Kansas | 55
L
O
S
A
History
12
2
Faith
25
60
Arts
32
39
Culinary Events
N
G
E
L
E
S
Most Populated Downtown
Health
197 370 0
66
2
Public Transportation
159 112
Public Services
22
15
Open Public Services
26
19
Agriculture
1
0
Geographic Significance
0
0
Medical
26
52
Physical
16
10
Downtown
Downtown
Ratio Analysis
Mapping
16
Dietary
128 44
Safety
16
1
Mental
85
218
56| Daniel J. Gregory
Most Populated Ratio Analysis
Most Populated Mapping
Infrastructure
Culture
H
O
U
S
History
6
25
Faith
8
14
Arts
18
5
Culinary
12
0
51
66
Events
Public Transportation
273 131
Public Services
73
36
Open Public Services
18
15
Agriculture
5
3
Geographic Significance
4
5
Medical
10
8
Physical
10
41
Dietary
51
10
T
O
Downtown
N
Most Populated
Health
Infrastructure
Culture
77
Downtown
Downtown
Ratio Analysis
Mapping
63
Safety Mental
114 58 15
3
Most Populated Ratio Analysis
Most Populated Mapping
University of Kansas | 57
S E L E C T E D F r e e h a n d
58| Daniel J. Gregory
D r a w i n g s
W O R K S
Siena, 2013
Sanctuary of Saint Catherine Siena, 2013
Piazza Pio II Pienza, 2013
San Giorgio Maggiore Venice, 2013
University of Kansas | 59
S E L E C T E D P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
W O R K S
y
London, 2013
60| Daniel J. Gregory
London, 2013
Chicago, 2012
Paris, 2013
University of Kansas | 61
Paris, 2013
62| Daniel J. Gregory
Paris, 2013
Venice, 2013
Venice, 2013
University of Kansas | 63
Lawrence, KS
64| Daniel J. Gregory
Lawrence, KS
Lawrence, KS
Arkansas, 2011
University of Kansas | 65
T H A N K
djgregory91@gmail.com | 816.617.5307 www.dgarchdesign.com 66| Daniel J. Gregory
Y O U