Design Portfolio
Landscape, Architecture, Planning Yingyi Zhong Spring 2020
2
YINGYI ZHONG See Resume for more information
EDUC ATI O N Expec ted 05/2020
Kansas State University | Manhattan. KS Master of Landsc ape Architec ture
Contacts
Geographic Information Science Graduate Cer tificate
925 Denison Ave.
Minor in Regional & Community Planning
A P T. 1 2
08/2015-05/2016
Manhattan, KS 66502 Te l : 7 8 5 - 7 7 0 - 5 2 8 9
08/2013-06/2015
Email: yingyi@ksu.edu
Kansas State University | Manhattan, KS Regional & Community Planning (Courses completed) South China Agriculture University | Guangzhou, China Urban Planning (Courses completed)
Languages
PR O FESSI O N A L L I C EN SE
Mandarin
01/2018-Present
Cantonese English
LEED APÂŽ Building Design + Construc tion (Credential ID: 11207595-AP-BD+C)
W O R K EX PER I EN C E 01/2019-08/2019
Landsc ape Intern | SWA Group, Houston TX Design works: 3D modeling, diagramming and rendering for both international and domestic projec ts ranging form park design, campus planning, mixed used development, infrastruc ture planning
05/2017-08/2017
Landsc ape Intern | Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, Wichita KS Design works: prepare site plans, construc tion documents and cost estimates, prepare graphic representation using computer -aided design, place -making projec ts
PR O FESSI O N A L SK I L L S Adobe Photoshop Adobe Illustrator Adobe InDesign
ArcGIS AutoCAD Hand- drawing
Lumion Microsoft Office Revit
Rhino + Grasshopper Sketchup Pro V-Ray
R EFER EN C ES Jason Gregor y , Vice President Wichita Downtown Development Corporation | Wichita, KS | jason@downtownwichita.org | (316)303-2627 Scott McCready, PL A, ASL A , Principal SWA Group | Houston, T X | smccready@swagroup.com | (832)-325-6824 Howard D. Hahn, PL A, ASL A Associate Professor | Kansas State University | hhahn@ksu.edu | (785)532-2431 Stephanie A. Rolley, PLA, AICP, FASLA, AICP Professor and Head| Kansas State University | srolley@ksu.edu | (785)532-5961
3
00
Table of Contents Overview of the selected projects
00 The HighGround: Post-Landfill Contouring Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
01 Landscapes of Encounter Sustainable practice of the First Christian Church in Manhattan, Kansas
p. 14
02 Negotiating Boundaries
p. 22
Re-imaging the Southeast Commercial District in Coralville, Iowa
04 In the Making: Arts & Installations p. 34 Cobb Memorial, Manhattan, Kansas Pop-up Beach, Wichita Kansas
03 Ascending Architecture Exploring a new prototype high-rise buildings in the Era of Vertical Intelligent Community, Hong Kong, China
p. 28
4
00
The HighGound Partially selected from my Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
ABSTRACT Daily waste production in the United States has steadily increased and follows population growth, especially in metropolitan areas and populated states. On average, over 50% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is handled by either municipal or private landfills. Since landfill permitting is typically a long and potentially controversial process, the trend is toward fewer but larger landfills (EPA 2015; 2017). As a result, landfills near urban areas can be massive in size and potentially seen by hundreds of thousands of people daily. Views of refuse being deposited is generally minimal, but as soil cover is incrementally added, the overall emerging landform is often visually incompatible with the surrounding topography. Many landfills tend to be geometrically shaped with angular faces, sharp corners, and mesa-like tops resulting in a flat ridge profile whose silhouette can be recognized from great distances. Visual disruptions related to landfill operations can last for decades, and views after closure/restoration are permanent. This project and report explore to what degree landfills can be aesthetically contoured to more closely replicate contextual topography while maintaining operational/reclamation efficiency and high overall fill capacity. This was done through: a literature review of current landfill design and operational practices; touring Salina City Landfill in Kansas; consulting with civil engineering professors at Kansas State University; compiling and analyzing precedents with the help from mathematics professors at Kansas State University; undertaking a projective redesign of the Puente Hills landfill incorporating enhanced contouring; and finally comparing capacity gains/losses between the enhanced landfill and a landfill of standard configuration serving as the control. Anticipated findings of this project and report will attempt to show that enhanced landfill contouring is possible within acceptable engineering practices and might lead to a real-world attempt at designing and implementing an aesthetically enhanced landfill. Incentive could be provided if these extra aesthetic measures resulted in easier permitting. This project and report will also demonstrate how landscape architects can influence the aesthetic integrity of large landscapes that typically fall within the domain of civil engineers.
Date
Fall 2019, Spring 2020
Course
LAR 705 Master’s Project Studio; LAR 710 Master’s Project Studio II
Project Type
Individual Project
DESIGN PROCESS
G1
ƒ „ … † … † … † † � ‚ � ‡
A3
‘ � � �
Â?Â? Â?   € ‚
2018
Manual Geometric Contouring
1950
‰ �Š € ˆ… ˆ… € € ‹ €
‚ ‘  ’  „
P1
‘  … † †
Â
� ‚  ‡
‘ � � �
‘‘ ‘
Â?Â? Â?
Manual Advanced Contouring ‰ �Š € ˆ…  ‹ Œ
Parametric Advanced Con ‰ �Š € ˆ… Œ … ‹…Ž
PROJECT SITE
5
MODIFIED LANDFILL SURFACES
Manual Geometric Contouring
2018
G1
G2
A1
A2
A3
P1
P4
P4
‰ �Š € ˆ… € ‹ €
Manual Advanced Contouring ‰ �Š € ˆ…  ‹ Œ
Parametric Advanced Contouring ‰ �Š € ˆ… Œ … ‹…Ž
Â? Â? Â?
 �� �
ntouring
 “‹” Â? ‹” Â?  Š ‰  • ‚ • • ‚Â
 Â
Â? ‹  Â? Â? Â
6
00
The HighGound Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
Date
Fall 2019, Spring 2020
Course
LAR 705 Master’s Project Studio; LAR 710 Master’s Project Studio II
Project Type
Individual Project
PARAMETRIC ADVAN Design Intent: experimental enhanced landfill configuration with high landform VQ Surface Appearance: visible undulating side slope, rounded top deck to mulpti-peaks showing rocky geologic features, visible undulating ridgelines and valleys. Modeling Process: Parametric modeling provides • automated and efficient landform sculpting • balance between aesthetics and volume • rapid model integration into other analysis software • rapid scenario evaluations
[362]Grasshopper Parametric Surface Script (Zhong 2020) Original image can be found in the appendix of the master’s report PT SCRI WRITTEN
VISUAL SCRIPT
7
8
The HighGound
00
Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
Date
Fall 2019, Spring 2020
Course
LAR 705 Master’s Project Studio; LAR 710 Master’s Project Studio II
Project Type
Individual Project
116880890.61 12268714.30 108195839.46 12040040.49
98085465.80 9432908.03
93860364.59 13151390.91 101297891.47 12154408.89
90558910.78 14143379.91
Volume Capacity Comparison for Geometric Manual Contouring Models (G1-G2), Advanced Manual Contouring Models(A1-A3), and Advanced Parametric Contouring Models(P1-P7)
Group 1: Manual Geometric Contouring
EG- Existing Grade PG-Proposed Grade
‡
36774601.92 7318464.15 36808515.52 6220212.74
most seen slopes: 1950-2018 (Zhong
1950-G1
[258] most s
‡
   ˆ ˆ ‡ ‰ † …
‰ ‡ ˆ  ˆ  Â
37577294.32 5698617.46 35410378.63 7144054.34 35276352.46 6888640.23 35287973.15 6893630.72 10376198.84 89168605.27 15630541.10 68753380.88 15627243.51 68753284.99 15295428.00 68585206.66
 � �  � � Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š Š
† …
37346016.36 5806104.68
16667528.12 66419081.23
1950-2018 [257] Earthwork Comparison along
‡ € ‚ ƒ „ Â… †
� � � ‰ � ‰ˆ� ‰ � ‰� ‰ � ‰ˆ� ‰ˆ� � ‰� ‰� ‰ � ˆ� ˆ� ‡� � � � � Š � ‡‡� ‰� Š ‡� Š ‡ �
 ��  � 1950EG-2018EG (1950 Existing Grade-2018
Existing Grade)
2018EG-1 1950 Exist
Group 2: Manual Advanced Contouring 1950EG -2020PG-G1
(1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Manual Geometric Contouring 1)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-G2
(1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Manual Geometric Contouring 2)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-A1
(1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Manual Advanced Contouring 1)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-A2
(1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Manual Advanced Contouring 2)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-A3
(1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Manual Advanced Contouring 3)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P1 (1950 Existing Grade-
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P2 (1950 Existing Grade-
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P3 (1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring )
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P4 (1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 4)
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P5 (1950 Existing Grade-
2018EG -2
1950EG -2020PG-P6 (1950 Existing Grade-
2018EG -2
2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 1) 2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 2)
2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring
1950-A1 [260] Earthwork Comparison along most seen slopes: 1950-A1 (Zhong
1950-A2 [261] Ea
most see
2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring
Group 3: Parametric Advanced Contouring 2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 5)
2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 6) 1950EG -2020PG-P7 (1950 Existing Grade2020 Propose Grade-Parametric Advanced Contouring 7)
2020 Prop Contouring 2020 Prop Contouring
2018EG -2020PG-G1
16305264.81 66407491.35 15635382.02 66701252.27 14176720.75 66502407.26
16140523.70 14471305.39 7082990.69 17990125.13 8997544.63 15735754.20 22177559.62 13580668.01 29814982.31 12856927.93
2020 Propose Grade-Manual Geometric Contouring 1)
1950-P1 [263] Earthwork Comparison along most seen slopes: 1950-P1 (Zhong
1950-P4 [264] Ea
most see
9
1. East Slope
VOLUME CAPACITY COMPARISON
2. North Slope
Summary: more undulation, more cut Group 1: very balanced surface modification Group 2: unbalanced surface modification Group 3: very unbalanced surface modification [256] Most seen solid waste fill slopes of Puente Hills Landfill: east-facing slope and northfacing slope (Zhong 2020).
2018-1950 [266] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-G1
1950-A3 [262] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-A1 [269] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-A2 [270] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-A3 [271] Earthwork Comparison along
1950-P7 [265] Earthwork Comparison along most
2018-P1 [272] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-P4 [273] Earthwork Comparison along
2018-P7 [274] Earthwork Comparison along
Earthwork Comparison along seen slopes: 1950-G1 (Zhong
1950-G2
arthwork Comparison along en slopes: 1950-A2 (Zhong
arthwork Comparison along en slopes: 1950-P4 (Zhong
[259] Earthwork Comparison along most seen slopes: 1950-G2 (Zhong 2020).
most seen slopes: 1950-A3 (Zhong
seen slopes: 1950-P7 (Zhong 2020).
most seen slopes: 2018-1950 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-A1 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-P1 (Zhong
[267] Earthwork Comparison along most seen slopes: 2018-G1 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-A2 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-P4 (Zhong
2018-G2
[268] Earthwork Comparison along most seen slopes: 2018-G2 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-A3 (Zhong
most seen slopes: 2018-P7 (Zhong
10
The HighGound
00
Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
I-605
Fall 2019, Spring 2020
Course
LAR 705 Master’s Project Studio; LAR 710 Master’s Project Studio II
Project Type
Individual Project # view p view p oints = 30 oints e levatio n calib
ration =
OVERALL VISIBILITY ANALYSIS
SR-60
Overall Visibility Analysis (Viewshed analyses) were also calculated using Rhino3D with the Grasshopper plug-in-“Ladybug” to understand the change in overall visibility between the 2018 reference landfill surface and proposed landfill surfaces (Group 1: G1,G2; Group 2: A1, A2, A3; Group 3: P1-P1, P4, P7).
# view p view p oints = 49 oints e levatio n calib
ration =
Viewpoints were selected along major highways (I-650 and SR-60) and from nearby communities (South El Monte; Avocado Heights, and Hacienda Heights). Observer elevations for highway viewpoints were established by taking the topographic elevation at the highway viewpoint location and adding 5 to 22 additional feet to represent the viewing height from inside a vehicle. For elevations for community viewpoints, 6 to 15 feet representing a view height from a first or second story building window was added to the corresponding topographic elevation of the viewpoint locatio.
South El Monte
# view p view p oints = 100 oints e levatio n calib rat
ion =
Summary: more undulation, lower visibility Group 1: visibility + expect G2 for its lower filling depth Group 2: visibility Group 3: visibility -Visibility Level (%)
<0 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100< %
[280]-[288] surfaces view
Date
Avocado Height
# view p view p oints = 178 oints e levatio n calib rat
ion =
Hacienda Height
+6-15
+6-15
+5-22
+5-22
ft
ft
ft
[289]-[297] surfaces view
[298]-[306] surfaces view
[307]-[315] surfaces view
ft Viewpoints (observer points) View surface Target surface
[316]-[324] surfaces view
[275] Viewpoint information viewing from Highway I-605 (Zhong 2020).
# view p view p oints = 131 oints e levatio n cali
bration
= +6
-15 ft
201
Visibility Level (%)
Overall <0Visibility 10 20 30 (%)
11
90 100< % #View Points=30 #View Points Elevation: point elevation +5-22 ft
Visibility Analysis of proposed landfill wing from Highway I-605 (Zhong 2020).
40
50
60
70
80
Visibility Analysis of proposed landfill wing from Highway SR-60 (Zhong 2020).
#View Points=49 #View Points Elevation: point elevation +5-22 ft
Visibility Analysis of proposed landfill wing from Community South El Monte
#View Points=100 #View Points Elevation: point elevation +6-15 ft
Visibility Analysis of proposed landfill wing from Community Avocado Height
#View Points=178 #View Points Elevation: point elevation +6-15 ft
Visibility Analysis of proposed landfill wing from Community Hacienda Height
#View Points=131 #View Points Elevation: point elevation +6-15 ft
18
G1
G2
A1
A2
A3
P1
P4
P7
12
The HighGound
00
Master’s Report: Exploring Landfill Surface Contouring for Enhanced Aesthetics in Southern California
Date
Fall 2019, Spring 2020
Course
LAR 705 Master’s Project Studio; LAR 710 Master’s Project Studio II
Project Type
Individual Project
LANDFILL SURFACE ANALYSIS Slope Gradient Summary: spatial distribution of slope gradient from clustered to scattered, gradient from more flat, gentle to steeper. Group 1: clustered, gentle slope Group 2: start to scatter, gentle to steeper Group 3: scattered, gentle to steeper 8 201
SLOPE GRADIENT
0%
30% 60%
[344] 2018 Slope Gradient. • approx. 30% slope along side slope • fairly flat top deck • spatial distribution of slope is fairly clustered
[345] G1 Slope Gradient.
G1
• approx. <30% slope along side slope • flat top deck • spatial distribution of slope is cluster
15% 45%
Slope Aspect Summary: spatial distribution of slope aspect from clustered to scattered, number of aspects increase and more balanced. Group 1: clustered, Group 2: start to scatter Group 3: scattered
[347] A1 Slope Gradient.
A1
• wide-range slope gradient from low to high along side slope • some gradient change on top deck • spatial distribution of slope starts to scatter but still clustered on the facets
[348] A2 Slope Gradient (Zh
A2
• wide-range slope gradient from lo along side slope • some gradient change on top deck • spatial distribution of slope starts to still clustered on the facets
SLOPE ASPECT
NORTH
SOUTH
NORTHEAST
SOUTHWEST
EAST SOUTHEAST
WEST NORTHWEST [350] P1 Slope Gradient.
P1
• wide-range slope gradient from low to high along side slope • some gradient change on top deck • unevenly distributed gradient, no defined faces
[351] P4 Slope Gradient.
P4
• wide-range slope gradient from low side slope • some gradient change on top deck • unevenly distributed gradient, no d
13
[346] G2 Slope Gradient.
e
G2
red
hong
ow to high
defined faces
8 201
[349] A3 Slope Gradient.
A3
scatter but
w to high along
• approx. <30% slope along side slope • flat top deck • spatial distribution of slope is clustered • lowest side slope undulation and no top deck surface undulation
• wide-range slope gradient from low to high along side slope • some gradient change on top deck • spatial distribution of slope starts to scatter but still clustered on the facets
• wide-range slope gradient from low to high along side slope • some gradient change on top deck • unevenly distributed gradient, no defined faces
• moderate amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect are clustered that indicates a fairly angular side slope
[354] G1 Slope Aspect.
G1
[356] A1 Slope Aspect.
A1
[352] P7 Slope Gradient.
P7
[353] 2018 Slope Aspect.
P1
• moderate amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect starts to scatter but still cluster on the facets
[359] P1 Slope Aspect. • considerable amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect are very scattered indicating no obvious defined edges
• less variation in the slope direction appears on the surface comparing to 2018 reference surface • spatial distribution of aspect are clustered that indicates angular slopes
[355] G2 Slope Aspect.
G2
[357] A2 Slope Aspect.
A2
P4
• moderate amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect starts to scatter but still cluster on the facets • more aspect variation on the north slope than A1 and A3
[360] P4 Slope Aspect. • considerable amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect are very scattered indicating no obvious defined edges
• less variation in the slope direction appears on the surface comparing to 2018 reference surface • spatial distribution of aspect are clustered that indicates angular slopes
[358] A3 Slope Aspect.
A3
P7
• moderate amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect starts to scatter but still cluster on the facets.
[361] P7 Slope Aspect. • considerable amount of variation in the slope direction appears on the surface • spatial distribution of aspect are very scattered indicating no obvious defined edges
Date
14
01
Landscapes of Encounter Sustainable practices of the First Christian Church in Manhattan, Kansas
Date
Spring 2017, Fall 2017
Course
LAR 438 Design Implementation I&II; LAR 410 Planting Design Studio
Project Type
Individual Project
PROJECT STATEMENT The site, located adjacent to the Grand Mere Parkway, is currently an underutilized farmland that has potential to become a new destination in Manhattan, Kansas. Grand Mere Development proposed a church development on the south portion of their site, which will create a consistent flow of visitors. Currently, the site is surrounded by a ridge and lies in a bowl-shaped area, divided by a natural drainage-way. The site’s prime location provides a beautiful panoramic view towards Manhattan in all directions.
PROJECT GOALS “Landscapes of Encounter” engages its surroundings and invites different user groups to experience the harmony of architectural and landscape design. Additionally, it analyzes methods of design that can reduce potential environmental impact on the existing site. As a result, I focus on three main aspects: stormwater management, functional community, and sustainable practices.
15
16
Strategy 1: Water Management
Functional Garden Principle 1
The design reduces the danger of excessive run-off through rain gardens, and reuses the gray water for irrigation at the same time. Rain gardens can also purify the water, which makes the whole designed water system more sustainable.
Strategy 2: Functional community
Penetration & Purification
Vegetation layer Drainage gravel Sand
Topsoil Gravel Sand
Water system
Porous concrete Permeable layer Filter layer Road bed
Principle 3
A sustainable water system is designed. Roof runoff
Mitigate runoff Excessive Runoff
Evaporation
PRAIRIE MEADOW
VERTICAL GARDEN RAIN GARDEN
Biological treatment
RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN
Infiltration
URBAN FARMLAND
Rain gardens, prairie meadow and other functional green spaces are built in different areas.
Permeable brick Permeable layer Filter layer Road bed
Natural infiltration
Functional space
Material ID
Road system
Wood
Porous concrete
Permeable Bricks Permeable Bricks Gabion Stones
There are different communities near the site, and a community center is proposed to serve the communities. The goal of the design is to reshape this raw area into a destination that attracts the surrounding communities and visitors. Making it a place that will satisfy different users' needs. Principle 1
Strategy 3: Sustainable design
Uncontrolled traffic noise
Principle 2
Principle 3
Creating different activity zones to attract different users.
Opening up various entries and exits to make the site visually and physically accessible.
Choose the appropriate construction materials as shown in different areas.
Landscape viewpoint
Planting
Visitor routes
Natural sound barrier
The site currently has some visible and invisible problems. Through the design I try to practice sustainable design principles to solve these roblems. For example purifying gray water, reducing traffic noise and using plants to create a series of different spaces. The selections of plants, soil and construction materials all follow the principles of sustainable development.
Principle 1
Modify the site according to the terrain, so it can overlook its surroundings
Principle 2
Native plant, plants that are handle both drought and wet are chosen for the site.
Principle 3
Generating different routes according to different needs and site programmings.
17
01
0
Master Plan
15
30
Site Plan 1’’=30’ 30
B
Parking Lot
Bio
-sw
ale
Pra
irie
Vertical Garde
n
Me
ad
ow
A
Rain Garde
RE PAR K
n
WA Y
15
le
AND GR
A
air ie
Me a
ME
do w
Plaza
Pr
Community Center
Community Garden
B
0
Bioswa
16
Landscapes of Encounter
18
01
Landscapes of Encounter Planting Plan and the Entry Plaza
PLANT SCHEDULE
Gleditsia traacanthos var. inermis / Thornless Honeylocust Malus spp. / Apple Tree Prunus armeniaca. / Apricot
PRAIRIE MEADOW
Quercus muehlenbergii / Chinkapin Oak
Bouteloua dactyloides / Buffalo Grass Schizachyrium scoparium / Little Bluestem Grass Sorghastrum nutans / Indian Grass
Cornus sericea / Red Twig Dogwood
Artemisia ludoviciana / White Sagebrush Rosa arkansana / Dwarf Prairie Rose Asclepias tuberosa / Butterfly Milkweed Echinacea paradoxa / Bushâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Coneflower
SHRUBS
TREES
Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud Multi-trunk
ANNUALS / PERENNIALS
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
Corylus americana / American Filbert Rhus glabra / Smooth Sumac Symphoricarpos orbiculatus / Coralberry
19
COMMUNITY GARDEN
PRAIRIE MEADOW
RAIN GARDEN
20
01
Landscapes of Encounter Construction Documents
Grading Plan
Earthwork Diagram
21
01
Landscapes of Encounter
Station 0+16.60 Cut and Fill Calculation
Construction Documents
Pipe Detail
Construction Detail
Layout and Dimensioning Plan
22
02
Negotiating Boundaries Re-imaging the Southeast Commercial District in Coralville, Iowa
Date
Spring 2017, Fall 2017
Course
LAR 646 Community Planning and Design
Project Type
Group Project - with Chen, Si
PROJECT STATEMENT This project is in partnership with Kansas State’s Department of Landscape- Architecture and Regional and Community Planning, the City of Coralville, and Technical Assistance of Brownfield. It is a strategic effort to envision the future of the Southeast Commercial District in Coralville, IA. The area has great opportunity to accommodate people who work, play and live nearby.
PROJECT GOALS This design proposal offers solutions to all of the physical dilemmas on site, such as flooding and contamination, while establishing spaces for social activities. This is achieved by exploring the relationships between the site’s “hard boundary” (which is more defined, such as the entire district as an entity) and its “soft boundary” (which consists of intangible, subtle elements like the site’s industrial history and culture). A negotiation between these boundaries through enhancing the sites current conditions would further establish the district’s identity, while creating a unique and habitable environment.
Safe Zone Habitat Morphology Limestone Palimpsest
Splash Water
Safe Zone
23
Habitat Morphology (Zhong, 2018)
Limestone
Brick
Adapted Staggering Pattern from Bricks
Interactive Edge
Reserve Gap in between Limestones
Pedestrian Bridge Protective Berm Express the Flow: Flood Attenuation, Seating, Rehabilitation
Landscape Node Edge Ecology (Zhong, 2018)
Oxygen
(Zhong, 2018)
Mind the Gap
Nitrifying Bacteria
24
02
Negotiating Boundaries Negotiating the soft and hard boundaries Strategy #1
DEFINE
Soft Boundary Diagram: Analyzing Urban Fabric-Assisting the existing natural, while also introducing artificial, urban fabric provides the basis for the soft boundaries negotiation. (Zhong, 2018) Industrial Relic: Corten steel & Brick
Natural Fabric: Vegetation and Soil
Paving Material: Concrete & Asphalt
Soft Boundaries: define the existing natural and artificial urban fabric.
Hard Boundaries: redefine the
existing road, trails and rails with individual characteristics.
Hard Boundary Diagram: “Renovate, Reserve, Reduce” strategies to preserve city identity (Zhong, 2018)
Strategy #2
DISTORT
Soft Boundaries: distort a mobility
loop to increase connectivity with diversity and enrich travel experiences.
Hard Boundaries: distort the site’s waterline to create an accessible waterfront and protective berm.
Interactive Edge Protective Berm
Hard Boundary Diagram: Distorted Waterline Generate Accessible Waterfront and Protective Berm (Chen & Zhong, 2018)
Soft Boundary Diagram: Distorted Mobility Loop Diversify and Enrich Travel Experience (Chen, 2018)
25 Soft Boundary Diagram: Overlap Landscape and Architecture Programs (Zhong, 2018)
Strategy #3
OVERLAP
Typology
Strategies
Hard Boundary Diagram: Overlap Landscape Nodes and Urban Loop (Chen, 2018) Applied Strategies
Infrastructure Landscape Loop
Activity Mobility Loop
Green Radial Loop
Soft Boundaries: overlap landscape and architectural programs.
Hard Boundaries: overlap landscape nodes and urban loops.
Platform:
Areas along the waterfront with both visual and physical accessibility.
Permeable Edge:
Densifying:
Street front along the 2nd street
Increase diversity and intensity along the street front with smaller mixed-use “blocks”.
Cross-over:
Topping:
Intersection between 1st Avenue and 2nd Street with highest circulation. The city’s target area for commercial development.
Strategy #4
Pressing:
Reduce building height for waterfront retails and restaurants to allow resident’s visual access.
Increase building heights and add various active program layers.
Workplace Retails Restaurants Public Amenity Hotel & Residential
Landscape Loop as Accessible Green Space Landscape Nodes as Infrastructure Landscape Nodes as Open Green Space Activity Nodes
REVERSE
Hard Boundaries: reverse the existing hierarchy of accessibility to the site.
Soft Boundaries: reverse the existing adjacent natural and artificial habitats.
Soft Boundary Diagram: Reverse Existing Adjacent Natural and Artificial Habitats (Chen, 2018)
Hard Boundary Diagram: Reverse the Existing Hierarchy of Accessibility (Zhong, 2018)
26
Negotiating Boundaries
02
Master Plan
ABOUT
Four (4) mix-use strategies are used to define the masterplan: 1. Mix-use prioritizing commercial 2. Mix-use prioritizing residential and retail 3. Mix-use prioritizing services and local retail 4. Mix-use prioritizing industry and business.
Employing these strategies will result in a well-structured, landscape masterplan to include the following: an industrial heritage park, a parking structure for the district, rooftop gardens, plazas and public meeting zones, civic platforms, bus-stops, trails and rails.
Clear Creek Trail
1st Ave.
Rooftop Garden Rooftop Garden
Office - 25% Commercial - 19%
n
t Apartm ent
nd Service tail a
face S ur
Structured Parki
Housing - 26% n tme
Service A par
Offic e
g
Re c ubli
Open Space - 44%
ip c R arian&P Civi
In du Heritasgtrial e
Building Footprint - 56%
Residential Summary: Total Residential SF Total Dwelling Units (DU) Avg DU/Acre Total Residents Parking Stalls Needed
Commercial Summary: Total Commercial SF Employees Parking Stalls Needed
Office Summary:
Total Office SF Employees Parking Stalls Needed
Parking Summary:
Total Stall Needed Parking Stalls Provided Surface Parking Stalls Streetside Parking Structured Parking
Meeting Space
Pocket Plaza Civic Platform
METRICS Parking - 30%
Grandic Rail
863,116 1,127 33.2 2,258 1,579 632,697 1,685 2,360 843,210 1,685 2,260 6,199 5,843 635 55 5,153
Industrial Heritage Park
P
District Parking Structure
2nd ST. Pocket Plaza Civic Platform Play Environment & Meeting Space
Iowa Interstate Rail
Bus Stop Bus Stop
Mormon Trail
(Zhong, 2018)
27
Industrial Themed Park
The southern soft boundary is converted and transformed into a large-scale infrastructure as a way of catching and re-mediating polluted runoff from the brownfields. It also acts as a social corridor with its physical and ecological connection to the Mormon Trek Trial and Iowa University.
(Zhong, 2018)
(Chen,2018)
28
03
Ascending Architecture Exploring a new prototype for high-rise buildings in the Era of Vertical Intelligent Community, Hong Kong, China
Date
Winter 2017
Course
LEED AP BD+C Self Study
Project Type
Individual Project
PROJECT STATEMENT This competition invites students to imagine future living spaces in an urban setting and promote a “Vertical Intelligent Community.” Based on an issue of “China Daily,” this project addresses designing for China’s high population in developing mega-cities by creating “Smart Vertical Communities.” This competition seeks both creative and clever solutions to high-rise buildings in terms of efficiency, flexibility, and diversity, by echoing values of communication, public service, exchange of knowledge, networks, and management through design.
PROJECT GOALS “Ascending Architecture” explores a new prototype of mixed-use, high-rise buildings in China’s mega-cities. The integral design of this prototype will support green living by generating and reducing energy consumption and incorporating technological innovations to support the management of energy systems.
29
30
03
Ascending Architecture Form, Context
1. The overall building mass is divided into three volumes defined for commercial, office, or residential use.
2. Portions of the building are carved out into “setbacks” that form exterior environments.
3. The building’s forms are reduced to help integrate indoor and outdoor spaces.
4. Exterior walkways are implemented to connect vertical spaces and maximize views to city.
5. Transitional spaces interlace with one another to form a variety of interior and exterior environments.
1. Setbacks help provide natural lighting throughout the building
2. Implementing exterior spaces in the building causes the overall form to be reduced, which allows it to be in scale with neighboring buildings.
3. Trimming a portion of the building allows foot traffic to be distributed evenly.
4. Creating spaces between each volume allows natural ventilation and helps distribute the buildings overall lateral force.
5. An analysis of the street’s traffic flow helps provide insight of where best to place building entrances.
Summary The form generation process to develop the building prototype, and to satisfy the defined objectives, is defined in five steps: First, the overall building mass is divided into three volumes and provided with ‘setbacks,’ which allows users to form their own outdoor space. Then, to accommodate with neighboring buildings and to balance outdoor and indoor spaces, the buildings overall volume is reduce. Next, to further encourage use of these spaces, walkways are designed to connect the exterior and interior. These walkways and transitional spaces maximize the users perspective of the city, producing unique sights to entice exploration. In addition, it was crucial to take advantage of the transitional spaces that link the interior and exterior environment within mega-cities. As a result, these transitional spaces provided natural ventilation in the building and a reduction of the overall lateral force, which can prolong the efficiency and life of the building. By strategically trimming and reducing the building’s footprint, user flow and movement into the building is guaranteed from the entrance’s prime locations, further encouraging overall use.
31
RESIDENTIAL
03
Ascending Architecture Exploded Axon
Floor Plan
FLOOR PLANS
5 3 4 2
12F
1. Living room 2. Dining room 3. Terrace 4. Studio 5. Suit 6. Flex Space
1 6
1
OFFICE
3
5F
1. Hallway 2. Office area 3. Conference room 4. Admin 5. Bathroom
4 5
2
3
2F 1
2
CIRCULATION
COMMERCIAL
4
5
1. Atrium 2. Admin 3. Flex Space 4. Bathroom 5. Outdoor space
32
03
ABOUT
Ascending Architecture Main Entry Plaza
This perspective demonstrates the prime location of the buildings main entry, which entices pedestrians to break away from the street and enjoy the plaza: sit, have a drink and socialize. This space flows naturally towards the first set of stairs, allowing visitors to enter or exit the high-rise, and an additional space is provided to allow free movement along the lobby.
33
34
04
In the Making: Arts & Installations Cobb Memorial, Manhattan, Kansas Pop-up Beach, Wichita, Kansas
Date
Spring 2016
Date
Summer 2017
Course
LAR 248 Material & Methods
Course
Downtown Wichita Summer Internship
Project Type
Group Project
Project Type
Teamwork (with WDDC Staff)
ABOUT
Cobb Memorial, Manhattan, Kansas The Grover Cobb Memorial Project is located at the base of the historic KSAC tower (built in 1924) – south of Calvin Hall, Kansas State University. It was built to honor Grover Cobb, a Kansas broadcaster. However, over 42 years, the memorial had begun to seriously deteriorate.
(Thompson, 2017)
In response, a class of K-State students decided to bring the memorial back to former glory under direction of their Professor, Chip Winslow. The goal was to preserve the original memorial as well as possible, along with honoring both Grover Cobb and the history of broadcasting. With the assistance of students and faculty throughout two semesters, the project was completed prior to the KAB Convention’s formal dedication on October 17, 2017. To help achieve this deadline, I worked with three K-State students to design and construct the memorial’s bench (shown in bottom photo). My responsibilities included providing sketches, renderings, and construction documents for the bench, along with presenting design proposals. Afterwards, I also helped construct portions of the bench in the College’s shop.
ABOUT
Pop-up Beach, Wichita, Kansas Downtown Wichita received a grant from the Knight Foundation Fund to construct a “Pop-Up Beach” in effort to create a unique attraction that would bring together locals, residents and visitors around the city. The Pop-Up Beach was a temporary attraction that encouraged whimsical, fresh ‘beach vibes’ in Wichita during the summer of 2017. The Pop-Up Beach was located at the city’s Pop-Up Park on 121 E. Douglas Avenue. It provided visitors the opportunity to build sandcastles with friends while enjoying a tasty treat from a local food truck. Along with this event, other various activities took place throughout the summer, such as the Pop-Up Launch Party and Hawaiian Night. For this project, I helped build and design the Pop-Up Beach within a small team. This required counting the amount of material necessary, obtaining materials, calculating the sand volume required for the Pop-Up event, and helping build the beach. (Kim, 2017)
35
Thank you for having my portfolio reviewed, for further questions, please feel free to contact me at yingyi@ksu.edu or call 785-770-5289. For more work examples and sketches, please check out
https://issuu.com/eki56