SMArchS Portfolio of a 2018 Oulu University Graduate

Page 1



SISÄLLYS 0

CURRICULUM VITAE

1 RAKENNUSSUUNNITTELU 2 RAKENNUSOPPI 3 YHDYSKUNTASUUNNITTELU 4 KORJAUSSUUNNITTELU 5 TUTKIMUSTYÖ

SISALLYS SISÄLLYS

6 KAUPUNKISUUNNITTELU


Elena Ylitalo Mannerheimintie 42 C 42, 00260 Helsinki

elena.ylitalo@gmail.com

+358 50 594 6855

linkedin.com/in/elenaylitalo

issuu.com/elenaylitalo/docs/portfolio

OSAAMINEN Kielitaito suomi (äidinkieli) englanti (erinomainen) ruotsi (hyvä) saksa (perusteet) ranska (perusteet) portugali (perusteet) espanja (perusteet) Tietotekniset taidot Suunnittelu: Revit, Autocad, SketchUp, Archicad, 3DS Max, Artlantis, Rhinoceros (perusteet), Grasshopper (perusteet) Editointi: Photoshop, Illustrator, Twinmotion Esittely: PowerPoint, InDesign Tekstinkäsittely: Word Harrastukset Matkailu, kuvataide, elokuvat, jooga, tennis ja lumilautailu.


KOULUTUS Oulun yliopisto Oulu, Suomi Arkkitehti 9/2015 – 12/2018 Opintosuunta: rakennussuunnittelu Diplomityö: Alppilanbulevardi – Suunnittelukonsepteja Kemintien bulevardisoinnille Technische Universität München (Münchenin teknillinen yliopisto) München, Saksa Vaihto-opiskelu 10/2016 – 9/2017 Opintosuunta: tutkimustyö Oulun yliopisto Oulu, Suomi Tekniikan kandidaatti, arkkitehtuuri 9/2012 – 4/2016 Opintosuunta: rakennusoppi Kandidaatintyö: kerrostalosuunnittelu Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (Paranán paavillinen yliopisto) Curitiba, Brasilia Vaihto-opiskelu 7/2015 – 12/2015 Opintosuunta: kaupunkisuunnittelu Kulosaaren yhteiskoulu Helsinki, Suomi Ylioppilas, SAT 08/2008 – 06/2012 Menomonie High School Menomonie, WI, USA Vaihto-opiskelu 09/2010 – 06/2011

Oulun kaupunki Oulu, Suomi Diplomityön tekijä 2/2018 – 11/2018 - Laadin suunnitteluohjeita bulevardisoitavan Kemintien varren rakentamiselle optimoiden ekologisen, ekonomisen ja sosiaalisen hyödyn. Suunnittelin korttelimallin, jossa konkreettiset suunnitteluratkaisut esitetään esimerkin tavoin. Huttunen-Lipasti arkkitehdit (ent. Huttunen-Lipasti-Pakkanen arkkitehdit) Helsinki, Suomi Arkkitehtiylioppilas / tekniikan kandidaatti kesät 2013 – 2016 - Sain olla mukana kattavassa kirjossa suunnitteluprojekteja, kuten Aava lääkärikeskus, väliaikainen päiväkoti Kulosaareen, Allas Sea Pool, suunnittelukilpailut, Gullkronan senioriasumisen kerrostalo, omakotitalot ja Gösta Serlachius museo, vapaa-ajanasunnot. - Suunnittelutehtäviini kuului muun muassa lupakuvien laatiminen (Autocad ja Revit), IFC-tietomallintaminen (Revit), asemakaavamuutoshakemusten piirtäminen (Autocad), esittely- ja kilpailukuvien editointi (Photoshop), kaluste-, ovi- ja ikkunakaavioiden tekeminen (Autocad) ja työmallien rakentaminen. Hangon Casino Hanko, Suomi Tarjoilija kesät 2009 – 2012 Ravintola Fyren Hanko, Suomi Tarjoilija kesät 2010 – 2012

CURRICULUM VITAE

TYÖKOKEMUS



1 RAKENNUSSUUNNITTELU

ISOVER MULTICOMFORT HOUSE -KIPLAILUEHDOTUS


ISOVER MultiComfort House -kilpailuehdotus 3/2018, parityö Kilpailun tehtävänantona oli suunnitella energiatehokasta kerrostalorakentamista tyhjälle noin 5 000 m2 kokoiselle alueelle Dubaihin. Suunnitelman tuli vastata vaativiin ilmasto-olosuhteisiin ekologisin keinoin, sopia ympäröivään infrastruktuuriin ja osoittaa innovatiivisuutta. Kilpailuehdotuksen tuli myös osoittaa Isoverin lämmöneristeiden soveltuvuus projektiin.

Työmme lähtökohta oli minimoida lämmönsäätelyyn vaaditun ostetun energian tarve. Täten kehitimme konseptitasolla aurinkoenergiaa keräävän dynaamisen varjostusjärjestelmän, jonka oli määrä kattaa koko rakennettava alue. Suunnitelmassamme hyödynsimme myös painovoimaista ilmanvaihtoa sekä maanalaista viilennysjärjestelmää. Työ opetti minulle kilpailuehdotusten laatimisesta sekä suunnittelusta erilaiseen ilmastoon ja ympäristöön.


5. floor plan

1 RAKENNUSSUUNNITTELU

0. lobby floor plan + courtyard



2 RAKENNUSOPPI

KERROSTALOSUUNNITTELU (KANDIDAATINTYÖ)


Kerrostalosuunnittelu (kandidaatintyö) 5/2015 Kandidaatintyöni pohjautuu yhdyskuntasuunnittelun ja kerrostalosuunnittelun kursseilla laatimiini 4–5-kerroksisen kerrostalon suunnitelmiin. Valitsin työn painopisteeksi rakennusopin, koska halusin syventää tietotaitoani rakennepiirrosten suhteen. Laadin kandidaatintyötä varten viisitoista detaljitason rakennepiirrosta (1:10), lupakuvien tasoiset pohja-, leikkaus- ja julkisivupiirrokset (1:50–100) sekä pihasuunnitelman (1:200). Suunnitelmassa haasteita tuotti suunnitella ulkonevien parvekevyöhykkeiden kannatusratkaisu, julkisivun tiililevyverhoilun kiinnitysjärjestelmä ja ylipäätään suuren kokonaisuuden hallitseminen pienten yksityiskohtien tarkkuudella. Työ opetti minulle kärsivällisyyttä, ongelmanrakaisutaitoja ja kompromissien hyväksymistä, kun alkuperäiset ideat eivät sovikaan kokonaisuuteen.

peruskerroksen pohjapiirros


rakennekuvat

2 RAKENNUSOPPI

poikkileikkaus



3 YHDYSKUNTASUUNNITTELU

PEDESTRIAN CITY CURITIBA


LTURAL PATH

PARKING

CULTURAL PATH

CULTURAL PATH

CULTURAL PATH

CULTURAL PATH

CULTURAL PATH

SECTION TYPE III


Pedestrian City Curitiba 11/2015, ryhmätyö (PUC-PR) Tehtävänä oli ideoida parannusehdotuksia PUC-PR yliopistokampusta ympäröivälle slummiutuneelle alueelle Brasilian Curitibassa. Kaupunginosan epäkohtia olivat sen turvattomuus, segregaatio, identiteetin puute, hoitamattomat luontoalueet ja autojen rooli katujen hallitsijoina. Pyrimme korjaamaan ongelmia houkuttelemalla ihmisiä oleskelemaan julkisilla paikoilla ajoneuvoitta. Tätä varten loimme “Kulttuurikäytävän”, jonka varrelle sijoitimme kaupunkisuunnittelun akupunktuuripisteitä, kuten julkisia kulttuurikeskuksia, hoidettuja viheralueita, liikuntapuistoja ja julkisen liikenteen solmukohtia. Vaarallisina pidetyt parkkipaikat saivat uudet käyttötarkoitukset Kulttuurikäytävän varrella ja pysköinti keskitettiin kameravalvottuihin laitoksiin. Julkisen tilan aktivoimisen tavoite oli vähentää ihmisten välistä segregaatiota luomalla kohtauspaikkoja ja lisätä turvallisuuden tunnetta ennestään tyhjiille kaduille.

3 YHDYSKUNTASUUNNITTELU

Työ opetti, miten kartoittaa entuudestaan tuntematonta urbaania aluetta ja löytää ratkaisuja sen merkittävimpiin ongelmakohtiin. Sain huomata, että kulttuurista ja elintasosta huolimatta hyvän yhdyskuntasuunnittelun ydintavoitteet ovat universaaleja. Opin myös, miten eri taustoista olevien vaihto-oppilaiden kanssa yhteistyö sujuu parhaiten.



4 KORJAUSSUUNNITTELU

KERROSTALON KORJAUSSUUNNITTELU


SUURELEMENTTIKAAVIOT

K E R R O STALO N

KORJAUS

/

POHJAPIIRROS 6. KERROS

SYPER 1 - 2

2017

6. kerroksen CLT-suurelementit

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

5. kerroksen CLT-suurelementit

POHJAPIIRROS 5. KERROS 6. kerros

KORJAUS / SYPER POHJAPIIRROS 2.-4. KERROS

K E R R O STALO N

K E R R O STALO N

KORJAUS

/

1 - 2

SYPER 1 - 2

2017

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

5. kerros

2017

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

2–4. kerros

K E R R O STALO N

KORJAUS

/

SYPER 1 - 2

2017

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

1. kerros K E R R O STALO N

KORJAUS

/

SYPER 1 - 2

POHJAPIIRROS KELLARIKERROS

2017

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

kellarikerros


Harjoituskurssin kohteena oli 1960-luvun lopun elementtirakentamista edustava asuinkerrostalo Espoon Iivisniemessä. Pyrkimyksemme oli parantaa rakennuksen arvoa, energiatehokkuutta, asuttavuutta ja esteettömyyttä sekä vahvistaa sen identiteettiä paikallisesti arvokkaaksi määritellyssä kulttuuriympäristössään. Määräsimme julkisivujen uloimman kerroksen uusittavaksi ja ikkunat vaihdettavaksi uusiin tehokkaampiin, mikä johti myös ilmanvaihtojärjestelmän muuttamiseen keskitetyksi. Päätimme, että pihakantta on nostettava metrillä rakennusten kohdalla, jotta hissit saadaan sovitettua porrashuoneisiin. Täten suunnittelimme myös piharatkaisut uusiksi. Muokkasimme asuntojakoa ja huoneistojärjestelyjä vastaamaan nykypäivää. Suunnittelimme kaksi lisäkerrosta olevan rakennuksen päälle tuomaan taloyhtiölle lisätuloja.

LEIKKAUS B-B

Kurssi antoi ymmärryksen eri vuosikymmenillä valmistuneiden kerrostalojen yleisimmistä ongelmista ja korjaustarpeisiin johtavista tekijöistä. Harjoitustyö opetti miten korjaus­ suunnittelu etenee käytännössä ja millaisia päätöksiä siihen sisältyy. K E R R O STALO N

leikkaus B-B

KORJAUS

/

SYPER 1 - 2

2017

leikkaus C-C

/

E LE NA YLI TALO

&

FAN NI SCH I LDT

/

A R K K I T E H TU U R I N

T I E D E K U N TA

/

OULUN YLIOPISTO

4 KORJAUSSUUNNITTELU

Kerrostalon korjaus 11/2017, parityö



5 6 TUTKIMUSTYO TUTKIMUSTYÖ

design w further e ADAPTIVE FACADE UMBRELLA


�oca�on 1: Marstallplat� � Glass Facade Material: Glass, Metal Frame Orienta�on: South West Approximate Material Coverage: 84% Glass 16% Stone

Aerial Map View (Source: Google Maps)

Daily Weather Dataonal from day �oca�on 3: Hans�D�rrmeier��eg �oca�on 2: �rielma�erstra�e 2 T.I.C.S Facade 7 �radi� Stone Fa Source: Meteorologisches �ns� Material: Ther�al Insula�on Co��osite Material: S�ste� Stone Orienta�on: South Orienta�on: South Approximate Material Coverage: 40% Approximate Window 60% Material Wall Coverage: 40% Window, 60% Stone

Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Aerial Map View (Source: Google Maps)

Aerial Map View (Source:Street Google View Maps) Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure) Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for M

Air Humidity and Ground T

Thermal Image: DAY 15:47

Thermal Image: NIGHT 01:20

Thermal Image: DAY 17:26

Date: 19/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 33°C Surface Temperature: 49°C (Glass), 59°C (Metal)

Date: 20/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 25°C Surface Temperature: 23°C (Glass), 21°C (Metal)

Date: 19/07/17 Date: 19/07/17 Date: 19/07/17 Date: 20/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 32°C Outdoor Air Temperature: Outdoor Air 33°C Temperature: 24°C Outdoor Air Temperature: 25°C Surface Temperature: 37 °C (Wall) Surface Temperature: Surface 40°C Temperature: (Stone), 30°C24°C (Glass) (Wall) Surface Temperature: 28°C (Stone)

oca�on 3: Hans�D�rrmeier��eg 2 T.I.C.S Facade �oca�on 2: �rielma�erstra�e 7 �radi�onal Stone Facade

�oute

er�al Insula�on Co��osite S�ste� Material: Stone Aerial South Orienta�on: South Material Coverage: 40% Window 60% Wall Coverage: 40% Window, 60% Stone Approximate Material

e

ünom

de

: /

Thermal Image: NIGHT 00:50

�oca�on 5: �ognerstra�e 4� Indirect Green Facade/Shading Material: Plaster Orienta�on: South Approximate Material Coverage: 70% Shaded by Greenery

�oca�on �� ��een Facade

Holzstraße 32, 80469 München Journey: Uban (Schwanthalerhöhe) take U4/U5 to Hauptbanhauf. Then U1/U2/U8 to Sedlinger Tor.

Source: Google Maps)

atz)

Map of Munich showing site

�oca�on 4: Hol�stra�e 32 Green Facade Material: Plaster and Green Facade �oca�ons (Source: Google Maps) Orienta� on: South Approximate Material Coverage: 75% Leaves, 25% Wall

Thermal Image: DAY 16:18 Thermal Image: NIGHT 23:16

�adia�on Value

View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure) Aerial Map View (Source:Street Google Maps) Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Aerial Map View (Source: Google Maps)

Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Thermal Image: DAY 16:53

Thermal Image: NIGHT 00:24

Thermal Image: DAY 17:54

Thermal Image: NIGHT 23:57

Date: 19/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 33°C Surface Temperature: 27°C (Leaves), 32°C (Wall)

Date: 20/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 25°C Surface Temperature: 22°C (Leaves), 24°C (Wall)

Date: 19/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 32°C Surface Temperature: 27 °C (Wall)

Date: 19/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 24°C Surface Temperature: 21°C (Wall)

Aerial Map View (Source: Google Maps)

�oca�on �� �ndi�ect ��een Facade/Shading Pognerstraße 40, 81379 München Journey: Uban (Sedlinger Tor) take U3 to Tierpark

AY 17:26

Thermal Image: NIGHT 23:16 Thermal Image: DAY 16:18

Munich U-Bahn Metro Map (Source: MVG)

Thermal Image: NIGHT 00:50

17 Date: 19/07/17 Date: 19/07/17 Date: 20/07/17 Temperature: 32°C Outdoor Air Temperature: 24°C Outdoor Air Temperature: 25°C Outdoor Air Temperature: 33°C perature: 37 °C (Wall) Surface Temperature: Surface Temperature: (Wall) Surface Temperature: 28°C (Stone), 25°C (Glass) 40°C (Stone), 30°C24°C (Glass)

direct Green Facade/Shading direct Green Facade/Shading

Thermal Research Field Study Results Summary: Surface Temperatures Thermal Research Field Study Results Summary: Surface Temperatures

eenery

Wind Speed and Dire

Thermal Research Field Study Results Summary: Temperature Difference and Facade Decision

eenery

Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Street View Image (Coloured facade chosen for Measure)

Material RESEARC

The 5th site, located in Pognerstraße 40 has an Indirect green facade through a large tree that conceals the majority of the plaster facade. It seems to be the most promising with the lowest surface temperature at day AND night along with a low temperature difference between day and night.

Thermal Image: NIGHT 23:57

Thermal Image: NIGHT 23:57

Date: 19/07/17 Outdoor Air Temperature: 24°C Date: 19/07/17 Surface Temperature: 21°C (Wall) Outdoor Air Temperature: 24°C Surface Temperature: 21°C (Wall)

Adaptive Facade Umbrella ”Adaptiivinen julkisivusuoja” 7/2017, parityö (TUM)

laadimme erilaisia suunnitelmia ja prototyyppejä sekä testasimme niiden suorituskykyä löytääksemme parhaan vaihtoehdon.

Münchenin teknillisessä yliopistossa studiokurssini painopiste oli research eli tutkimus. Kurssin tehtävänanto oli suunnitella olemassa olevien rakennusten julkisivuun kiinnitettävä auringonvarjostusjärjestelmä. Suunnitelman tavoite oli vähentää rakennusten energiaa vaativien koneellisten jäähdytysjärjestelmien tarvetta. Tutustuimme aiheeseen liittyvään kirjallisuuteen ja tutkimuksiin, teimme kenttätutkimusta Münchenissä, tutkimme eri julkisivumateriaalien lämpöominaisuuksia,

Työ opetti minulle innovaatioprosessista. Harjoituskurssiin sisältyi paljon erilaisia työpäiviä: välillä mittasimme eri julkisivumateriaalien lämmönvarastointikykyä hellepäivien iltoina ja toisaalta istuimme tutkimuslabrassa syöttämässä dataa laskentaohjelmiin. Opin paljon uutta auringon tuottaman valon ja lämmön ominaisuuksista, mikä sai minut kiinnostumaan tutkimaan muitakin sääolosuhteisiin vaikuttavia tekijöitä ja pitämään niitä lähtökohtina tulevissa projekteissani.


reme dealing s re-

informa�on. �n the extreme warm air temperature, the air shall be cooled down by 13 kelvins. Conclusion illustrated below.

on. With the oth excess envelope. ned, to underolar radia�on

CONDITION

ILLUMINATION (lux)

Sunlight

100 000

Full daylight

10 000

Overcast day

1 000

Very dark day

100

Deep twilight Full moon

1

~ +37°C

0,1

DESIGN D Malleja

Axonometric Renderings of Designs A-E

they allarviointiparametrien have similar goals in regards of performance, vertailtiin seuraavin including: CONDITION ILLUMINATION (lux) perusteella: �etain visual connec�on through the façade

100 000 between heights about 1 000mm and most important

Sunlight

2 000mm from floor surface hence the common eye new hybrids were compared with the other designs. The new hybridsThe compared The with new the hybrids other were designs. compared with the other designs. levels for seated and standing positon. 1.were Daylight Factor (DF) Full daylight

10 000

Overcast day

the need for ar�ficial ligh�ng 1 �inimize 000

DF = E_i / E_o * 100(%) Very dark day

≤+24°C

Daylight Factor Useful Daylight Illuminance Daylight Anatomy Deep twilight 1 A�ain smooth transi�ons from the highest E_i = illumination due to daylight at ahence point light levels create a indoors visually com- on Full moon 0,1 to the lowest, fortable environment and eliminate the risk of glare. Overcast Night 0,0001 a horizontal plane (h = 850 mm, 1 000 mm from façade) �elp a�ain comfortable thermal levels with Source: The Engineering ToolBox ar�ficial cooling, despite the outdoor temperature.

a of what is to be achie� Source: The Engineering ToolBox odel in terms of light and ome exis�ng sun shading From the suggested scenarios a conclusion was made, examina�on. �t was conclu� that faca� in the case of maximum solar radia�on the lux parts of a transparent levels shall be reduced to at least 1% by the shading ment inHighterms of shading. risk device, as illustrated below. f sunlight in without it nteriorModerate of a building ex� risk the upper parts d to keep direct Low therisklight into the via lightshelves. The open evel of a standing person, to hi�ng a users eye. Overcast Night

amount of light is beneficial to be let into the building, to reduce the need for ar�ficila ligh�ng. To get an idea of how much light is ideal and how much of it is available on average, the following charts were The geometries vary slightly with each model but studied.

0,0001

100

DESIGN A

he ng d from datacomparing gathered from comparing gns, -odelstwo were new desimodels were desiehe ingbest designs. performing The designs. The The goals defined some frames and rules for the deE_o = simultaneous outdoor illuminance on signs, however they were also �ues� oneda andhorizontal tested. eade rform design well,Awere perform well, were For e�ample, a�er research a hypothesis was created, plane from an unobstructed hemisphere of sta�ng the following: DESIGN B de feeping material theand façade keeping the façade overcast sky on the 21st September atin12:00. �e�ng a lot of natural light from the upper part nt rformed terms of well efficient in terms of efficient of the façade (above 2 000mm from floor surface) is DESIGN E good, as it does not increase the risk of glare, but lets in light that can reach even deeper parts of the room. seated design a and F was it was created a and it was a 2. Daylight Autonomy (DA) DESIGN C �e�ng in natural light from the lower part of the faça� nnec�on to the exterior of a In parameter 4. the lux levels atInthe parameter 3m from 4. thethe fa-lux levels Designs at the G 3m & F from the fa- 800mm, Designs & F assumed as the average The new hybrids were comparedThe with new thehybrids other designs. were compared with the other designs. de (below whichGwas yE, that diff while erence the was only that diff erence was that , the shading device should çade were calculated and designçade E gotwere onlycalculated 3 lx underand design E got onlywork 3 lx plane underheight) is not advisable, as it does not range of a si� ng person�s the recommended minimum 200 the lx. recommended The lux levels minimum 200 lx. The lux levels bring useful light into the room, but lets unnecessary 3. Glare (G) us, a certain THERMAL arsely placed The rods more were sparsely placed more sparselyare only es�mates, as the exact arewayonly of the es�growth mates, as the A� exact er evalua� way of ng theheat the growth data gathered A�er from evalua� comparing ng the data gathered from comparing to the interior. o. the builand orienta�on of the leaves cannot and orienta� be precisely on of the leaves preciselytwo new models the cannot differentbedesigns, the different were desidesigns, two new models were desih� ng. To get FIELD STUDY terim connec� interior on to from exteriinterior to extericalculated. Therefore it should be calculated. safe to say Therefore that the it should gned be combining safe to say thethat best performing gnedthe designs. combining the best performing designs. The This leadthe to dividing façadeThe horizontally in to ding su�cient ligh�ng of a ow much oflight to provide a average es�mate of 197 lx at theaverage 3 meter-mark es�mate is of not197 lxproper� at the 3esmeter-mark is not that design A perform proper� well, es that were made design Adaylight perform well, were 4.Daylight Illuminance inmade Parts of the Space (DS) diffDeep erent sectors� the upper part le�ng most ng natural was rials. but sparse Design like G Fwas butsparse like F butDESIGN drama�cally drama�minimum. cally under due to li�le use minimum. of and material and due keeping li�the le façade material andDESIGN the façade hartswould were in the lower parttole� nguse theofleast daylight in.keeping It Funder the recommended DESIGN F the recommended DESIGN F G DESIGN G DESIGN G ment be beneficial. open. Design E performed well in open. terms Design of effi E cient performed well in terms of effi cient was difficult to determine weather the hypothesis was DESIGN D sun shading. Firsttrue design F wassince created sunwith shading. and itFirst was design a F Awas created and it was a had pe other part, designs which all had other designs had or false, some parameters perforsome illustra�ons show� 5. taking Amount of Used (Mat) In conclusion, even when Ininto conclusion, considera� even onMaterial when variant taking into of design considera� E, while on theand only variant erence ofworse. design was�owever, E,that while the onlyfinal difference was that med be� er in diff some in the ich the sun shading defects of the evalua�on system, the defects the design of theE evalua�Fon was system, more the open. design The rods Ewhere were F placed was more open. sparsely The were placed hybrids the onlymore diff erence wasrods the upper part, more sparsely he A. view Subtrac� top part,device ng thethe view top part, the viewthe performs the best out of the fiveperforms variants the in regard best out of of the five variants in connec� regard ofon from to keep the visual to keep interior thetop to visual exterion from interior to exterihaving a sparce part in the partconnec� was proven to be shading while taking thesmooth best advantage shading while of taking orAand the save best materials. advantage Design of G or was and sparse like materials. F butBD Design G was sparse benefi dome asup more material andwas some material was smooth Parameter Parameter Parameter B cial. Alacked Csave ACE like F butDESIGN BDFF CEG DESIGN FDFf(x) EDESIGN G G Ff(x) DESIGN GG f(x) (V) the daylight provided6. and Visibility maintaining the daylight a connec� provided on andalso maintaining lacked the a connec� top part,onwhich all also other designs the top hadpart, which all other designs had The new hybrids were compared with thethe other In parameter 4. the lux levels at the 3m from G & F hybrids were compared with the other designs. In parameter 4. the lux levels at the 3m from the faDesigns G &designs. F tothe thefaoutside.Designs To get infl uenced to by the the outside. other deTo get infl uenced by the other deexcept for design A. Subtrac� ng except the top for part, design the A. view Subtrac� ng the top part, view TheDESIGN new hybrids with the other designs. The new In(%) parameter 4. the lux1. levelsDF at the(%) 3m from the faDesigns G &(%) F E- were compared 1. DF 1. DF 0 0 0 f(x) çade were calculated and design E got only signs 3 lx under çadeupes, were design E got only 3and lx under Parameter A Parameter B C D AE BF CG Df(x) E F G and alter design E to the best signsofand its abili� alter es, design torange the wasofopened its abili� more thecalculated andrange someand was material opened was up more some material was çade were calculated and design Ethe gotEonly 3 lxbest under the recommended minimum 200 lx. The luxbeams levels at eye-level the recommended minimum 200 lx. The lux levels 1. DF (%) 1.- DF (%) ----0 reduced beams tominimum minimum, at eye-level while were while saved. saved. thewere recommended 200 lx.annettiin The reduced lux levelsto minimum, Parametreille merkitysarvo ja niiden perusteella 2. DA 2. DA DA 5the gathered 34thecomparing 2 data gathered 512from6comparing 423 5 4 1261 32 2352 43 21 2 23 03 A�are erthe evalua� the gathered from comparing are only es�mates, as the exact way of the growth A�er evalua�3 ng the are only es�mates, asdata exact wayfrom of growth 651 2.4 DA 2.3DA s�ll ensuring that climbers can s�lldata climb ensuring along that them theofclimbers can climb 2. along them A�3 er evalua� ng the6 only es�ng mates, as the exact way the6 growth the diff erent designs, two new models were desiand orienta�on of the leaves cannot be precisely erent designs, new models were desiand on of leaves cannot bewere precisely 1 3.3G upwards. This lead reducing upwards. amount This ofcannot lead material tobe reducing the amount ofdiff material The same parameters were Thethe same for parameters the new calculated forthe thediff new the erentcalculated designs, new models desiandtoorienta� onthe of the leaves precisely jokainen malli (A-E) sai pisteitä. Vertailun jälkeen kehitimgned combining the best performing designs. Therefore it should be safe to say that3. the w lated ters were for the calculated newcalculated. for the new Gobtaining G 1Thevisual 3. 3orienta� G 2ittwo 6towere 33.4.6theGDS4 besttwo 275designs. 641 23 62 751675 3742 412352 6212 575 42 521 12 gned combining performing The calculated. should be safe3 say that 6 4.7DS needed and be�erTherefore visual needed connec� and on obtaining to the be� er connec� on to theTherefore designs. gned combining the1best performing designs. The the127 calculated. it3. should be safe to designs. say that the proper� eses� thatmate made A perform well, wereis not average average es�mate of 197 lx at the 3 meter-mark is not proper�es that5.made es� matemade of 197 lx at Athe 3 meter-mark is not Mat design A perform 1well, were 5.2Mat 5 6 16 24 53 61 exterior. exterior. proper� es that design perform well, were average ofdesign 197 lxuutta at the 3 meter-mark me kaksi mallia (F ja G) parhaiten suoriutuneiden to li�le useunder ofTo material and keeping the drama�cally under the recommended minimum. to li�le use drama� cally under 6.2V222 4 6 5215 24 22 43 61 To combat thedue problem with overhea� combat ng, itthe was problem reliedminimum. with overhea�ng,4. it was relied 4. DS DS 6façade 7toDS 6the3recommended 7minimum. 2the façade 635due 76.2ofV2material and3keeping 52 1the façade 265 44 332 11 due li� le use of material and keeping drama� cally the4. recommended Design performed wellofofinthe terms of open. Design E performed well in terms of efficient that the use ofopen. foliage as theE main thatmaterial theparametrien use foliage as effi thecient main material of the open. Design E performed well kaksi in terms of effi cient mallien pohjalta. Nämä hybridimallia sun shading. designblocking F wasMat created and it1 was a sun shading. First façade would be suffi cient. First Inevitably façade would be some sufficient. Inevitably blocking some First design sun2shading. was created was a 156 5. Mat 5. 5. Mat 1while 5 Ftaking 2erence 6and itwas 264design F was created 563 and it was6a41 63 41 3 1 ofthe design E, while the only diff was that In conclusion, even when taking into considera� on from variant variant of design E, while the only difference was that conclusion, even into onthatsuoriutudaylight entering room daylight will block from heat entering as the room will blockIn heat asof design variant E, when theparemmin only diffconsidera� In conclusion, even when taking intoerence considera� on kävivät saman vertailun läpi ja niistä F was more open. The rods were placed more sparsely the defects of the evalua�on system, the design E F was more open. The rods were placed more sparsely the defects of the evalua� on system, the design E well, 6. however that not of chosen well, ashowever one ofV the that tarwasthe not chosen the tar- open. The Fofwas more rods were placed more sparsely thewas defects the evalua� on system, design E as one6. V 6. 1 2 V 1 4 2 6 1 4 5 2 6 4 4 5 3 6 4 1 5 3 4 1 3 1 toperforms keep theinthe visual connec� on interior exteriperforms the best out of the five variants ingets regard of gate performs thevisual best out ofpienoismalli. theonfifrom ve variants in to regard of to keep the visual connec�on from interior to exterito inves� more depth gets inout this to inves� sec� gate more(F) into inof this sec� on. the to keep connec� interior exteribest of thefrom fion. ve variants indepth regard neesta mallista rakennettiin 1:10 ≤100 000 lux

250 - 1 000 lux

lux)

smooth shading while taking the best advantage of the daylight provided and maintaining a connec�on to the outside. To get influenced by the other designs and alter design E to the best of its abili�es, the beams at eye-level were reduced to minimum, while s�ll ensuring that the climbers can climb along them upwards. This lead to reducing the amount of material needed and obtaining be�er visual connec�on to the exterior. To combat the problem with overhea�ng, it was relied that the use of foliage as the main material of the façade would be sufficient. Inevitably blocking some daylight from entering the room will block heat as well, however that was not chosen as one of the targets to inves�gate more in depth in this sec�on.

A

orsmooth and saveshading materials. wasbest sparse like F but whileDesign takingGthe advantage of also theprovided top part,and which all other designs hadon thelacked daylight maintaining a connec� except designTo A. get Subtrac� ng thebytop thedeview to thefor outside. influenced thepart, other range up more signswas andopened alter design E to and the some best ofmaterial its abili�was es, the saved. beams at eye-level were reduced to minimum, while s�ll ensuring that the climbers can climb along them The same parameters calculated for theof new upwards. This lead towere reducing the amount material designs. needed and obtaining be�er visual connec�on to the exterior. To combat the problem with overhea�ng, it was relied that the use of foliage as the main material of the façade would be sufficient. Inevitably blocking some daylight from entering the room will block heat as well, however that was not chosen as one of the targets to inves�gate more in depth in this sec�on.

AB

ABC

smooth shading while taking the bestsparse advantage DESIGN or and save materials. Design GFwas like Fof but the provided andwhich maintaining on alsodaylight lacked the top part, all othera connec� designs had to the outside. To A. getSubtrac� influenced by the de- view except for design ng the topother part, the Parameter signs design to the best of its abili�es, the A rangeand wasalter opened up Emore and some material was 1. DF to (%)minimum, while beams saved. at eye-level were reduced 2. can DA climb along them 6 s�ll ensuring that the climbers 3. Gthe amount upwards. lead to reducing of material The sameThis parameters were calculated for the new 1 DS connec�on to the6 needed designs.and obtaining be�er4.visual 5. Mat 1 exterior. V To combat the problem with6.overhea� ng, it was relied1 that the use of foliage as the main material of the façade would be sufficient. Inevitably blocking some daylight from entering the room will block heat as well, however that was not chosen as one of the targets to inves�gate more in depth in this sec�on.

BCD

or and save G Gwas sparse A materials. Design BDESIGN A C like F but BD CE DESIGN F also lacked the top part, which all other designs had exceptThe for factor designwas A. Subtrac� top part, thewas viewcounted for each. countedngforthe each. The factor B was opened C Parameter E Parameter GParameter f(x) range upDmore and someF material was A B ACE AC BD - 1. DF (%) - 1. DF (%) - - 1.- DF (%) 0 -saved. ---3 5 2. DA 4 1 2. DA 2 15 22.6DA 3 612 9 15 3 53 2 3. G 6 were calculated 7 3. G 4 for The 3same parameters 1 the5new 3.3G 1 12 125 34 7 3 2 5 2 2 2 designs. 4. DS 4.10DS 66 836 4. DS 8 74 2 5 5. Mat6 6 5. Mat4 1 35.2Mat 1 13 154 24 2 4 6. V 6 5 6. V 4 1 36.2V 1 13 144 25 Average 5,2 Average 4,6 4,8 4,8 5,2 4,4 Total 26 Total 23 26 26 2622

CDE

DEF

G EF

D F FG DESIGN DESIGN

BDF --646 364 10 22 264 264 4,6 5,8 2320

CParameter DFF(x) EG -1.-- DF (%)--0 2.16 DA 923 12 23.75 G 441 64.54 DS 422 35.63 Mat 441 36.53 V 541 4,8 5,0 4,8 2621 26

GE

EG -32 55 62 43 43 4,4 22

GF

F

FAf(x) -0 63 411 262 411 411 5,8 20

B G 63 53 47 32 32 5,0 21

G

C F(x) 035 12 23 15 14

DESIGN G

D 4 6 2 6 6

E 1 7 5 6 5

F 2 4 2 4 4

G

Design F proven to perform the Design best outF proven of the seved to perform geometries. the best These out of were theonly seved a star� geometries. ng pointThese for further were only a star�ng point for further development and design. This performance developmenttes� andngdesign. shall be This adapted performance to comparing tes�ngeven shall more be adapted different to comparing shapes, even more different shapes,

A F G A B C D E Bes G pa� erns, of asparcity, climberCand support othersystem. �uali�Des of a climber Esupport system.F The factor was counted The factor forwas each. counted The factor forwas each. counted forB each. C pa�erns,D sparcity,AandEother �uali� The factor was counted for each. The factor was counted for each. E Parameter F(x) Parameter Parameter A Parameter B AC Parameter BD AA- CE B- -CBDF -D The factor Cwas EGF-countedG- forDeach. FF(x) GG A-F(x) F(x) Parameter B C D E F A B EGC D FF(x) E F 1. DF (%) - 1. DF (%) 0 1. DF (%) 1. DF (%) 1. DF (%) 1.-DF (%) -- 2.3. DAG --151 -- 63 122--- 94 35 2.-DA-- 64 65 --031 -15 6- -- 12- 9- -02.3.3- DAG 6- - 6- 11530 063 122 94 35 64 G 8 12 DS 2. DA 2. DA 15 2.6DA 15 12 4.5. DSMat 69 15 3 102 63696 44 64 3.4.5.12 362 43 96321 118 2310 36 632 444 634.5.645 DSMat 244 6435 18211 3210 63 44 64 24 1 Mat4 V 1 2 3 5 4 6. V 4 3 6.4 V 11 2 3 5 4 4 1 2 55 3 5 41 4 3 3. G 3. G 1 3.3G 12 6.Average 34 15,2 25 4,6 344 4,8 2555,8 5,0 4411 5,2 55,0 14,6 4,8 4,4Average Average 5,2 4,8 4,8 4,4 5,8 4,6 4,8 4,8 4,4 5,8 Total 26 23 26 26 22Total 20 21 Total 26 23 26 26 22 20 4. DS 4. DS 8 4.10 DS 86 10 4 866 10 42 664 42226 23 64 26 26 2222 20 421 2 These a star� ngbest point further Design41 F proven to perform the best out of seved geometries. These were on F proven to only perform outfor of the These were only a star� ng point 5. Mat 5. Mat 1 5.2Mat 1Design 3 F proven to24perform the best 134out of the seved24geometries. 4 Design 343were 4the41performance 43seved geometries. 3This 1forthetes�further development and design. This performance tes�ng shall be development adapted to comparing even different shapes, development design. even performance ng shall be adapted to comparing and design. Thismore tes�ng shall be adapted to and comparing more different shapes, pa�erns, sparcity, and other �uali�es of a climber support system. pa� erns, sparcity, and other �uali� es of a climber 6. V 6. V 1 6.2V 13 25 134 254 pa�erns,3sparcity, 43 and other54�uali� 1 es of a climber 43 support system. 41 3 1 support system. Average Average 5,2 Average 4,6 5,2 4,8 4,6 4,8 5,2 4,8 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,8 4,8 4,4 5,0 4,8 5,8 4,4 5,0 5,8 5,0 Total Total 26 Total 23 26 26 26 22 23 20 26 21 26 22 20 21 26 23 26 26 22 20 21

A Photograph of the model in 1:10 of Design F

5 6 TUTKIMUSTYO TUTKIMUSTYÖ

Design F provenDesign to perform theDesign best out F proven of the seved to perform geometries. bestThese out of were the only seved a star� geometries. ng point further were only afor star� ng point for furthe F proven to perform best out of the seved geometries. These were onlyThese afor star� ng point further development and design. Thisand performance development tes� and ngdesign. shall be This adapted performance to comparing tes�ng even shall more be adapted different to comparing shapes, even shapes, more different shape development design. This performance tes� ng shall be adapted to comparing even more different pa�erns, sparcity, other �uali� pa�and es erns, of asparcity, climber support other system. �uali�support es of a climber pa�and erns, sparcity, other �uali�and es of a climber system.support system.



ALPPILANBULEVARDI – SUUNNITTELUKONSEPTEJA KEMINTIEN BULEVARDISOINNILLE (DIPLOMITYÖ)

6 KAUPUNKISUUNNITTELU

ENNEN



Työn tavoitteena oli tutkia bulevardisoinnille asetettuja mahdollisuuksia ja rajoitteita keskittyen Oulun ominaispiirteisiin. Pyrin erittelemään, miten pohjoinen sijainti, paikallinen väestö, kaupunkiDiplomityöni koostuu teoreettisesta tutkimus- rakenne ja Oulun historia ja kehityssuunta vaikuttyöstä ja konkreettisesta suunnittelutehtävästä. tavat Alppilanbulevardin suunnitteluun. KortteliTein työn yhteistyössä Oulun kaupungin yhdys- suunnitelmassa tutkin rakennuksen muotokielen kuntajohtajan ja kaavoitusarkkitehtien kanssa. vaikutusta melunvaimennuksen, näkymien, ilman Tutkimusosassa kävin läpi tekijöitä, jotka ovat vaihtumisen, auringonvalon ja urbaanin katutilan johtaneet päätökseen bulevardisoida Kemintie optimoimisen kannalta. sekä selostan bulevardin oletetut vaikutukset taloudelliselta, ekologiselta ja sosiaaliselta kannal- Diplomityö opetti suuren projektin työstämisen ta. Sovelsin teoreettisessa osassa vetämiäni joh- taitoja. Opin asettamaan tavoitteita itselleni ja topäätöksiä korttelisuunnitelmaesimerkkiin työn hallitsemaan ajankäyttöäni. Työ näytti myös, misuunnitteluosassa. Kortteliesimerkki on konsepti- ten sopia asiakkaan kanssa työn etenemisestä ja tasoinen malli bulevardin varren optimoidusta ra- millainen kaupunki voi olla tilaajana. Opin paljon kentamisesta. uutta tiedonhankinnasta ja tutkivan kirjallisuuden tuottamisesta.

Kemintien nykytila

Alppilanbulevardi 2030

6 KAUPUNKISUUNNITTELU

Alppilanbulevardi – Suunnittelukonsepteja Kemintien bulevardisoinnille (diplomityö) 11/2018, Oulun kaupungin toimeksianto



Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.