Arch 102 Final Learning Portfolio

erik stratmeyer final portfolio arch 102 Spring 2012

site:

FourFold Chapel

A privately owned site along the rocky coast of Southern California, including a rock outcropping that is separated from the mainland at high tide. The climate is temperate with westerly winds, at times very strong

program:

A private client has chosen to build a non-denominational chapel for the use of the public.

The client is an aficionado of Martin Heidegger and has asked that his chapel be called the FourFold Chapel. Given this affinity, he has asked that the relationship between the building and the site be one that evokes your understanding of the four fold and ideas about site and place contained within the reading has provided you.

The chapel should accommodate the following:

1. A main meditative space accommodating 10 people mortals 2. A place within the main space for a speaker 3. 2 remote private meditation spaces for 1 person 4. A uni-sex restroom, separate from the chapel 5. An outdoor area where 40 people can be seated on folding chairs 6. A storage area for chairs

sky gods

earth

Heidegger’s four fold

table of contents site responses charcoal & drafting scaled site responses

continuing on...

insights:

issues:

• The design evolves by removing the plexiglass base. The base is not a cohesive design element and detracts from the designs integration into the site.

• So much time has been spent on developing the main structure for the program that the other necessary aspects have not been addressed. Where is the outdoor space for 40 people, the two meditation areas for 1 person…even the bathrooms?

• The linear array of wire rods are no longer a stand alone design element. By connecting them directly to the structure a possible pathway emerges and the beginnings of enclosure • Due to the emergence of a pathway, I need to rethink my entire approach to the project. By creating the enclosure of for a building become evident. the design, a pathway was born. Where does that pathway lead and how is it related to the program?

• The design is now more site specific. It does not seem to be just resting atop the site. It is now directly connected to the site.

• The sharp geometric forms that enclose the design are intended to abstractly represent the rocky nature of the site

site response # 4

insights:

issues:

• The introduction of elements of pathway creates a cyclical flow through the site. The primary design is now not just a standalone aspect of the site design. It becomes an element integrated within the journey.

• The center structure created on the pathway is in contrast to the site. It is centered symmetrically along the pathway.

More possibilities need to be investigated.

• The design language of the pathway emanates out of the black bulkhead structures and wire rods that anchor the primary structure to the site.

• The wire forms are applied in an erratic and flailing manner.

These elements are not structural and need to be addressed in future iterations.

• The structural elements of the pathway emanate out of the land in perfect symmetry. Alternate pathway flow need s consideration to break the symmetry.

• The metal orthogonal structures that are interconnected between the structural elements of the pathway grow larger as they move from land to the main area created out in the • Bold moves can lead to endless possibilities. ocean. This area is intended for the outdoor space for 40 people. These structures are intended to evoke the feeling of passing through a “doorway” along the journey.

• The new pathway intends to block any access to the island by humans. The island has become a metaphor for Heidegger’s notion of Gods.

• Bold moves can lead to endless possibilities.

site response # 5

insights:

issues:

• I missed a week of class when this medium was introduced due to family business. Unfortunately, I was not able to experience this medium with my peers and was left to experiment on my own.

• I seem to plan everything out in my head and work backwards refining my designs. This is both a boon to my process as well as a major issue. This is something that needs to be addressed in the future because it limits my creative possibilities.

• I see the value of charcoal in exploring new possibilities in design. My design did not change that much with these exercises but I did get the opportunity to explore new possible pathways and the overall flow of the site.

• I found myself stiff and unwilling to make dramatic marks with the charcoal. Hopefully, with more work I will open up more to this medium.

• It has been my experience in the past that situations I find • I look forward to working in class with others in further charcoal studies. I think this will open up my design experithe most challenging and an apprehensive attitude towards can have the biggest payoff in regards to growth. ence and understanding of this medium.

charcoal study # 1

insights:

issues:

• Moving to a an 1/8” scale site opened up new possibilities for my design. The vertical scale of the site changed dramatically. This creates both opportunity and issues.

• The overall density of my design decreased with the scale change. This will be addressed in future iterations when I build the structures that support the planar elements.

• This dramatic vertical change is now echoed in my primary structure. The main structure that lunges out toward the ocean reaches 30’ high (in scale) and the abstracted wing forms hit approximately 60’.

• The scale of the primary structure is borderline too large.

This can either be addressed by rebuilding some of the elements or by rethinking some programmatic aspects.

• A step backwards in site specificity and integration occurred in the scale up. The primary structure now just sits atop the • Unfortunately, I was unable to finish the entire site design site. It is a standalone structure not integrated with the site. due to time limitations but I used this opportunity to test I needed to revisit the idea of the black bulkhead structures out possible pathways of flow around the site. Two different found in previous iterations. colors of tape are used to map out possible routes through the site.

• Professor Chandler strongly suggested that the site needs to be designed by digging in to create more integration of • Columns were added for support of the horizontal abdesign elements. stracted vertebrae elements and the wire rods were replaced by wooden beams for both structure and a more cohesive design language.

scaled site response # 1

insights:

issues:

• This response I focus in on locking down the design for the pathway and bridge that creates the flow around the site.

• The bridge/pathway is just a floor plan. It does not embody the constructive design language found in the primary structure. The chipboard reads heavy and detracts from the architectonic language found in main structure.

• A cyclical pathway was created in response to the nature of meditation and spirituality. The spiritual journey is both circuitous and never-ending in my experience.

• The pathway is created out of geometric forms intended to mimic the rocky forms found throughout the site. This is intended to bring cohesion between design and site.

• The support structures for the bridge have no connection to the design. Again, I need to revisit the idea of the black bulkhead structures found in previous designs that brought cohesion between site and design. The support structures need to be tied into the design in some way.

• The attempt to further integrate the design into the site is evident in the sculpted landscape that acts as an armature for the pathway.

• The building still is not fully integrated in the site. It appears to be sitting atop the site without any connection to the surround landscape.

• The intentional blocking of access to the island is not clearly • A cave structure is dugout on the far north end of the site evident. The idea of blocking access to the island is strong for a meditation space for 1 person. This area gives the but needs to be fully integrated into the overall design or it meditator an immersion experience in the earth. Enclosed could be overlooked or a total failure. in the cutout cave of the site’s rocky terrain creates the experience of Heidegger’s Earth

scaled site response # 2

insights:

issues:

• The primary structure is once again more integrated into the • The critical flaw in this design is the integration of the two main design elements, the primary structure and pathway. site. Vertical support structures are dug into the landscape Although this iteration makes progress in addressing this isto support the pathway attached to the main structure. sue, there is still much room for improvement. Merging the constructive design language from each element will hope• To achieve a more cohesive design language between the fully achieve an overall design cohesion. primary structure and the pathway, the bridge is supported by elements that echo the directional path and angles of the • The design is missing planar elements. The time is coming new vertical support structures introduced in the primary to experiment with new planar elements to help cover the structure. bare structures.

• The geometric shapes that form that pathway metaphorical• The density found in the primary structure is still lacking. ly mimic the rocky nature of the site. There are visual cues Creating structures to support planar elements will help to along the pathway (thicker lines between segments) that are resolve this issue. intended to alert the participant that a special place along the route is just over these lines. These spaces can be points of reflection or programmatic areas.

• Access to the island is now completely cutoff from the mainland. The island is symbolic of Heidegger’s notion of Gods.

As mortals we have no tangible concrete experience of gods.

We can infer a connection through faith but we have no direct contact with them.

scaled site response # 3

insights:

issues:

• The framing of the roof elements nullified the gestural • The attempt is made to bring more cohesion between the curvilinear language of the abstracted bird wings. The disparate elements found in the primary structure and pathstructure connected directly to the edges of the wings. The way of previous iterations. The constructive language found in the pathway was used to develop the beginnings of a roof beautiful curvilinear lines become lost in the roof line.

Connecting the roof below, inside or extending the edges of on the main structure. the wings out will resolve this issue.

• A scaled down version of the abstracted wings found on the main structure are brought out to the pathway to provide • The pathway around the island is still just a plan view and shelter and shade for the programmed outdoor space for 40 is sterile. Possibly varying the elevation of the pathway will people along the pathway. create a more compelling design and new opportunities for programmatic elements.

• This iteration is the first movement towards the develop• The framing for the awning for the space for 40 people is ment of floors, practical roof elements and visual keys for haphazard and not well thought out. spaces where activities occur. The latter is found on the pathway around the island. The floor pattern changes to a solid floor and a small space is created between pathway and possible activities areas to visually notify the participant that a change is about to occur.

scaled site response # 4

insights:

issues:

• The roof structure connections were moved from the edge of the abstracted bird wings to points found under the wings. This corrects the issue of the curvilinear lines becoming engulfed by the roof structure.

• The translucent material below the central curvilinear roof structure acts as a double roof. It is both unnecessary and costly to the client to have both elements. It was suggested to take off the central wing structure. If the central wing was taken off the design becomes symmetrical and gimmicky. This can be addressed by adding clear planar elements under the central wing structure.

• Translucent and clear planar elements are attached to the roof structure. The translucent material is chosen to block direct light but still allowing natural lighting in the structure. The clear material was applied on the roof structure over the area for a meditation space for 1 person. This meditation space in intended to be used for contemplation of the sky. This idea is derived from Heidegger’s notion of the Sky in the fourfold.

• The roof structure and pathway are lacking density. Blocking out the geometric shapes of the roof and pathway with smaller scale elements is a possible solution.

• The pathway needs a better support structure.

• The pathway of the bridge has been changed. The bridge now dips down from the northern designated contemplation point and the southern outdoor space for 40 people.

Both declines meet at the space designated for contemplation of the island. The island is used as a metaphor for the element of Gods in Heidegger’s fourfold. The height of the contemplation space is intended to give the participant a submissive feeling towards the island.

scaled site response # 5

insights:

issues:

• Through this study I discover the triangular forms that enclose the primary structure to be too elementary and predictable. I experimented adding linear structures that emanate off the linear elements toward the roof structure. This creates a more compelling composition.

• I am still finding myself too inflexible with this medium.

The insights I do gain from these exercises are small refinements. I am still unable to find critical opportunities and flaws with this tool.

• I am slowly becoming more comfortable with this medium.

This is a medium that I need to practice in the future to grasp the full value of the tool.

• The sketches are borderline cartoonish. Possibly slowing down this process and becoming more exacting with my strokes will help.

charcoal study # 2

insights:

issues:

• The discovery made in the last charcoal study is implement- • The design is lacking planar elements. As it stands, it is naked framing and needs the planar elements to imply encloed in this iteration. Linear elements are added that radiate sure for the primary structure off the triangular structures that enclose the primary structure. These increase the complexity and make the design • The lack of support for the bridge needs to be addressed in more interesting. the final iteration before presentations.

• The planar roof elements found in the last site response are removed. This is done to further build out the roof struc• I am still not happy with the outdoor space for 40 people. I ture. This not only increase the complexity of the roof dedo not think I will have time to address this before the end sign but allows for more surface area for the planar elements of the semester. to be attached in future iterations.

• The progress of the design seems to be slowing. There is only a week left before our process presentation and it is time to refine and clean up the design for the final move.

scaled site response # 6

insights:

issues:

• I find myself more comfortable drafting than working with charcoal. This may be do to my meticulous (at times obsessive) nature.

• After drawing the section I am conflicted about the overall form of the primary structure. I see interesting aspects as well as huge issues. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the abstracted bird wings that hover over the building.

• This tool really provides insight into the design, both section and plan views. It shows aspects of the design that can be • Drawing these views to scale showed the enormity of the overlooked in the models. entire design. The primary structure is almost 60’ tall and at it widest diagonal length the roof structure is almost 100’ to scale. Size is a critical flaw in this design.

drafting

insights:

issues:

• I am working hard to make the most of this tool. I am happy with the progress I have made.

• Practice, Practice, Practice. This is the only way I will develop this essential tool. I look forward to using it more in Arch 103 next spring.

• The value of charcoal is to loosen me up and break down the inflexibility in my designs.

• I need to find a solution for keeping my presentation charcoals from smearing in the future.

• I think slowing down and concentrating more with my strokes will help my craft.

charcoal study # 3

insights:

issues:

• Another attempt at creating a roof structure occurs in this final iteration. The planar elements are attached at varied heights and angles off the roof structure. This is intended mimic the rocky nature of the site. The four geometric forms that mirror those found on the roof structure are placed on the ground to draw a parallel between the elements that form the roof and the rocky site.

• The first issue is the scale of the design. If the program required space for more people the size could possibly be justified but programmatically the scale of the design is unacceptable. If I were to take the design further I would have to rebuild at a smaller scale or rebuild the actual site to 1/4” scale.

• Planar elements are also added to the seaside structural elements that enclose the primary structure. This is intended to allow refracted and direct light from the setting sun into the building. The placement of the translucent planar elements is not haphazard. It forces the participant to move to certain areas of the enclosure to have an unobstructed view of the sea and site.

• In further iterations I think the curvilinear abstracted bird wings might disappear. I think there is a wealth of possibilities in the current language of the roof structure. The metaphor of wings for the Sky in Heidegger’s fourfold is valid but reads forced. I think the upstairs meditation space for 1 is a more cohesive aspect of the design and still an homage to Heidegger’s Sky.

• Structural support is added to the bridge. The legs forms mirror the geometric language found throughout the project. Through some quick research I learned that the type of bridge I have created structurally resembles an inclined leg rigid frame.

• The last critical flaw in this design is the lack of cohesion between the two main elements of the design, the pathway and the primary structure. Experimentation and editing of certain design elements (primarily the abstracted bird wings found above both the primary structure and the outdoor space for 40 people) hopefully will correct this issue.

final scaled site response

insights • metaphor • concept of a cyclic journey • constructive design language • holistic design approach

issues • scale • inflexibility • forced • cohesion of design elements

final thoughts This semester proved to me that design is in my future. At times I have fully invested myself in projects and work only to see my drive wane as I realized that I am not passionate about the work. These past two semesters, my drive and passion have grown exponentially and I can honestly say I do not see an end in sight. I think I am becoming obsessed with a challenge that can only be resolved by deadlines. There in lies the beauty of design for me, it is never finished until the time runs out.

This semester I ran into issues with trying to force design elements to create the “perfect� metaphor. The scale was an issue because I wanted to build... and build... and build. Finally, my holistic design approach created inflexibility in my process.

I was happy with the final critique from both Professor Chandler and Don Sadler, from Stantech Architecture. Chandler described my work as 1972 Pinto flying down the road, shaking and just barely holding together. This was not to be taken as an insult nor was it. He said my architecture was fearless, my craft high and a little bit out of control.

Saddler mentioned that my work was full of good ideas but sometimes too many good ideas hinder a process. In the future my designs will benefit from editing and focusing in on the key ideas and refining those.

Chandler and Saddler both pointed out that it was beneficial that I was critical of my work and self-aware of the issues in my process. But Chandler pointed out that I need to realize what is good about my architecture.

After some thought these are my realizations: due to my construction experience I understand basic engineering concerns and know how to build, I am willing to take risks as well as be open minded, there is intent behind my designs and I am aware of my weaknesses but most importantly, I am passionate about my work and driven to evolve as a designer.