Proving Ground: Presence, Privacy, and Property from Above

Proving Ground

Presence, Privacy, and Property from Above

Evan Schlenk

Stephen Turk, Advisor

Prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Architecture degree at The Ohio State University.

Contents Introduction: Proving Ground.................. 6 The Grounds.................................... 8 Methodology...................................14 At Scale.........................................20 Precedence & Program.......................30 Morphology....................................36 Alta Petit.........................................42 Milford Research Center.....................52 Notes & Citations.............................72

On the Cover: General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, MI with Photoshop threshold filter applied.

Left: Automobile testing at the General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, MI ca. 1926.1

Proving Ground

In the early age of the automobile, manufacturers (or, more accurately, independent inventors and tinkerers) tested their creations on public roads. After the first few decades, however, corporate espionage began to infiltrate the industry, and manufacturers sought space in which they could work out the kinks of new designs away from the prying eyes of competitors and the curious public alike. The concept of such a space designed for testing of technological advancement traces its roots to the United States military. Following the end of the Civil War, the Army established an installation adjacent to Fort Hancock in New Jersey to test increasingly longer range and more powerful projectile weaponry. This facility, which was eventually named Sandy Hook Proving Ground, was operational through the end of World War I, by which the facility had become undersized and testing was moved to the newly constructed Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.2

Shortly thereafter, in 1924, General Motors established the first automotive proving ground in Milford, Michigan, roughly 40 miles northwest of their Detroit headquarters.3 Over the next decade, all major American manufacturers had built similar proving grounds in Michigan, and by the 1960s had built facilities across North America in order to test their vehicles in a variety of climatic conditions. Contemporary automotive proving grounds provide the seclusion and privacy manufacturers require to test their products in a controlled environment. Spanning thousands of 6 | Proving Ground

acres and shrouded from their surroundings by tall earthen berms, these grounds contain myriad buildings that house engineering teams, wind tunnels, and workshops, but most visible are the outdoor tracks. Miles in length, these tracks vary in form from organic, meandering circuits to colossal, precise loops which stand out in even the broadest, grainiest satellite imagery.

These facilities raise questions of privacy at scale. How can such expansive facilities, easily identifiable from above, maintain such inauspicious presences from the ground? How can automotive manufacturers maintain privacy in an age of remote sensing, satellite imagery, and even amateur drone photography? Do they deserve such privacy?

Architecture is inherently separate from the ground on which it is built. The buildings may be distinct, but how do we prove ground?

Gas station at the General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, MI ca. 1964.4

Proving Ground | 7

The Grounds

The following are a collection of automotive proving grounds in the United States. The American “Big 3� automakers (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) all have at least one facility each in Michigan and Arizona. Ford, for example, has one rural facility located in Bruce Township, MI, one adjacent to their headquarters in Dearborn, MI, and a third in Wittman, AZ.

Foreign automakers such as Honda and Toyota, who lack a strong relationship with Detroit, do not have proving grounds in Michigan. Honda opted to open a proving ground between their Marysville, OH plant, which produces the Accord, and their East Liberty, OH plant, which produces the CR-V. Toyota completes testing for temperate climates in Japan, and their only proving ground presence in the United States is in Wickenburg, AZ.

Honda Marysville, OH

8 | Proving Ground

General Motors Milford, MI

General Motors Yuma, AZ

Toyota Wickenburg, AZ

The Grounds | 9

Ford Bruce Twp., MI

Ford Dearborn, MI

Ford Wittman, AZ

10 | Proving Ground

Chrysler Chelsea, MI

Chrysler Yucca, AZ

Chrysler Wittman, AZ

The Grounds | 11

General Motors Mesa, AZ 2003

Opened in 1953 nearWilliams Air Force Base (now Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport) in what was undeveloped desert, GM’s Mesa Proving Grounds were already feeling the encroachment of civilization at the time of this satellite photo in 2003.

Packard Shelby Twp., MI 2000

Following the footsteps of General Motors, Packard opened a proving ground in 1928.

After ending automobile production in 1958, Packard sold the site to Ford,who used it sporadically until 1998, two years before this satellite photo.

12 | Proving Ground

General Motors Mesa, AZ 2015

After GM opened a new facility inYuma (see pg. 9), the Mesa Proving Grounds began to be swallowed by the suburban sprawl of Metropolitan Phoenix, including housing developments and Arizona State Route 202.

Packard Shelby Twp., MI 2005

Much like the General Motors facility above, the Packard Proving Grounds were also sold to housing developers.

The Grounds | 13

Methodology

While earthwork is the principal means of concealment for the proving ground at eye level, little effort is made to protect privacy from above. While this was of little concern in the infancy of the typology, in an age of remote sensing and satellite imagery, the privacy so valued by automotive manufacturers has all but disappeared.

The elements of a proving ground can be identified and separated from each other (and separated from the ground itself) through image manipulation software, and Photoshop filtering specifically.The “Find Edges” filter, shown at center right, uses edge detection algorithms to identify changes in brightness between pixels, with contiguous instances of these changes mapping an edge of an object. While effective at producing lines, the “Find Edges” filter lacks the adaptability of the “Threshold” filter, shown at bottom right. Whereas the “Find Edges” filter finds contiguous instances of contrast, the “Threshold” filter is on/off at a pixel level, but disregards continuity and allows the user to set the level at which contrast becomes on/off.

14 | Proving Ground

This controllability is most effective in situations where contrast is low, such as the difference between track and sand in Arizona. In the following examples, ridges and valleys of the desert scape become just as prominent as the pavement. In the Michigan images, the “Invert” filter was also applied to create the same figure/ground relationship as the desert examples.

General Motors Milford, MI

General Motors Milford, MI Find Edges Filter

General Motors Milford, MI Threshold Filter, Level: 100 Invert Filter

Methodology | 15

General Motors Mesa, AZ Threshold Filter, Level: 150

Toyota Wickenburg, AZ Threshold Filter, Level: 150

Chrysler Wittman, AZ Threshold Filter, Level:100

16 | Proving Ground

Ford Wittman, AZ Threshold Filter, Level: 140

Chrysler Yucca, AZ Threshold Filter, Level: 150

General Motors Yuma, AZ Threshold Filter, Level: 116

Methodology | 17

Ford Bruce Twp., MI Threshold Filter, Level: 110 Invert Filter

Chrysler Chelsea, MI Threshold Filter, Level: 92 Invert Filter

Ford Dearborn, MI Threshold Filter, Level: 172 Invert Filter

18 | Proving Ground

General Motors Milford, MI Threshold Filter, Level: 150 Invert Filter

Packard Shelby Twp., MI Threshold Filter, Level: 150 Invert Filter

Honda Marysville, OH Threshold Filter, Level: 106 Invert Filter

Methodology | 19

At Scale

The automotive proving ground as a unit exists at the macro scale. However, the grounds themselves are made up of distinct parts and pieces, ranging in size from the mile-radius test tracks to single-car garages and outbuildings.

While edge detection software is fairly successful at differentiating between the built and the natural (or figure and ground), the software can create incorrect readings of contrast when specific materials are targeted. As we zoom in on the campus of buildings in the southeast quadrant of the General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, MI, some buildings stand out more than others based on roof color. When the level of the “Threshold� filter is turned up higher, the buildings become the most prominent figure in their respective images. At the closest image, even finish details such as standing seams and roof-mounted mechanical equipment become figural and the true edge of ground begin to blur.

When figures are taken into Rhinoceros and extruded they transition from edge to mass and the methodology becomes generative. Rendering these masses again challenges the edge detection algorithm to decide what is building and what is not. As the cycles progress, it becomes increasingly challenging to prove ground.

20 | Proving Ground

General Motors Milford, MI

General Motors Milford, MI Southeast Quadrant

General Motors Milford, MI Building Scale

At Scale | 21

General Motors Milford, MI Threshold Filter, Level: 189

General Motors Milford, MI Southeast Quadrant Threshold Filter, Level: 189

General Motors Milford, MI Building Scale Threshold Filter, Level: 189

22 | Proving Ground

General Motors Milford, MI Building Scale Threshold Filter, Level: 189 Invert Filter

In Photoshop: Threshold Filter, Level: 189 Invert Filter In Illustrator: Image Trace Export as .dwg

In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino

At Scale | 23

Round 1 In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

Round 2 In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

Round 3 In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

24 | Proving Ground

Round 1 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 190 Export as .dwg

Round 2 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 190 Export as .dwg

Round 3 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 190 Export as .dwg

At Scale | 25

Round 4 In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

26 | Proving Ground

Round 4 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 190 Export as .dwg

At Scale | 27

Round 4 Zoom to Central Buildings Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, which is in high contrast to the roofing material, becomes a void.

28 | Proving Ground

Round 4 Zoom to Southwestern-most Building What began with a ridge cap lighter than the surrounding roof has progressed into a distinct figural hallway.

Round 4 Zoom to Eastern-most Building In the original image, the parapet cap contrasts with the darker roof material.

Upon extrusion, the cap becomes a wall, who’s rendering material emits a white glow.This becomes the figure.

At Scale | 29

Precedence & Program

The result of the preceding graphic research, focused on edge detection and the “Threshold� filter in Photoshop, creates instances of obscured or distorted boundary, especially when run recursively through the filtering system. This obfuscation is ideal for promoting privacy and secrecy associated with automotive research.

Corporations often have drastically different ideas about how a research and development center should present itself. For some, such a facility serves as a built manifestation of their capitalist mite on display for all to see. For others, it is a subdued, pragmatic facility, with the focus being on the research done inside. They may exist as part of a larger campus, or as a remote satellite operating semi-autonomously from supervision. This typology is already closely associated with the architectural discipline, with Eero

Styling Building at General Motors Technical Center inWarren, MI.6 Eero Saarinen, 1949

30 | Proving Ground

Model of MPK20 (Menlo Park Building 20), part of Facebook headquarters complex.7 Frank Gehry, 2015

Saarinen having designed the General Motors Technical Center in Warren, MI in 1949.5 This one-square mile complex was designed to house five separate sectors: research, styling, engineering, manufacturing, and service. While most employees today could still be sorted into these categories, the divisions between them have undoubtedly become blurred, with diverse teams working on complex problems that transcend traditional roles.

Accordingly, the proposed engineering research center should encourage creative thinking through flexible and adaptable spaces. A portion of Facebook’s headquarters, located in Menlo Park, CA and designed by Frank Gehry, is designed on such principles. Very few spaces inside the building are enclosed, with bench seating existing adjacent to living room-like meeting zones.

Circulation follows an organic main street along the spine of Precedence & Program | 31

the building. Power and networking cables fall from the ceiling, allowing for easy rearrangement as teams move and change.

The form and material of the Facebook complex could also be taken advantage of in obscuring an automotive research facility. The roof is in fact a park, complete with vegetation and walking paths. In this case, the visible architectural features look like a sort of castle form above, with the cores acting as turrets and the parapet cap standing in for a castle wall. Ideally, these features would also be invisible to remote sensing technology.

The logical first step, utilizing the previously developed methodology, would be to deregulate the boundary of the building using a the threshold filter recursively, shifting edges back and forth in a similar manner to MPK20, to eliminate the appearance of a singular rectilinear building. While this could be a fruitful

Office space in MPK20 (Menlo Park Building 20), part of Facebook headquarters complex.8 Frank Gehry, 2015

32 | Proving Ground

Menlo Park Building 20, Facebook.

Menlo Park, CA

Rooftop park of MPK20 (Menlo Park Building 20), part of Facebook headquarters complex.9 Frank Gehry, 2015

Precedence & Program | 33

form-making exercise, it would be imperative to remove traces of “building” such as the parapet cap. This will require unconventional manipulation of the Corbusian rooftop garden perhaps having it veil or drape over the sides of the building.

The roof could peel up from the earth, a continuous expression of a the ground levitating above. This could manifest as a continuous carpet in the style of the Cleveland Convention Center, whose roof is an extension of the Burnham-designed mall.

It could be visually camouflaged with a projection of an image, such as Boeing Plant #2, which was covered with a faux-neighborhood during World War II. It could be a tongue-in-cheek reference to its context, like James Wines’ proposal for a BEST Products showroom in the suburban sprawl of Los Angeles. In any case, the roof should differentiate itself from the ground while maintaining a close relationship, either physically or visually, with it.

34 | Proving Ground

Cleveland Convention Center, located below the Mall, designed by Daniel Burnham in 1903.10 LMN Architects, 2013

Boeing Plant #2 in Seattle,WA, was originally constructed in 1936, but was covered with a fake neighborhood to camouflage it duringWorldWar II.11 John Detlie, 1941

A prototype for a BEST Products big-box store for Houston and Los Angeles in which the parking lot peels to become the roof.12 JamesWines of SITE, 1976

Precedence & Program | 35

Morphology

Because the proposed research and development center will host a similar program to its counterpart at the Warren Technical Center, it makes sense to begin with that facility as the starting point of the morphology. The process began with a basic massing model of the General Motors Research and Development Building at the Warren Technical Center drawn from satellite imagery. The massing was rendered using V-Ray, and the resultant plan was taken into Illustrator and image-traced using the Threshold function. As shown on the following pages, the shadows became part of the massing through the image-tracing, blurring the outline of the building and the shadow.

From there, the threshold-image-traced image was brought back into Rhino and extruded to the appropriate heights of the original building, and then rendered again. This process proceeded through four cycles, resulting in a bloated, blurred-edge version of the original Research and Development Building.

Much in the same way a cake pan defines the edges of expanding dough, this morphed version of the Warren R&D Building will act as the footprint of the proposed sattelite Research Center in Milford.

36 | Proving Ground

General Motors Research and Development Building - Satellite Photo Warren, MI

General Motors Research and Development Building - Massing Plan Warren, MI

General Motors Research and Development Building - Massing Axon Warren, MI

Morphology | 37

Round 1 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 165 Export as .dwg

In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

38 | Proving Ground

Round 2 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 165 Export as .dwg

In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

Morphology | 39

Round 3 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 165 Export as .dwg

In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

40 | Proving Ground

Round 4 In Illustrator: Open .png Image Trace Mode: Black andWhite Threshold Level: 165 Export as .dwg

In Rhinoceros: Open .dwg Extrude Curve, Solid=Yes Render withV-Ray for Rhino Export as .png

Morphology | 41

Alta Petit

While the preceding Threshold filtering, when applied in a recursive sequence, produced a unique morphology to the plan of the building, it did not alter the building at all in the vertical direction.

In Rhino, the “Heightfield” command is the solution to this problem. Heightfield is the Rhino command which is most closely analogous to Threshold. Where Threshold changes pixels to black or white based on its brightness value, Heightfield vertically shifts points on a surface based on this value. The command’s variables include sample points and height, which for this sequence were set to 50 x 50 sample points and a height of 50’-0”. This created sample points roughly every 15’ on the Threshold-filtered image of the Warren Research and Development Building.

Shown at right are the nine variations of the Threshold image. From right to left, the number of pixels increase from 10% to 33% to 100% of the original size. From top to bottom, the Threshold level increases from 20 to 100 to 200. On the left side of the following spreads, these images are run through the Heightfield command in Rhino, then trimmed to the footprint established in the Morphology chapter. The right side features unique spaces selected from the Heightfields.

In general, lower threshold levels resulted in vertical movement in the negative direction, creating valleys or depressions.

42 | Proving Ground

Higher threshold levels resulted in positive vertical movement, creating peaks.

The final result is a collage of three different Threshold images in order to take advantage of what were, subjectively, the most unique spaces. This collage resulted in one large contiguous building and two “outbuildings” which became separated from the original mass by the submersion of the surface in relation to a ground plane. At certain points, the surface meets the ground plane, and in others it sits ~30’ above it.

Variations of the “Threshold” filter, applied to the General Motors Research and Development Building.

Warren, MI

Alta Petit | 43

Threshold 20, Scale 10% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 20, Scale 33% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 20, Scale 100% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

44 | Proving Ground

Threshold 20, Scale 10% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 20, Scale 33% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 20, Scale 100% Detail Axonometric

Alta Petit | 45

Threshold 100, Scale 10% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 100, Scale 33% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 100, Scale 100% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

46 | Proving Ground

Threshold 100, Scale 10% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 100, Scale 33% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 100, Scale 100% Detail Axonometric

Alta Petit | 47

Threshold 200, Scale 10% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 200, Scale 33% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

Threshold 200, Scale 100% In Rhinoceros: Heightfield Sample Points: 50 x 50 Height: 50’-0”

48 | Proving Ground

Threshold 200, Scale 10% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 200, Scale 33% Detail Axonometric

Threshold 200, Scale 100% Detail Axonometric

Alta Petit | 49

Top to Bottom: Threshold 20, Scale 100% Threshold 100, Scale 100% Threshold 200, Scale33% Opposite Page: Threshold Collage and Heightfield Axonometric, selected from unique spatial characteristics of each original Threshold image.

50 | Proving Ground

Alta Petit | 51

Milford Research Center

The proposed research center is located at the General Motors Milford Proving Ground. Located in rural Michigan on the border between Oakland and Livingston Counties, it lies roughly 30 miles from the Warren Technical Center and 35 from the corporation’s Downtown Detroit headquarters.

Most buildings at the proving ground are located in the southeast quadrant of the site, on a plateau which drops off to the east and west. There is very little unbuilt area in the main cluster of buildings, especially big enough to fit the spatial requirements Opposite Page: General Motors Milford Research Center of the proposed program. Because of this limitation, the research Exploded Plan Oblique center will be located in the northwest quadrant of the proving ground, bisected by the large circle track.

The track enters the building and branches off into refueling and repair stations in a 250,000 sf garage, manned by automated robotic arms. The offices, at roughly 65,000 sf, have desks for 250 engineers, arranged responding to ridges and valleys of the roof.The eastern portion of the building contains a museumshowroom to document General Motors’ rich research history, while out-buildings contain security offices and a childcare facility.

There is no parking on site, with employees and visitors traveling to and from the Center in autonomous vehicles.

52 | Proving Ground

Milford Research Center | 53

1 64

0’

25’

50’

100’

54 | Proving Ground

0’

25’

50’

100’

1 68

1 66

General Motors Milford Research Center Main Floor Plan

1 70

Milford Research Center | 55

Engineers gather informally in the large open office space.

56 | Proving Ground

General Motors Proving Ground Milford, MI The Research Center is located in northwest corner.

Milford Research Center | 57

58 | Proving Ground

Workers inspect robotic arms as they repair an autonomous automobile.

Milford Research Center | 59

60 | Proving Ground

Cars on display in the combination showroom and museum.

Milford Research Center | 61

62 | Proving Ground

Engineers supervise autonomous vehicles from an elevated platform in the garage.

Milford Research Center | 63

0’

10’

25’

64 | Proving Ground

50’

General Motors Milford Research Center Section Through Garage and Open Office

Milford Research Center | 65

2 66

Above: West Elevation Right: Detail elevation showing daycare center entrance and playground.

66 | Proving Ground

0’ 1’ 2’

0’ 1’ 2’

5’

5’

10’

10’

Milford Research Center | 67

Above: South Elevation Right: Detail elevation showing garage entry and operable curtain wall panel.

68 | Proving Ground

2 68

0’ 1’ 2’

0’ 1’ 2’

5’

5’

10’

10’

Milford Research Center | 69

Section cut through stairs, highlighting roof accessibility and office adjacencies.

70 | Proving Ground

0’ 1’ 2’

5’

10’

Milford Research Center | 71

Notes & Citations 1 Oval Test Track, 1926, in General Motors Proving Ground 40th Anniversary (Detroit: General Motors, 1964).

2 Tom Hoffman, “Sandy Hook Proving Ground� (brochure, Fort Hancock, NJ), 1-2.

3 Putting Progress Through Its Paces (Detroit: General Motors Corporation, 1938), 6.

4 Automated Gas Station, in General Motors Proving Ground 40th Anniversary (Detroit: General Motors, 1964).

5 Where Today Meets Tomorrow: General Motors Technical Center (Detroit: General Motors Corporation, n.d.), 9-10.

6 https://archiveofaffinities.tumblr.com/ post/45258903373/eero-saarinen-styling-building-general-motors 7 https://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Arch2O-Facebook-New-Campus-Frank-Gehry_02.jpg 8 https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/7357-facebook-building-20 9 https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/7357-facebook-building-20

72 | Proving Ground

10 https://lmnarchitects.com/project/cleveland-convention-center-burnham-mall-global-center-for-health-innovation

11

Boeing Historical Archives

12 https://siteenvirodesign.com/content/best-products

Notes & Citations | 73

The Ohio State University Austin E. Knowlton School of Architecture