paradeisos RECONCILING MAN AND NATURE DIA 2017/2018 hopeTon BarTley 1ST ADVISOR ROGER bUNDSCHUH 2ND ADVISOR JORIS FACH
1
2
Table of Contents
God‘s Garden. by Dorothy Frances Gurney.....................................5 A new Typology........................................................................................6 The Proposal......................................................................................................8 Design Process..........................................................................................9 Paradeisos..................................................................................................20 Structural Drwing and Detailing....................................................51 Plant Inventory......................................................................................65
3
4
God‘s Garden The Lord God planted a garden In the first white days of the world, And He set there an angel warden In a garment of light enfurled. So near to the peace of Heaven, That the hawk might nest with the wren, For there in the cool of the even God walked with the first of men. And I dream that these garden-closes With their shade and their sun-flecked sod And their lilies and bowers of roses, Were laid by the hand of God. The kiss of the sun for pardon, The song of the birds for mirth, One is nearer God‘s heart in a garden Than anywhere else on earth. For He broke it for us in a garden Under the olive-trees Where the angel of strength was the warden And the soul of the world found ease. Dorothy Frances Gurney
5
A new typology
The office, in the eyes of many has always had a strictly utilitarian purpose, that is, we go to work, we earn money, and we go home. This example illustrates the typical day for a person of the 21st century. If one were to take a stroll down any metropolitan city, he would see scores of people melancholily making their way to work every morning, and back home every evening. This has become a flavourless cycle within our everyday lives. Many countries still have exhausting work hours where people are locked up within clustered and sterile offices for hours on end. The United States of America has an average working week of 40 hours, whilst its European comparisons, United Kingdom, Germany and France, favour a 35-hour week shift. This data results show that North Americans spends approximately 25 percent of their 7 day week, within the office whilst its European comparisons spend approximately 20 percent. This data does not take into consideration the time spent in commuting to and from work, which is an added time taken from each individual’s day. Research shows that we spend accumulatively an approximation of 90 percent of our day within a building1. Most of this time, we come in contact with very little of the natural environment, and we get very little opportunities to sit back, appreciate and explore the world we have around us. Our biophilic proclivity implores us to interact with the biosphere, and by so doing, my research has persistently elucidated the fact that this will without a doubt, improve our mental and physical health by reducing the toxicity of the urban stimulus. Consequent to studies, as well as the utilitarian approach people have towards the office, it appears as the most suited place to begin this intervention. The aim is therefore to combine the utility of the office structure with the spirituality and immateriality of the natural environment. The question now is how one can use these theories to develop an architecture language which will effectually reconcile man with the biosphere, whilst improving the overall quality of life within the urban environ.
1 (OVERSHINER 2013) 6
7
The proposal
This proposal must utilise the park space of the site efficaciously; so that nothing is taken away from the community. Hence, the building must give back, equivalently what it has taken. It must metamorphose the existing green-park into an architype of a more sophisticated social and aesthetic value. This project takes the physical and virtual connection to the outdoor environment and translates it into every publicly usable space and floor within the edifice, resultantly reconciling itself with what it has taken from the public. The proposals must use biophilic design principles to create a work environment that improves the work output of its occupants while reducing the effects of the everyday psychological stressors. There must also be 24/7 permeability of the public spaces available in the edifice.
8
DESIGN PROCESS
9
10
MA
IN
TR
AM
PO IN T
siTe drawinGs
KE
UC
E
NS
RI
CH E
L bR
S
FIS
C
R HE
IN
SE
L
FI
M
ER UF
SC
KI
AR
S HE
SITE PLAN 1:2500
11
Restoring historical connection
12
M��� E���� S�������� E����
M��� ����������� S�������� �����������
13
NON bUILT AREA
bUILT AREA
MAIN CIRCULATION AXIS
14
Typical Office Stack
Twisting office stack allowing for light
15
Twisting floor plates allow for increased light permeation into the buidling and reduces air drag on wind facing sides. Natural lighting plays a huge importance in regulating ones circadian rythm. as such the building most adopt a shape which allows for flight to enter easily, and in abundance. Lastly, the twisting shape reduces the windloads on the edifice.
16
Adjusting oor plates to increase light penetrating and reduce building self shadowing.
17
The next step is following through with the vegetation existing naturally on the site. The buildings spiraling form must therefor twist within itself the the existing park functions, and replace it with one of a higher quality, whilst allowing the full accessibility of the public.
18
Twisting and wrapping existing park into the architcecture
19
20
Para�eisos
21
22
23
24
Site Plan
25
26
Groun� floor Plan Retail an� Nursery 27
1st Floor Plan S�are� Floor Plans 28
29
10t� Floor PlanMeetin� Rooms 30
11t� Floor 3 storey Offi�es 31
12t� Floor Plan3 Storey Offi�es Me��anine 32
13t� Floor Plan3 Storey Offi�es Me��anine 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Elevation of Nursery/ Ramp area
46
47
Visualisation of Nusery Ramp Area
48
49
50
Stru�tural Dra�in� an� Detailin�
51
Exploded Axonometric
3x4 Steel Meshs Living wall system
Ramp Structural support
52
40cm CHS Pretensioned Steel column
Connection to foundation
60cm CHS Cross Bracing system
Connection to foundation
20cm CHS bracing
Hole for structural shaftv
Office Floots,
Ramped Park ooring
Structural Core
Ramp leading from park
Wood ďŹ nish on concrete Metal decking
53
Stru�tural Diam�ram
Secondary Strucutral System, connection to out skeleton
Main Strucutral System
Tertirary Strucutral System
54
Floor Conne�ti�ity Dia�ram 60CM CHS member structural Beams
Living wall system
structural core 250mm reincforced concrete
Structural prestressed40cm CHS
55
Green Floor Detail
Plants 0.5m-3m
Soil .15m-0.5m
Edge Paver
.15m concrete Drainage Medium Seperaion Fabric Irrigation dripline Root barrier Plyboard .15m insulation
.15m concrete slab .2 universal IBeam
56
50 cm
35 cm 15 cm 20 cm
530 cm
57
Soil Dept� C�art
Low growing succulent 50mm150mm substrate
Herbaceous perrenials substrate deeper than 150mm Small shrubs and turf substrate deeper than 250mm
small trees and shrubs up to 2m substrate 500mm
trees substrate 500m and deeper
58
Skin Foun�ation Detail
Steel Mesh
30 cm CHS
Join to coundation
Prestressed Concrete Spun prestressed Concrete Spun Piles
59
60
Roof Top Park
Roof Top Park
61
62
63
64
Plant In�entory
65
appearance
66
name
Size
position
usage
Bouganvillea
Creeper H: 60–100 cm W: 25–30 cm
Mesh wall
Ornamental Aesthetic Aromatic
Aloe Vera
H: 60-100 cm
Ramps Ground level
Ornamental Therapeituic Edible
Plantain lilies (Hostas)
H: 15-70 cm W: 20-30 cm
Ramps Roof top
Ornamental
Crhrysantemum (Cryanthemum Kamelin)
H: 30-100 cm W: 30-60 cm
Ramps Ground level
Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic
Catmint (Nepeta × faassenii)
H: 46-60 cm W: 25–30 cm
Ramps Roof top
Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
H: 46-60 cm W: 25–30 cm
Ramps Rood top
Aesthetical Ornamental
Winter Jasmine (Jasminum nudiflorum,)
H: 1-3 m W: 2-3 m
Ramps Rood top Ground floor
Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic
English Ivy (Hedera helix)
Creeper
Mesh wall
Ornamental Therapeituic
Crabapple tree
H: 6-7 m
Roof top Ground level
Ornamental Edible
appearance
name
Size
position
usage
Flowering Dogwood tree (Cornus florida)
H: 5-10 m
Roof top Ground level
Ornamental Aromatic
Japanese maple tree (Acer palmatum)
H: 4-6 m
Roof top Ground level
Ornamental Aromatic
Grass (Poa Supina)
H: 10 cm
Ramps Roof top Ground level
Ornamental
Fern (Athyrium, Cystopteris)
H: 30-60 cm W: 60-70 cm
Ramps Roof top
Ornamental Aesthetical Spontaneous
Primerose (Primula vulgaris)
H: 20-40 cm W: 10-30 cm
Ramps Ground level Roof top
Ornamental Medical
Blueberry
H: 1-4 m w: 1-3 m
Ramps Ground level
Aromatic Edible Ornamental
Domestic apple tree (Flemish beauty)
H:2-3 m W: 2-3 m
Roof top Ground level
Ornamental Edible
Dwarf pear tree
H: 2-3 m W: 1-2 m
Roof top Ground level Ramps
Ornamental Edible
Purple Clematis (Clematis viticella)
Creeper
Mesh wall
Ornamental
67
68
69
c
I Dessau International Architecture School
Anhalt University Department 3 70