Academic portfolio Ivan Nikolov Vanchev
Auburn University
2012 Bachelor’s of Architecture 2013 Master’s of Integrated Design and Construction
Design undergraduate work Urban Housing Children’s Hospital Art Park graduate work City Hall Mixed Use Shipping Container
06-13 14-19 20-27
28-33 34-43 44-49
Research undergrad./grad. work Book Illustrations Art Museum Addition Historic Survey
52-57 58-71 72-75
Other 78-81 82-83 84-85
various pieces Art Craft Photography
Design undergraduate work Urban Housing Children’s Hospital Art Park graduate work City Hall Mixed Use Shipping Container
06-13 14-19 20-27
28-33 34-43 44-49
Research undergrad./grad. work Book Illustrations Art Museum Addition Historic Survey
52-57 58-71 72-75
Other 78-81 82-83 84-85
various pieces Art Craft Photography
Urban Housing
Montgomery, AL
Robert Lovett Memorial Book Award guidance by Magdalena Garmaz 2011-2012 In a project aimed to aid the city of Montgomery in their future development I proposed not only a building but a scenario for its use. The structure houses a group of eight recent graduates from around the country who, during a sixmonth-long period of time, will be working with Montgomery’s Planning Department to help revitalize the city. The group will consist of two architecture, two building science, two urban planning, one landscape, and one sociology major students. The funding for the revitalization project will be grant-based; the young graduates will receive a fellowship which will provide them with a residence along with a work space/studio. The building itself is narrow the spatial organization in which allowed every space within to receive light from at least two sides (north and south). This way the studio and the apartments had both street and courtyard presence, contributing to a more secure urban environment both at night and during the day. The building skin server as a rain screen and privacy barrier; it houses the circulation on the south side and balconies on the north side. The concept is of a tilted volume, ‘floating’ above ground and forming the ceiling of the gallery space. As the skin went from the exterior to the interior the relationship between both was blurred and a more fluent transition was created.
06-07
Vicinity Plan Private
Site Plan Semi-Private
Transparency Public
Pedestrian strian Space Circulation
Fourth Level - Dining/Kitchen and Apartments
Skin Continuity
Third Level - Living Room and Apartments
Second Level - Bookstore and Studio
Section A
Ground Level - Cafe and Gallery
08-09
Model on Site at 1/16”=1’-0” (courtyard) approx. 3”x6”x9”
Model on Site at 1/16”=1’-0” (street) approx. 3”x6”x9”
10-11
Section Model at 1/4”=1’-0” approx. 4”x12”x18”
The overall shape of the building was dictated by the adjacent structure, extending the footprint of which formed a ~3,000 sq. ft. rectangle which then was extruded up four storeys for a total area of ~12,000 sq. ft. This number was seen as a restriction and did not change throughout the year. The final proposal consists of two main volumes connected by exterior circulation. The street level houses the gallery space, which is used for exhibiting the students’ work to the public, and a cafe which is contained in the smaller building volume. The second level houses the studio space in the larger building volume and a bookstore in the smaller volume which is accessible from both the cafe and the studio. The top two levels contain the living quarters which consist of small, one-bedroom apartments with a full bathroom. A common kitchen/dining room and a living room are provided in the smaller volume of the structure. The goal for the detached element was to create a space separate from the main building, that could be rented and the program of which could be changed if the building’s function changes. The apartments were pushed back 4 ft. creating a porch-like condition influenced by southern vernacular architecture. This move also contributed to the decrease in solar gain on the south side of the building. The main focus throughout the entire project were the issues of gallery transparency, cross-ventilation, sidewalk condition and the building skin’s relationship to the structure and the pedestrian.
Section Model at 1/4”=1’-0” (sidewalk relationship) approx. 4”x12”x18”
12-13
Children’s Hospital
Chicago, IL
1st place, AlaGasCo Design Competition Robert Lovett Memorial Book Award guidance by Christian Dagg 2010-2011 This proposal is of a 500,000 sq. ft. medical facility in the heart of downtown Chicago. The design consists of three physical elements: a tall, L-shaped piece containing all of the patient units, a smaller background volume containing the operating rooms, intensive care units, and other services such as a loading dock, and a public volume that flows out to an exterior green space. The massive cantilever of the main building element displays architectural and engineering progress, hence symbolizing the advancement and never-ending development of medicine.
Approach from South
Approach from Seneca Park
Approach from Lake Shore Park
Patient Room
2nd Floor Cafeteria
14-15
E. Pearson St. Seneca Park
Lake Shore Park E. Chicago Ave.
Vicinity Plan
Site Plan
E. Superior St.
Proposed Green Space
Winter Winds
Proposed Pedestrian Traffic
Summer Winds
The building site is located within a summer micro climate region formed by Lake Michigan. Through its rotation on the site, the building attempts to take advantage of the cool summer breezes formed and blown over the lake. The tall element of the proposal is located toward the west side of the site in order to take advantage of the adjacent Dentistry building, which blocks the north-western winter winds.
Proposed Vehicular Traffic
Section A
E. Superior St. (South) Elevation
Typical Patient Room Configuration
The volume containing some of the nurses’ stations and service on the north face of the slender element partly carries physical qualities of the adjacent structures and serves as a visual connection between the urban context and the current proposal. The slenderness of the Progressive Care Units, or PCU, volume also allows for a large range of views towards the roof gardens, courtyard, Seneca and Lake Shore Parks and Michigan Lake. It also allows for plenty of exposure to sun throughout the day which bathes every programmatic element within in light.
Typical Patient Room Floor Plan
E. Chicago Ave. (North) Elevation
16-17
Section Model at 1/4”=1’-0” cut through the north wing of a typical patient room floor approx. 12”x12”x18”
Operating, Public, Vertical Circulation, and Patient Room Volumes
Massing Model at 1/16”=1’-0” approx. 9”x12”x14”
18-19
Art Park
Birmingham, AL
guidance by Christian Dagg 2011 Birmingham’s Sloss Furnace is the only 20th-century blast furnace in the country which has been transformed into a museum in which students and the community in general, can create their own art work. Workshops and classes are offered along with an Open Studio where artists can explore their creativity. This proposal enhances this art movement by providing artists with a place to exhibit their work. The site is adjacent to the railroad tracks in downtown Birmingham and is a proposed future park expansion. The city’s vision is to connect the existing Railroad Cut (a deep score within the urban fabric once used for unloading railroad cars) with the relatively new Railroad Park. A connection of the existing Railroad Park (south-west) with the Sloss Furnace (north-east) was also desired. The goal was to complement the future development of the Railroad Cut (east) and the existing park through the use of a similar physical language. A deep ‘cut’ goes diagonally through the site (west to east) similar to the linear language of the straight walkway in the Railroad Park which runs parallel to the tracks. The new ‘cut’ is the shortest way from the existing park to the Railroad Cut, which it also resembles.
20-21
2000 ft.
500 ft.
200 ft.
Site Plan
Initial Experiential Concept
Initial Shading Device Concept
Initial Section Concept
22-23
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
The concept of a train flowing in and out of the ground evolved into the abstract rectangular concrete shafts present in the final drawings. These pieces bring light into the lower levels of the galleries, house the artworks and connect some of the spaces to the outside and to each other. This design attempted to achieve a certain degree of surprise where ones exploration of the site was a main focus. Numerous planes, volumes, and paths cross in a great number of ways, contributing to a different experience with each visit.
F A
E
B C D
Site Plan
F A
E
B C D
Ground Level
F A
E
B C D
-1st Level
F E
A B C D
-2nd Level
24-25
Section E
26-27
Section F
City Hall
Cordova, AL
guidance by Stacy Norman & Paul Holley in collaboration with Diana Lavender and Caitlin Clark 2012 Cordova, Alabama is a small town in North Western Alabama. Located in Walker County, Cordova is a truly unique town with access to the Black Warrior River which is navigable to the Gulf of Mexico, active railroads, and interstate highways. During April of 2011, Cordova was hit by a series of devastating tornadoes which destroyed much of the residential and commercial infrastructure of the town. Since then, Cordova has endured a painful year of trying to rebuild. Now, more than a year from the disaster, downtown Cordova remains a fragment of what it once was - the vibrant center of a closeknit community. Our task was to aid in the rebuilding effort by developing a proposal for a new City Hall, a building that the people of Cordova can identify with. Our proposal fits within a greater master plan, locating the project as an anchor on Main Street. The City Hall, possibly the first building that will be built in the city’s downtown after the tornadoes, is meant to be the first step towards rebuilding a lively community filled with restaurants, bakeries, retail shops, and green spaces. In developing the design I have taken into account issues of building transparency, visual and physical connections, building materiality, aesthetics, scale, community importance, site usage sensibility, and potential future revenues and expansions.
28-29
Phase I Program
Ma
ssac hus
etts
Bur ling
ton
Ave nu
e
Com
Ave nu
e
sq. ft.
Main t
1st Street
Stree
eet e Str
merc
Auditorium 1072 Departments 945 Utilities 93 Building Inspections 181 City/Magestrate 242 Economic Development 208 One to Grow 221 Departmental Spaces 382 Break Room 177 Supply Room 130 Locker Room 75 Common Spaces 2240 Conference Space 521 Elevator 100 Janitor’s Closet 50 Mayor’s Office 117 Police Substation 108 Restrooms 403 Upstairs 115 Downstairs 288 Piggly Wiggly Mechanical 244
P II PI
TOTAL
6182
Mill Street
Chambers Street
Phase I Cost Analysis General Require General Requirements $ 259,859 Foundations $ Foundations General Requirements $ 259,859 General Requirements $ 259,859 50452 Foundations Foundations $ $ 50452 Structural Steel Structural Steel $ 193,680 50452 50452 Steel Framing Steel Framing $ 130,125 Structural 193,680 Structural SteelSteel $ 193,680 Exterior Enclos Enclosure $ 130,125 $ 316,220 Steel Framing 130,125 SteelExterior Framing Interiors Interiors $ 316,220 69,605 Exterior Enclosure $ 316,220 Exterior Enclosure MEP/HVAC MEP/HVAC 448,245 Interiors 69,605 Interiors $ $69,605 Landscaping Landscaping $ 448,245 2,400 MEP/HVAC MEP/HVAC $ 448,245 Landscaping 2,400 Landscaping $ $ 2,400 Total Total $ 1,470,586 $Cost 205per SF Total per SF $ 1,470,586 TotalCost $ 1,470,586 per SF $ 205 CostCost per SF $ 205
Total Constructio Total Construction Time: 10 Months Construction Time:10 Months 10 Months TotalTotal Construction Time:
Green Avenue
5% 22%
30%
9% 0% 13%
18% 3%
Phase I Cost Analysis
Phase II Program
sq. ft.
Offices Office I Office II Office III Common Spaces Retail Retail I Retail II Service Elevator Janitor’s Closets Upstairs Downstairs Restroom Upstairs Downstairs Mechanical
733 258 256 219 923 806 328 478 345 100 71 37 34 105 52 53 170
TOTAL
3253
Phase II Cost Analysis General Requirements Foundations General Requirements Structural Steel Foundations Steel Framing Structural Steel Exterior Enclosure Steel Framing Interiors Exterior Enclosure MEP/HVAC Interiors Landscaping MEP/HVAC Landscaping Total 857,997 Total Cost per SF 857,997 Cost per SF
$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
128,275 Requirements General 30,940 128,275 Foundations 106,280 30,940 Steel Structural 32,600 106,280 Steel Framing 191,257 32,600 Enclosure Exterior 30,555 Interiors 191,257 336,350 30,555 MEP/HVAC 1,740 336,350 Landscaping 1,740 Total 857,997 $ 215 Cost per SF $ 215
Total Construction Time: Total Construction Time:
7Total Months Construction Time: 7 Months
$ 128,275 $ 30,940 $ 106,280 $ 32,600 $ 191,257 $ 30,555 $ 336,350 $ 1,740 $ $
215
7 Months
4% 39% 22%
0%
4% 15%
12% 4%
Phase II Cost Analysis
30-31
Main Street Elevation
Mill Street Elevation
1st Street Elevation
Courtyard Elevation - Phase I
Courtyard Elevation - Phase II
This proposal is for a narrow L-shaped building located along the south side of the site. By consciously restricting the available space, an open green space is created, linking Main Street visually and physically to the future Piggly Wiggly location. The courtyard also creates an opportunity for retail spaces along the lower level of the proposed expansion. Visual connections were also created from the courtyard, through the proposed classroom/auditorium and out to Mill Street. Another important consideration was the visual connection between the City Hall’s employees and the pedestrians. One condition where this transparency is clear is the corner of Mill and Main Street, where the Mayor’s office is located. With its corner location and openings on both streets the office serves as a symbolic cornerstone for the community. A part of the decision about creating a narrow, two-storey, building was also driven by the program given, and the building scale desired. The goal was to create a building that is suitable in height to what the future downtown might be, thus minimizing the building footprint and extending it to two levels instead of occupying the entire site with low, one-storey structure. Materiality of the exterior was also a major factor in the building’s relationship to its assumed future context. The material palette of the skin consists of two types of brick, a lighter, beige-colored brick and darker, brown/red combination of brick. We have proposed a Phase II for this project as we believe a time for expansion will come once the City of Cordova has grown. The proposal for the second phase consists of retail spaces on the lower floor, as mentioned earlier, creating an opportunity for cash flow. The upper floor of the addition houses three offices that could be rented to local businesses and later converted for City Hall usage. Phase II will be connected to the main building via a bridge which could be built during the addition’s construction or later when the City Hall needs more office space.
Offices
Conference
Offices
Upper Level
Retail
Retail
Lobby
Courtyard
1st Street
Offices
treet
S Main
Classroom
Mill Street Ground Level
32-33
Mixed Use
Boston, MA
guidance by Stacy Norman & Paul Holley in collaboration with Jess Donnerberg 2012 For this project we were asked to explore the feasibility of a mixed-use building in the North End neighborhood of Boston, MA. The site is located on Cross Street along the ‘Big Dig’, between Hanover Street and Salem Street. Facing the park and at the same time holding the outer boundary of the neighborhood, the location provides an opportunity for a building that can act as a mediator between the two. The proposal is of a 4-storey tall building containing 39 residential units and 9 ground-level retail spaces.
34-35
Type I 547 sq. ft./3 units
Type II 533 sq. ft./3 units
The first step in our proccess was to establish a certain market of people this building will appeal to. After looking at the most recent census information for Boston’s North End it was decided that the building will try to attract either single individuals or families without children. Seven different units, ranging from 510 sq. ft. to 1100 sq. ft., quickly took shape which helped in establishing a preliminary cash flow chart.
Type III 510 sq. ft./3 units
Type IV 629 sq. ft./12 units
Type V 528 sq. ft./12 units
Type VI 1104 sq. ft./3 units
Type VII 936 sq. ft./3 units
36-37
Capital budget was quickly developed based on early schematic design, with a final figure of $395/sq. ft. including land acquisition, demolition, etc.
The plan proved to be theoretically successful with 11% return on investment after the third year.
38-39
Hanover Street
Salem Street Levels II, III, IV - Living units
Cross Street
Hanover Street
treet
S Salem Ground Level - Retail
Cross Street
Cross Street Elevation
Salem Street Elevation
Hanover Street Elevation
Rear Elevation
The front facade located on Cross Street acts as an extension of the green space over the ‘Big Dig’. With its fragmented language, the ground level brings the scale of the building down to the pedestrian. In addition to the multiple canopies providing shelter for the passer-by, the building also provides seating areas built directly into the facade. The overall material choice and the language of the exterior serve as a continuation of the park and the neighborhood, bringing the two together. The metal portions of the building, located between the brick volumes, mimic the steel pergola over the park’s walkway, while the brick on the facade attempts to blend it with the neighboring buildings.
40-41
Base Estimate A10 Foundations B10 Superstructure B20 Exterior Enclosure B30 Roofing C10 Interior Construction C20 Stairs C30 Interior Finishes D10 Conveying D20 Plumbing D30 HVAC D40 Fire Protection D50 Electrical E10 Equipment E20 Furnishings F10 Special Construction F20 Selective Building Demolition G10 Site Preparation G20 Site Improvements G30 Site Mechanical Utilities G40 Site Electrical Utilities TOTAL BUILDING & SITE WORK COST +LOCATION FACTOR (17%) Z60 Overhead and Profit TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
$ 779,219 $ 794,750 $ 2,242,150 $ 98,979 $ 730,198 $ 90,000 $ 552,447 $ 320,000 $ 642,087 $ 847,549 $ 376,373 $ 797,361 $0 $0 $0 $ 302,500 $ 25,340 $ 59,770 $ 68,238 $ 66,325 $ 8,793,285 $ 10,288,143 $ 720,170 $ 11,008,313
42-43
Shipping Container
Columbus, GA
guidance by Stacy Norman & Michael Thompson in collaboration with Eric Baker and Kislay Kumar 2013 Shipping containers are modular, affordable, and virtually indestructible. More and more often they are being used to build temporary structures such as pavilions, offices, galleries, and bars that can be easily moved if necessary. With this project we were asked to explore the possibilities of “shipping container architecture� in the form of a mobile art gallery space for an annual art festival taking place in Columbus, GA.
renderings by Kislay Kumar
44-45
Corner & Door Plan Detail
Window Plan Detail
Desctiption
Cost
Cost/sq. ft.
% of total
(1) 20’ Used Container Shipping Site preparation Exterior skin Exterior appurtenances Interior fit-out M.E.P. Specialties
$ 1,900 $ 400 $ 300 $ 1,190 $ 400 $ 3,861 $ 762 $ 7,324
$ 11.88 $ 2.50 $ 1.88 $ 7.44 $ 2.50 $ 24.13 $ 4.76 $ 45.78
12% 2% 2% 7% 2% 24% 5% 45%
$ 16,137 Contingency Permitting Fee
$ 1,614 $ 210 $ 6,778
TOTAL
$ 24,738
Total Area
160 sq. ft
100%
46-47
The similarities between this physical product and the conceptual proposal are not accidental. After all four groups completed their design proposals we, as a cohort, were asked to convert a used shipping container into a simple exhibition space for our design work. The container along with our work was to be shipped from its building site in Auburn, AL to Columbus, GA just in time for the ArtBeat festival. My team took the initiative of proposing something cleaner and more detailoriented than a white drywall-ed box. At the end of a short discussion the cohort accepted the interior design which was similar to my team’s digital version and in the next two weeks we built a mobile art gallery.
48-49
Design undergraduate work Urban Housing Children’s Hospital Art Park graduate work City Hall Mixed Use Shipping Container
06-13 14-19 20-27
28-33 34-43 44-49
Research undergrad./grad. work Book Illustrations Art Museum Addition Historic Survey
52-57 58-71 72-75
Other 78-81 82-83 84-85
various pieces Art Craft Photography
Book Illustrations
investigation in Rome, Italy supervision by Carla Keyvanian 2011-2012
52-53
Aqueduct Route 2011 pencil on tracing paper approx. 12”x18”
Detail 2 2011 pencil on tracing paper approx. 18”x24” Detail 1 2011 pencil on tracing paper approx. 12”x18” Shielded under a coat of religiousness, hospitals guarded strategic urban routes and access points, blocked roads and passages. These drawings illustrate the use of hospital buildings and ancient Roman ruins - especially the fortified arches of aqueducts - to control significant urban areas. Through the use of archaeological sources and drawings, I reconstructed the route of aqueducts, and the way their arches were incorporated into hospital buildings or transformed into easily blocked gates to span roads leading into strategic areas. The reconstruction contributed to the demonstration that hospitals played a role in controlling the territory, through measures that resembled an urban military strategy. My investigation also led to a discovery discarding a belief that many current scholars hold and show through reconstruction drawings - that ancient Rome’s water supply was managed through more aqueducts than actually existed. Due the limited structure still in existence and the fact that it appears on both sides of multiple roads, one might assume that often there were two or more aqueducts running in close proximity to each other, where in fact there was only one structure spanning across roads to form access points.
Carla Keyvanian To Shelter Widows and Orphans; Hospitals and Urbanism in Rome 1200 - 1500 original drawings and contributions by Ivan Vanchev University Park, PA Penn State University Press, 2014 Santo Spirito in Sassia, built at the Vatican around 1475 as the largest hospital in Europe, is one of the most magnificent buildings of the Roman Renaissance, yet its architect is unknown. The author of the book sought to demonstrate that it was Fra Giocondo - a humanist who was a close associate of Leon Battista Alberti, author of the first illustrated edition of Vitruvius’ treatise, and a central figure of the Renaissance. These drawings reconstruct the system of correspondences that ties the roof trusses to the columns painted in the frescoes in the interior - which appear to support them - and to the brickwork pilasters on the exterior, placed as if performing a structural function. That connection between the structural and decorative elements enabled the author to compare the building to the only existing architectural drawing by Fra Giocondo.
S. Spirito Axon 2012 pencil on vellum approx. 24”x36”
This book is about the public hospitals built in Rome between 1200 and 1500, and the impact they had on urban development. Marked by a distinguishing architecture, monumental hospitals were an architectural, urban and institutional phenomenon that appeared in Europe around 1200. The overarching argument of the study is that hospitals were state institutions that played a vital role in the formation of centralized administrations. Rather than medical centers in the modern sense, hospitals were charitable establishments that provided temporary shelter to the poor. They demonstrated the ruler’s moral and administrative capacity, building and preserving consensus, and flourished in periods of intensive stateformation. That is what explains the enormous resources that were poured into the construction and management of these institutions, designed by the most important architects of the time.
Public hospitals were at the center of strategies that profoundly transformed the urban fabric. Archival plans, sketches, paintings and reconstruction drawings identify pertinent buildings, architectural types, urban routes and configurations. Spanning three centuries, the study is a thick slice of the physical history of the city viewed through the privileged lens of its charitable establishments. Explaining works previously viewed in isolation, the book offers a novel and rich explanation for why the city—not just the areas around the hospitals, but the entire city—developed as it did. (“Introduction,” To Shelter Widows and Orphans) 54-55
Interior/Section/Exterior Relationship 2012 pencil on tracing paper approx. 9”x15”
The only known drawing by Fra Giocondo is a project plan for St Peter’s at the Vatican, depicted at the center. It is characterized by the alignment of external decorative pilasters to internal load-bearing piers. That correspondence of interior and exterior, or form and structure, was unique in the Renaissance, and confirms that it was Fra Giocondo who implemented it in the hospital. He had learned that correspondence from the Gothic churches of his native region, the Veneto - St Mark’s in Venice, on the left, and St Anthony’s in Padua, on the right. The intended scale of the central drawing is unknown. The plan on the right, drawn at two different scales - one aligned to the dimensions of the domes, the other to overall dimensions of Fra Giocondo’s plan - illustrates my reconstruction of his design process. That reconstruction proves that the architect proposed for St Peter’s in Rome a plan that paid homage to the two main churches of his native land.
Fra Giocondo, Design Process Reconstruction 2011 pencil on tracing paper approx. 12”x24”
56-57
Art Museum Addition
Auburn, AL
supervision by Christian Dagg 2013
In June of 2013 I was hired by the Jule Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art in Auburn, AL as a part of a graduate assistantship program through Auburn University. My task was to help clarify topics such as feasibility, programmatic requirements and cost pertaining a new education wing addition to the museum. My work over the next eight weeks, or about eighty hours, encompassed: analysis of population change and income relating to other museum additions, materials/systems research, common programmatic elements and their size in an education wing, and three schematic proposals for how the established program can be translated into different spatial configurations.
58-59
Table from Set In Stone, a research by the University of Chicago.
Auburn’s 2011 - 2012est. Population Change: 0.04 (54,566 to 56,908est.) 14th fastest-growing large city in the US from July 2010 to July 2011
Statistics from the Census Bureau.
Auburn 2007 - 2011 Educational Attainment: 0.60 (Percent bachelor’s degree or higher: 60.0%) 0.27 (Opelika/Auburn MSA: 27.3%) Auburn’s 2011 Median Household Income: $42,965 (Alabama: $41,415, US: $50,502)
1-year +5.76%
3-Year -1.57%
Successful education wing addition - Guidelines: • Strong need and community support. • Clear leadership (one Project Manager). • Increased education and income. • In-sync with the organization’s mission. • An actual need for a facility rather than an individual’s aspiration. Education wing addition - Issues: • Underestimating operating cost. • Overestimating ability to raise revenue. Feasibility questions: • Does this still support our mission? • Can we manage the new addition once finished? • Do we have the money we need when we need them? • Do we have a broad community to serve? Strategies to avoid: • Too much investment in “brick and mortar” (the building itself).
Conclusions from Set In Stone, a research by the University of Chicago.
Proposed location of wing addition South of exisitng building
Exisiting conditions Vicinity plan
60-61
Materials/Systems research examples
62-63
After looking at four case studies of recent education wing additions, two initial addition programs were created. Based on the examples an education addition for an art museum varied anywhere between eleven and twenty-three percent of the total museum area after the addition.
Discussions with the owner led to establishing three different scenarios of connecting the addition to the existing building along with three different programs.
64-65
Addition Version I
66-67
Addition Version II
68-69
Addition Version III
70-71
Historic Survey Auburn, AL
2nd place, Leicester B. Holland Prize Competition supervision by Rebecca Retzlaff in collaboration with Nathaniel Bacon 2013
This exercise was done as a part of an independent study the objective of which was to document the Main Gate to Auburn’s campus and the iconic oak trees at Toomer’s Corner per Heritage Documentation Program standards. Work was later submitted to the Leicester B. Holland Prize competition which is supported by the Paul Rudolph Trust, Architectural Record, and the Center for Architecture, Design & Engineering in the Library of Congress. High definition laser scanning was implemented to document the site resulting in a point cloud used to produce drawings of the area. Historical materials were also acquired from the special collections of Auburn University Libraries pertaining to Toomer’s Corner and the trees. A historical report providing information that included physical characteristics, dates, builders/designers, owners, uses, and some discussion of site evolution within the context in which it was created and later evolved, was also submitted. Other considerations included information pertaining to flora species, traditions, Auburn, Auburn’s campus, Auburn football, and major events that have taken place on the site.
72-73
Final product completed on 24”x36” sheet of mylar using ink pens
Photograph circa 1940s
Marble eagles adoring the Main Gate to campus
Scanning process
74-75
Design undergraduate work Urban Housing Children’s Hospital Art Park graduate work City Hall Mixed Use Shipping Container
06-13 14-19 20-27
28-33 34-43 44-49
Research undergrad./grad. work Book Illustrations Art Museum Addition Historic Survey
52-57 58-71 72-75
Other 78-81 82-83 84-85
various pieces Art Craft Photography
Interior Perspectives academic work, 2009 pencil/color pencil on illustration board & cardboad each approx. 10”x15”
Rawlins House, John Lautner academic work, 2009 pencil on illustration board approx. 6”x12” For this assignment we were asked to design an interior space through a series of perspectives with a heavy emphasis on process. There were no guidelines such as program, or requirements such as exterior views and floor plans. The only guide was imagination. From the very beginning, this proposal dealt with exposed structure, joint details, natural lighting and level changes. The process consisted of four drawings: linework, materials, shade and shadow, and a color rendering. The last piece was done on 1-ply cardboard.
Venice III, Morphosis academic work, 2009 pencil on illustration board approx. 6”x12”
Courthouse Interior Perspectives academic work, 2009 orange color pencil on vellum approx. 6”x12”
Courthouse Abstract Interior Perspectives academic work, 2009 orange color pencil on vellum approx. 6”x12”
Art
78-79
Venice Gondola Ride academic work, 2011 watercolor and pencil study approx. 18�x24�
Chicago Bay academic work, 2011 watercolor approx. 6”x18”
Church of Nostra Signora del Cadore, Carlo Scarpa academic work, 2009 pencil on illustration board approx. 6”x12”
Mary, Mother of God academic work, 2011 watercolor approx. 12”x18”
80-81
Cardboard Stool academic work, 2008 cardboard approx. 12�x18� 1st place, In-studio Wood-based Furniture Design Competition For this assignment we were asked to create a light piece of furniture out of a wood-based material. This hollow cardboard stool weighs exactly 1 pound and it can easily support a 210-pound weight.
Mug personal work, 2009 poplar, entirely hand-made (chisel, hammer and sandpaper) approx. three beers
Concrete Chair academic work, 2010 self-consolidating concrete and wire mesh approx. 150lbs, 15”x28”x30” 1st place, Concrete Furniture Design Team Competition personal contribution: idea, design, reinforcement design and placement, formwork design and production (CNC Router) For this project students with design background were teamed up with students with construction background in order to produce a concrete furniture piece that was judged by one criteria - lightness. This chair, at 150 pounds, was not the lightest piece but it appeared so visually.
Craft
Pumpkin Tiger personal work, 2010 pumpkin approx. pumpkin size 1st place, 2010 Auburn School of Architecture Annual Pumpkin Carve
82-83
Photography
84-85
Thank you. Ivan Nikolov Vanchev