Masters Thesis: Architectural Boundaries and the Mixed Use Model: The Architecture of Secondary Lea

p reface

1

preface title page

2

Jason G. Boone, Student

Boston Architectural College

Architectural Boundaries and the Mixed Use Model: The Architecture of Secondary Learning in the 21st Century Peter Martin, Thesis Faculty

Jason G. Boone Date of Graduation | 24 May 2013 Master of Architecture

Ian Tabner, Director of Thesis

Date of Final Review | 22 April 2013 Karen Nelson, Head of School of Architecture Ian Tabner, Director of Thesis Peter Martin, Thesis Faculty Heidi Black, Client Representative D. Paul Moore, Educational Planner Michael Malenfant, Structural Engineer Paul Brown, Design Critic Catherine Miller, Design Critic

3

preface table of contents

4

tab le o f co nte nts 1 7 9 11

Preface Letter of Acknowledgement Biographical Note Introduction

15

Introductory/Supplemental Review

35

Preliminary Review

69

Schematic Review

93

Design Development Review 1

121

Design Development Review 2

135

Final Review

152

Conclusion

155

Thesis Proposal

5

preface acknowledgements

6

a c k n ow l e d g m e nts My completion of the Masters of Architecture program at the Boston Architectural College required a tremendous amount of dedication and sacrifice by so many. This letter acknowledges the contributions of all those who helped me achieve. Without their support, I would not be where I am today.

First, to my wife, Heidi. She endured countless dateless Friday and Saturday nights, all night study sessions, Atelier meetings, and a messy apartment. She served as design council, therapist, coach and best friend. She made sure I ate, slept and showered. She made me laugh and taught me how to balance school, work, and romance. I love her and celebrate this as much as an achievement of hers as mine.

Next, I want to acknowledge members of my design panel, and Peter Martin especially, whose volunteered time and council were so critical to completing this last stage of my academic training. Their input, feedback and willingness to give something back to the profession are qualities I hope to mimic in my professional career.

To my family and friends both here in Boston and around the country, I want to acknowledge your patience and support. This educational endeavor limited our phone calls and our time together. I extend the sincerest apologies for not spending more time with you these last six years, but thank you so much for being there when I needed you.

Finally, I want to acknowledge my classmates with whom I have shared my struggle and from whom I have learned so much. Our institution is unique is so many ways. Without this shared experience, I know I would have given up long ago.

With sincerest thanks,

Jason G. Boone, M.Arch

7

preface biographical note

8

b i og ra p h i ca l n ote education Masters of Architecture Boston Architectural College, 2013 Bachelors of Science Secondary Mathematics Education Indiana State University, 1998 honors & awards Recognized Educational Facility Planner Peter Woytuk Scholarship Boston Architectural College, 2012 Alumni Scholarship Boston Architectural College, 2009 David W. Anderson Travelling Fellowship Drummey Rosane Anderson, 2008

Senior Choice Most Influential Educator Franklin Community High School, 2001 boards, committees & juries Atelier Board - President Boston Architectural College, 2011-2012 Atelier Board - Representative Boston Architectural College, 2010-2011 Board of Trustees - Ex-officio Member Boston Architectural College, 2011-2012 Curriculum Committee - Student Member Boston Architectural College, 2010-2011 Ed. Policies Committee - Student Member Boston Architectural College, 2010-2011

9

boards, committees, & juries (continued) Design Jury CEFPI New England, 2010 Design Jury Harvard University Extension School, 2008 presentations & publications The Social Spaces CEFPI Northeast Conference, 2010 “Learning Modalities and Space�

Educational Facility Planner, Vol. 44, 2010 Learning Modalities and Space CEFPI International Conference, 2009 School Transformation & Development Map CEFPI International Conference, 2007 &2008

preface biographical note

10

i nt rod u c t i on This volume serves as a record of my thesis.

It contains both process and product. Its contents are organized chronologically by milestones. Each section documents the content from one formal review, begins with an introductory narrative stating the intended objectives, and concludes with a summary narrative, findings, and feedback. thesis abstract “Why do I need to know this?� It is the classic question. High school students ask it because nearly all secondary structured learning in the United States occurs in a place and in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from the real world. My research suggests that policy-makers, superintendents, principals, faculty, parents, private citizens, the business community and especially students expect and desire an alternative model – one that addresses this disconnectedness.

This thesis explores a model that brings educational, civic, and business user groups together for the advantage of learning and architecturally articulates the physical boundaries between them. It speculates that there is a learning benefit to be gained for students at the secondary level from colocating these specific user groups in a single

facility. In order to be successful, however, this mixed use model must carefully and intentionally articulate the boundaries between these groups. terms of criticism Success of any architectural theory, concept, or thesis must be evaluated against a set of criteria or terms of criticism. More often than not, the designer has little input and critics define their own. As the exploration of this thesis serves to advance my education, I have set the terms in the narrative that follows against which this project should be judged.

It is important to note that these terms of criticism are intended for the evaluation of the project (the application of the thesis to a specific program) and not strictly the thesis, itself. A successful project must: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

Constructivism is a learning theory that suggests knowledge is constructed by individual learners based on their unique experiences. The architecture of the successful project supports this approach by providing rich and diverse set of spatial experiences as well as access to the experiences of the noneducational use groups.

11

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

It is the access to these non-educational user groups that has the greatest potential to enrich learning. To be successful, however, the project must carefully consider the spatial relationships between educational, civic, and business entities. Educational spaces must be interwoven with the business and civic entities rather than separated.

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

preface biographical note

12

Far too often the learning that occurs is invisible to members of the business community and the general public. The successful project permits members of the public to witness first-hand and in real time at least some of the learning occurring. Care must be taken, however, to balance visibility with the safety of students.

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

The mixed use model suggests that benefits exist in both directions; students learn by being in the presence of professionals and professionals benefit from the ability to shape the skill sets of students. The successful project establishes spatial relationships that locate structured learning environments near, if not immediately adjacent or internally connected to, professional and civic spaces with similar function and purpose.

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

The nature of the relationship between educational, business, and civic entities must be expressed in the architecture of their shared boundaries. The successful project articulates the qualities of openness and connectedness consistently and according to a system yet to be determined.

A sample articulation system, for example, might dictate that the boundary between educational specialty labs and business specialty labs be visually connected, but closed.

methods of inquiry Definition Of Terms Documentation • Photography • Drawings • Direct Observation Analysis • Hand And Digital Drawing • Physical And Digital Modelling • Personal Interviews Metaresearch The methods of inquiry identified above serve to uncover insight related to a wide area of interests and are meant to be deployed at a variety of scales and milestones in the design process. Establishing a glossary of definitions was the first method of inquiry. It was critical to create a common language to be used throughout the thesis in an effort to lesson confusion.

Another method of inquiry used was documentation and included photography, gathering of drawings, direct observation, and note taking/sketching.

Precedents and existing conditions were the primary focus of documentation, but the need to document additional items proved necessary as the design of the project proceeded. The intent of this line of inquiry, regardless of the subject matter, was

to establish a record, a sample set, to be analyzed.

Analysis of information for commonalities, differences, and generalities was leveraged as a third method.

Analytical means included hand and digital drawing, digital and physical modelling, and personal interviews. Drawings and models served as the best tools to uncover insight about spatial and tactile qualities, but the personal interviews offered the best understanding of any experiential qualities present. The objective for this line of inquiry was to draw conclusions that could be applied to the project when making design decisions.

In parallel with these methods of inquiry, my process included metaresearch as a final line of inquiry. Metarearch reviews the research of others not only related to architecture, but also related to education and the impact or benefit of the built environment on learning. The goal of the metaresearch was to understand the process used by others for generating educational architecture and to establish a baseline understanding of what secondary educational delivery requires pedagogically, programmatically, and architecturally.

13

An entire semester of defining the thesis and performing research preceded the two semesters of thesis proper. That leading semester also helped to establish a site and a program.

The site selected is located in the Seaport District of Boston, MA between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute for Contemporary Art on a parcel that was undeveloped at the time this thesis began.

The program serves a 400-student public charter high school, a managed office facility for business incubation and startup, and several civic resources not currently present. Details related to site selection criteria, the selected site, and the program are documented in the introductory review section of this document.

preface introduction

14

int ro d u c to r y review

15

civ

ic

bo

da

boundary of interest

education

un

ry

of

int

ere

t

f yo

ar

d un

bo

es ter

in

s

s ine

s

bu introductory review

st

16 opportunities for educational and social benefits exist when educational, civic, and business entities share architectural boundaries with specific characteristics

thesis diagram

i nt rod u c tor y review The introductory review served as the opportunity to share the thesis with the thesis faculty and design critic panel for the first time.

In response to these observations, this thesis tested an architectural intervention that both brings these three user groups together in a single facility and endeavors to articulate the physical and implied boundaries between them for the benefit of all.

agenda • thesis introduction • program • site selection & analysis Much of the content for this review grew out of the research and conceptual investigation undertaken during the thesis seminar semester. The total volume of that preceding semester’s work, however, was reorganized, distilled, and supplemented for the purposes of this review.

thesis introduction This thesis sought a synergy between the educational community, the business community, and the general public for the benefit of all. Its generative idea grew from a personal recognition and a recognition by educational experts that educational delivery strategies and the facilities that serve them have remained relatively unchanged for more than one hundred years.

“The standard classroom has survived. Efforts to change it, cluster it, add technology, sub-divide and reconfigure it, and reshape it have met with some success, but the classroom for thirty students (or for twenty-eight or twentyfour or twenty) still exists in almost all public and private schools. It is usually rectangular or square, may or may not have windows, and usually has a door designed to keep the class in and both the neighborhood and the world out.”

- William Brubaker

17

program summary To adequately develop the thesis, it was necessary to clearly define the program at the outset. It included appropriate spaces for a 400-student public charter high school, leasable spaces for business start-ups and restaurants, as well as an art gallery, food market, library, and a fitness center open to the general public. Early research, consultation provided by my client, and professional experience aided with the identification of spaces necessary to serve these functions.

The summary table and chart on the facing page communicate the balance between

introductory review

18

the three main program areas. To be viable, the educational components of the program required a critical mass of students and, therefore, required approximately twice as much net program area as each of the other two. Unprogrammed square footage included circulation, MEP/FP closets, mechanical penthouses, wall thicknesses, toilets and other building elements not typically identified in the NET square footage. The unprogrammed square footage represents a net to gross multiplier of 1.5.

The following pages contain a table of space by space details and a graphic representation of each space of the program.

program space summary SF Summary Education Business SF Summary Civic Education Unprogrammed Business Total Civic Unprogrammed Total

64,600 30,500 22,800 64,600 58,950 30,500 176,850 22,800 58,950 176,850

36% 17% 13% 36% 33% 17% 100% 13% 33% 100%

Unprogrammed 33%

Education 37%

Unprogrammed 33%

Civic 13% Civic 13%

Education 37%

Business 17% Business program summary 17%

tabular schedule

Space Name Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Space Name Faculty Shared Professional Space Commons Multi‐purpose Conference Room Student Workstation Administrative Suite Project Room Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Faculty Shared Professional Space Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Multi‐purpose Conference Room Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Administrative Suite Studio Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Kitchen & Servery Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Small Group Area Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Student Gallery Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Outdoor Learning Space Studio Tenant Administration Suite Kitchen & Servery Restaurant 1 Small Group Area Restaurant 2 Student Gallery Large Office Tenant Space Outdoor Learning Space Small Office Tenant Space Tenant Administration Suite Artist Studio Suite Restaurant 1 Art Gallery Restaurant 2 Fitness Suite Large Office Tenant Space 19 Grocery Store Small Office Tenant Space Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms Artist Studio Suite Art, Architecture and Technology Library Art Gallery Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose Fitness Suite Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Grocery Store Server Room Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms SUBTOTAL Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose Net to Gross Multiplier Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Server Room SUBTOTAL

ogram space summary

ummary cation ness c rogrammed l

64,600 30,500 22,800 58,950 176,850

36% 17% 13% 33% 100%

grammed 33%

Civic 13%

Education 37%

introductory review Business 17%

20

Space Name Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Multi‐purpose Conference Room Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Kitchen & Servery Small Group Area Student Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Tenant Administration Suite Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Large Office Tenant Space Small Office Tenant Space Artist Studio Suite Art Gallery Fitness Suite Grocery Store Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Server Room SUBTOTAL Net to Gross Multiplier

User Catagory Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Unassigned Unassigned Business Business Business Business Business Business Civic Civic Business Business Civic Civic Civic Business

IBC Use Group E E E E E E E E E E E E E E N/A B B B B B B B B M B B A B B

Quantity varies 100 6 12 24 10 1 2 2 2 2 12 1 10 1 varies 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1

Size NSF Each varies 64 1,600 600 100 varies 1,200 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,500 100 (in gross) varies 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 10,000 5,000 varies 2,800 3,000 3,000 1,000

1.50

Total NSF 5,000 6,400 9,600 7,200 2,400 1,500 1,200 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 14,400 1,500 1,000

500 2,000 4,000 4,000 8,000 4,000 4,000 10,000 5,000 2,000 2,800 3,000 3,000 1,000 117,900 176,850

bular schedule program details

Net to Gross Multiplier

1.50

176,850

tabular schedule

21

graphic schedule

1” = 30’

graphic program

conceptual spatial relationships An underlying assumption of the thesis was to express the spatial relationships as a mixing of the three user groups rather than a stratification. Failure to co-locate program pieces from the different user groups would sidestep the intent of the thesis and would simply replicate a similar level of separation that currently exists. The spatial relationship diagram to the right communicates the ground level of a siteless conceptual floor plan and is based on a the following spatial objectives.

introductory review

22

spatial relationship objectives • Siting strategies should invite pedestrian traffic into the site and be sufficiently sized to allow for outdoor activities such as dining, a produce market, informal gatherings, and street performances • Ground floor program elements are selected to activate the urban street edge to the greatest extent possible • Program spaces from different user groups with similar function should share a party wall • Circulation areas should link all programmed spaces together internally and possess alcoves and open spaces for ad hoc and programmed activities immediately adjacent to other spaces • The density of educational spaces should increase on the upper floors until only educational spaces exist

educational business civic

conceptual spatial relationships diagram

23

site selection When determining an appropriate site for the thesis and its program, the following site selection criteria were established.

selection criteria • Is able to host a wide variety of use groups • Already possesses a diverse set of use groups, but still needs core elements • Accessible to public transportation vehicular and circulation routes • Sized to accommodate the interior and exterior program • Is currently under developed

introductory review

24

At the time of selection, the proposed site existed as an under utilized parking lot in the Seaport District of Boston, MA. The imagery to the right communicates its geographic location. The analyses on the following pages communicate how the site relates to the selection criteria and several potential design responses. Additional analyses were performed as part of the previous semester’s research for Thesis Seminar and Studio.

They included photographic documentation of the local architectural vernacular, shadow studies, and a land use analysis. Rather than repeat that work in this section, please refer to the sections containing the complete Thesis Proposal.

Although the site and neighborhood were largely undeveloped parking lots at the time of selection, the decision was made to respond to the Seaport District Master Plan build out, some of which was actually completed over the course of this thesis.

boston harbor

fan pier cove

site

25

aerial photograph - site and context

No

rth

ern

Av e

nu

e

Se

ap

ule

va

rd

sto

nW

ha

rf R

oa

d

26

Bo

Bo

introductory review

ort

thesis site

proposed building

existing building

seaport district master plan - build out diagram

T

27

public transportation

major vehicular path

major pedestrian

T

T stop

neighborhood circulation diagram

ma jo vie r urb w c an orr acc ido es r to s an wa d ter

new harbor walk approach

T

potential for bifurcated site

public transit & vehicular moment of arrival secondary approach - new connection to pedestrian street

introductory review

28

thesis site

major pedestrian

impact to site diagram

29

thesis site

public transportation

major vehicular path

major pedestrian

site response diagram

introductory review

30

thesis site

site dimensional characteristics

section 1

site

section 2 site

section 3 4

site

section 4

3

2 1

site section legend

site sectional characteristics

31

urban site response Analysis of the site revealed several opportunities for a clear response to the urban conditions. Understanding the zoning restrictions for floor area and building height allowed the exploration of these responses.

The illustration below communicates the site as it relates to the Master Plan Build Out

introductory review

scenario in three dimensions. Illustrations on the facing communicate the maximum build out for the thesis site, the expected program massing, and for massing responses based on the various urban conditions surrounding the site.

32

thesis site

3-dimensional site relationships

massing envelope: 52,700 SF x 4.25 F.A.R. = 223,975 SF & 255’ high

program massing: 200,000 GSF & 100’ high

water views & public space: pedestrian approach from public transportation

water views & public space: vehicle approach from boston warf road

33

water views & public space: pedestrian approach from proposed pedestrian street

pedestrian connection & public space: existing harbor walk and proposed pedestrian street

zoning restrictions & potential urban site responses

summary, findings & conclusions The introductory review focused on articulating the thesis, developing the program, choosing a site, and performing a site analysis. Critic feedback included the following:

critic questions & feedback Q: Is there a reason you are not maximizing the floor area and building height allowed by the zoning regulations?

introductory review

34

A: Yes. First, the Master Plan Build out identified this particular parcel as public open space. To honor that intent, the proposal is for the project to exist as an interruption in the scale of the neighborhood by being substantially smaller in both floor area and overall height. Second, since the publication of the Master Plan, the City of Boston chose to alter the intent of the parcel by constructing a single story innovation center on the site. This proposal strikes a balance by better utilizing the site.

Q. With all the analysis of the site in hand, how do you intend to proceed?

A: As a first step, I intend to further explore the potential urban site responses and test fit the program in several scenarios that result. Ideally, the preliminary review will conclude with a series of alternatives that can be evaluated and further refined entering the schematic design phase.

• • • •

Secure developer client Explore street activity analysis Research streetscapes Begin to test the program on the ground • Begin to consider approach diagrams • Articulate the program from a user experience point of view • Begin to consider interior building circulation patterns and whether or not there are appropriate and/or necessary separations of circulation for each user group

p relimin ar y review

35

B

site response combinations

The illustrations on this and the facing page communicate that analysis and provide several keynotes of observations which resulted.

D

prioritize short cut to harbor walk

36

C

E

prioritize private outdoor space

preliminary review

The project’s response to the urban context quickly became an important driver for form and massing. In order to achieve the spatial relationship goal of inviting the public onto the site and creating street activity, the four urban site responses were explored in multiple combinations. A fifth response was added to more fully cover the range of possibilities, one which contradicts the goal and only provides private outdoor space.

prioritize seaport boulevard view of water

A

prioritize boston wharf road urban axis to water

The objective of the preliminary review was to identify conceptual siting and massing alternatives, one of which could be moved forward into schematic design. To accomplish this objective, work produced for this phase included an exploration of site response combinations, adding more detail to the program definition, and overlaying the program on siting and massing alternatives.

prioritize harbor walk view of water

p re limin ar y review

urban site responses

keynotes

A 1

5

B 2

B+A 5

1

D 2

E 4

5

C+A

C 1

2

5

6

1

5

D+A 1

2

E+A 1

4

1

insular strategy - public space on edge

2

pass-through strategy - public space on site, but not invited to linger

3

mixing strategy - public space on site encouraged to linger

4

private outdoor space

5

dimensional challenges - difficult to provide natural daylight to interior

6

public space located on street best suited for services

7

creates an isolated floor area

C+B 6

2

5

6

D+B

D+C

2

1

7

E+B 3

2

37

6

E+C

E+D

1

3

4

6

site response combinations

proof of open space A key step in determining how the program would overlay on any siting and massing strategy was to prove out how much open space could be leveraged given the zoning requirements, the overall program size, and ideal dimensional depth of bays.

The analysis on the facing page confirmed the proposed program would not fill the total floor area allowed by the zoning requirements, that a maximum open space area of approximately 40,000 GSF could be created if the massing was imagined as a tower, and that an open space area of approximately 12,000 GSF could be created if the massing was imagined as a four-story mass with idealized bays.

preliminary review

38

thesis site

site map with zoning restrictions

39,525 GSF available as public open space

17 stories +/= 895,900 GSF exceeds max floor area allowed

250’ max

17 stories +/- @ 13,175 GSF= 223,975 GSF max floor area allowed

allowed massing

100’ +/- max

7 stories +/= 368,900 GSF exceeds program area needed

program massing

60’ and 80’ bays ideal

program dimension overlay

60’ and 80’ bays ideal = 40,500 GSF x 7+/- stories = 283,500 GSF exceeds program area needed

7 stories +/@ 28,571 GSF = 200,000 GSF program target

24,128 GSF available as public open space 200,000 GSF program need / 40,500 GSF per floor = 5 stories needed

12,200 GSF available as public open space

maxi

mum

build

39

out

likely

build

out

proof of open space diagrams

individual space descriptions Another key step was to add detail to the program definition. Doing so established a clear path for the design. Failure to take this step risked making it difficult to find focus.

In other words, adding detail to the program definition let the program drive design decisions rather than the other way around.

The tables on the facing and following pages describe the major spaces in terms of users, purpose, number of users, an image narrative, the desire furnishings, and an image illustration.

preliminary review

40

Space

Commons

Purpose

Provides an ad-hoc and supplemental learning environment consistent with constructivist learning for student to student collaboration, peer tutoring, pin-up and peer critique

Users

All students

Advanced Students

All students, all faculty, guest professionals

Number of Users

Varies

1 Student each. Clusters of no greater than six students.

12-16

Image Narrative

FFE

Student Workstation Provides an environment to do individual and small group project work as well as computer-based research and study.

Contemporary whimsy.

Food friendly. Fosters social interaction. Comfortable. A cross between the living room and the kitchen.

Corporate contemporary.

L-shaped systems workstations with low privacy screens.

Soft seating, variety of cafĂŠ tables and chairs, variety of high top tables and bar stools, bean bags, upholstered stools, sinks, counter tops, and microwaves.

Vertical pin-up space. Mobile privacy screens with pinnable and writable surfaces.

Mobile contemporary office systems furniture designed to promote collaboration.

Significant horizontal layout space. Vertical pin-up space.

Mobile privacy screens with pinnable and writable surfaces.

Mobile personal storage.

Project Room Provides a primary instructional environment consistent with constructivist learning attuned to active learning pedagogy - a place to make things, to investigate, and to invent

Industrial contemporary. A space for making messes.

Concrete flooring. Open and adjustable shelving. Exposed mechanical equipment and duct work. Access to power, data and water.

High top butcher block tables and bar stools. Vertical pin-up surfaces. Interactive technology wall.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

41

Multi-purpose Seminar

Faculty Professional Space

Provides a primary instructional environment consistent with constructivist learning and attuned to discussion-based pedagogy

Provides a professional environment for faculty and staff to collaborate, prepare lesson materials and consult students in a confidential setting

Provides a professional environment for school administrators and staff to conduct the daily business of the school. Serves as the first point of contact for visitors and guests.

Users

All students, all faculty, guest professionals

All faculty and staff, invited students, invited others

Administrators, welcome staff, support staff

Number of Users

12 -16

4-5

10 - 12

Space

Purpose

Image Narrative

FFE

preliminary review

42

Dining room table atmosphere.

Lower ceiling heights and dimmer lighting. Carpets and potted plants.

Contemporary professional.

Private space for each faculty member. Planning and conference space. Should be largely indistinguishable from Business entity spaces.

Mobile contemporary office systems furniture designed to promote collaboration.

Large conference table for 12-14.

Significant horizontal layout Hospitality casework. Interactive space. Vertical pin-up space. technology wall.

Mobile privacy screens with pinnable and writable surfaces.

Mobile personal storage.

Administrative Suite

Contemporary professional.

Planning and conference space. Should be largely indistinguishable from Business entity spaces. Welcoming reception area with separate visitor and behavior waiting areas. Carpets and potted plants.

Mobile contemporary office systems furniture in semi-private and private offices. Welcoming contemporary reception counter.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

Specialty Lab

Space

Purpose

Provides access to technology, equipment, and instructional facilities that support in-depth study and project work in specific subject areas.

Studio

Kitchen & Servery

Provides a flexible primary instructional environment consistent with constructivist learning but attune to less active learning pedagogy - a place to debate, to present, to listen

Provides a place for the production and distribution of food.

Users

All students, all faculty, guest professionals

All students, all faculty, guest professionals

All students, all faculty, guest professionals

Number of Users

12-16

12-16

8-12 Kitchen Staff 10-12 Guests in the Servery

Image Narrative

FFE

Industrial high tech. Highly flexible with infrastructure for power, data, compressed air, natural gas, water, and chemical waste located in floor. Flexible ventilation. Aesthetically clean shell space.

Varies by specialty. Examples include light-manufacturing lab, medical testing lab, art lab, etc.

Contemporary cozy. Smaller scale with lower ceilings.

Contemporary industrial.

This is a commercial kitchen preparing food for students and business tenant employees.

Area includes a scramblestyle servery consistent with the contemporary whimsical aesthetic of the main commons area.

Mobile contemporary tables and eclectic contemporary chairs, stools, etc. Sinks and counter tops. Mobile storage furniture.

Technology wall, vertical pin-up surfaces.

Requires specialist. TBD. Scratch kitchen.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

43

Space

Purpose

Small Group Area Provides an area for small groups to work on projects/ assignments. Provides ad hoc environments for private study for those students without dedicated workstations.

Provides a space for the exhibition of student activity and student work

Semi-sheltered from the sun, wind, rain, snow and other environmental conditions, these spaces permit learning to extend beyond the building interior.

These spaces allow for both study of the environment and more traditional study in the outdoor environment.

All students, all faculty, and employees of business tenants

All students, all faculty, guest professionals, members of the general public

All students, all faculty, guest professionals, members of the general public

Number of Users

1-5

150

Varies

Contemporary clean. These areas are embedded in commons and small group areas.

Areas should encourage a pause to view student work. Access to power for flexible and varied lighting conditions.

Contemporary and cozy patio.

These areas should be visible to the public but inaccessible by the general public. Locations should favor pleasant distant views.

Periodic access to voice, video, data in floor boxes, ceiling plenums, and vertical surfaces.

Periodic access to voice, video, data in weather-tight floor boxes and vertical surfaces.

Image Narrative

44

Outdoor Learning Area

Users

Contemporary cozy. Smaller scale.

preliminary review

Student Gallery

FFE

Varies. Soft seating. CafĂŠ tables and bar stools. Wall-mounted horizontal surface. End tables and coffee tables.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

Space

Purpose

Tenant Administration Suite Provides administrative space for business that manages the building

Large Office Tenant Space

Restaurant Provides casual or fine dining experience at street level

Provides managed office space to business start-ups and sized for firms with more than ten employees

Users

Employees of the building management company

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Number of Users

5

30 Seated Guests 10 Employees

20

Image Narrative

Contemporary professional.

Private space for each member of management and open workstations for support staff.

Planning and conference space.

Warm and welcoming reception area visible from the street.

FFE

TBD. Easily accessible from the street level. Ability to spill out onto the sidewalk. Flexible boundary between inside and outside in weather permitting conditions.

TBD

TBD

Contemporary professional.

Private space for each member of management and open workstations for support staff.

Individual workstations available to smaller business entities.

Highly flexible for quick turn over and reconfiguration. Access to power and data in the floor.

TBD

45

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

Space

Purpose

Small Office Tenant Space Provides managed office space to business start-ups and sized for firms with less than ten employees

Provides leasable studio space to local artists for the production of fine or commercial art

Art Gallery Provides a venue for Fort Point Channel Artists to display artwork

Users

Employees of the business tenants

Professional and amateur artists

Members of the general public, professional artists

Number of Users

10

2

100

Contemporary professional.

Private space for each member of management and open workstations for support staff.

Individual workstations available to smaller business entities.

Highly flexible for quick turn over and reconfiguration. Access to power and data in the floor.

Contemporary industrial.

Exposed structure and duct work. Access to power, data and water with infrastructure for chemical waste. Large volume spaces with extensive vertical surface, exposed concrete floor, and diffused natural daylight.

Visible from the street.

Contemporary clean. Large volume space. Highly flexible for wide variety of 2-D and 3-D art display. Warm flooring surface and dark exposed structure ceiling. Access to power and data. Infrastructure for variable and flexible lighting conditions.

TBD

Industrial sinks and counter tops.

Mobile storage furniture.

Image Narrative

FFE

preliminary review

Artist Studio

46

Periodic access to voice, video, data in floor boxes, ceiling plenums, and vertical surfaces.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

Fitness Suite

Space

Purpose

Provide a venue for exercise and training. Provide a venue for the physical education component of the high school curriculum.

Multi-purpose Conference Room

Grocery Store Provide a venue for the sale of foods.

Provides ad hoc meeting spaces of various sizes.

Users

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Number of Users

Varies

TBD

Varies

Varies. Contemporary clean.

Highly flexible shell spaces.

Suite to include changing, showering, and guest services facilities. Common activities may include dance, yoga, spinning, martial arts, zumba, aerobics, fencing, weight-lifting, nautilus, etc.

Contemporary market. An art gallery for food. Visible and accessible from the street.

Flexible boundary between inside and outside in weatherpermitting conditions. Sidewalk farmer’s market.

Contemporary corporate.

Access to power, data and water.

Certain rooms may have access to large format video-conference infrastructure.

TBD

TBD

Image Narrative

FFE

Varies. Casework and granite counter tops. Single conference table. Conference chairs.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

47

Library

Performance Venue

Purpose

Provides an a knowledge resource to the community with a limited collection.

Provides a flexible performance venue for larger dramatic and musical and vocal performances.

Users

Members of the general public, students, faculty, staff and employees of business tenants

Members of the general public, students, faculty, professional and amateur performers

Students, faculty, professional and amateur performers

Number of Users

Table seating for 30 alternative seating for 30

Varies 150 typical 300 max

Varies

Contemporary cozy. Zoned into areas of quite and noisy. Food and drink friendly. Potted plants and considerable daylight.

Image Narrative

FFE

preliminary review

Performance Venue Support

Space

48

Loose low bookcases. Wallmounted shelving. CafĂŠ tables and chairs. High top tables and bar stools. Soft seating.

Contemporary circulation desk.

Provides flexible support facilities to the performance venue including set storage, set production, office space, changing facilities, etc.

Black box. Extensive lighting and sound infrastructure in ceiling.

Highly flexible for a wide range of performance and special events. Large volume space.

Flexibility to be visible from the street.

Industrial. Large volume space.

Well lit but no visual access from the street. Exposed ceiling and concrete flooring. Delivery access from the street.

Ceiling-mounted lighting rack.

Requires specialist. Loose risers and folding chairs.

Commercial sink(s) with resin counter tops and infrastructure for chemical waste.

Image Illustration

educational

business

civic

individual space descriptions

program adjacencies Conversations with the owner helped establish both the program details and appropriate adjacencies. The intent of the thesis was to co-locate spaces for educational, business and civic user groups and to articulate the boundaries between them. In order to do so, it was necessary to identify which individual spaces would shares a physical boundary.

The adjacency matrices on the following pages communicate the geographic relationship between individual spaces as either immediately adjacent, near, vertically adjacent, can not be adjacent, or no adjacency required.

49

Small Group Area

Student Gallery

Outdoor Learning Space

Tenant Administration Suite

Restaurant 1

Restaurant 2

Large Office Tenant Space

Small Office Tenant Space

Artist Studio Suite

Art Gallery

50

Kitchen

preliminary review

Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Kitchen Small Group Area Student Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Tenant Administration Suite Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Large Office Tenant Space Small Office Tenant Space Artist Studio Suite Art Gallery Fitness Suite Grocery Store Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Server Room School Front Door Business Tenant Front Door Street Level

Studio

Shares a boundary

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4

No Adjacency Required

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3

‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2

Cannot be Adjacent

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1

X

Administrative Suite

Vertical Adjacency

Faculty Shared Professional Space

↕

Multi‐purpose Seminar Room

Near

Project Room

↔

Student Workstation

Immediately Adjacent

Commons

→←

↔ ↔ ↔ →← ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ →← →←

→← →← ↔ ‐ →← →← ↔ ↔ →← X →← X ↔ X X X →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ X →← ↔ X ‐ ↔ X X X

→← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X →← ‐ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↕ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ X X X

↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ↔ ↕ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →← X →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

X →← ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ X ‐

↔ ↔ ‐ X ↔ ↔ X X ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →←

↔ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← →← ↔ ↕ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐

↔ X ‐ ‐ →← →← ↔ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ →← →← ‐ →← X →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ↔ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ↕ ↕ X X ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ X →← →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

→← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ↕ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →←

adjacency matrix

‐ ‐ ‐ X X X X ↕ ↕

Restaurant 2

Large Office Tenant Space

Small Office Tenant Space

Artist Studio Suite

Art Gallery

Fitness Suite

Grocery Store

Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms

Art, Architecture and Technology Library

Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose

Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support

Server Room

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

→← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ↕ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ X X X X ↕ ↕

‐ ‐ X X X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X →←

→← X ‐ ‐ →←

X ‐ ‐ →←

X ‐ X

School Front Door Outdoor Learning Space

↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ↕ →← ‐ ↕ ↔ →← X X →← X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ →← ‐ →← →← ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ →← X ↔ X X‐ X‐ →← →← X →← →← →← →←

Server Room Student Gallery

Small Group Area Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support

Kitchen Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose

X →← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ↔ X X X ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ↔ X →← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ X‐ →← ↔ ‐ X‐ XX ↔ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ XX ‐‐ ‐‐ →← ‐ →← →← →← ‐

Street Level Restaurant 1

‐ ↔ ↔ X X ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ →← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ XX X‐ XX X‐ ‐X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐X X‐ X‐ →← X XX

Studio Art, Architecture and Technology Library

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ‐ →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X X ‐X ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ↕ X‐ X‐ XX ‐‐ X‐ XX ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐X →← ‐ ‐‐ ‐X X‐ X‐ ↕ X →← ‐ →← ‐ ↕ X

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ X‐ ‐ ↔ ‐‐ XX ‐X ‐‐ ‐X ↕ X ‐‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Grocery Store

↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ‐ ↔ ‐ ↕‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ →← ↔ →← ‐ ‐X ‐X ‐‐ XX ↕ X X‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Fitness Suite

→← →← →← ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ →← ↔ →← ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ →← ↔ X X →← →← X ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ↔ X‐ ↔ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ X ↔ X X‐ ↕‐ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ X ↔ X X‐ X‐ X‐ X‐ →← X →← X

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Art Gallery

↔ ↔ ↔ →← ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ↕ ‐ ↕ X ‐ X ‐ ↔ X X‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ →← →← →← ‐ X‐ X ‐ →← →← →← →←

Business Tenant Front Door Tenant Administration Suite

Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio ↔ Kitchen X X Small Group Area ↔ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔Student Gallery ↔ ↔ ‐Outdoor Learning Space ↔ ↔ X X Tenant Administration Suite X X X ‐ Restaurant 1 ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ Restaurant 2 ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ Large Office Tenant Space X →← →← ‐ →← ↔ Small Office Tenant Space X →← →← ‐ Artist Studio Suite ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ →← X ↔ X ↕ Art Gallery X →← ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ Fitness Suite ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ Grocery Store ‐ ‐ ↔ Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ Art, Architecture and Technology Library ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ XPerformance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose ‐ ↔ ‐ →← ‐ X XPerformance Venue 1 ‐ Support ↔ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X X ↔ Server Room ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ School Front Door ‐ →← ↔ X X Business Tenant Front Door ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ →← ‐ →← Street Level →←

Project Room Restaurant 2

Shares a boundary

Outdoor Learning Space

Student Gallery

Small Group Area

Kitchen

No Adjacency Required Studio

‐

Cannot be Adjacent

Administrative Suite Artist Studio Suite

‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

X

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4

Vertical Adjacency

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3

↕

Faculty Shared Professional Space Small Office Tenant Space

‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

Near Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Large Office Tenant Space

‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X ‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1

Administrative Suite ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →← X →←

↔

Student Workstation Restaurant 1

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Immediately Adjacent

Commons Tenant Administration Suite

↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ↔ ↕ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X

Faculty Shared Professional Space

Multi‐purpose Seminar Room

Project Room

→← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X →← ‐ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↕ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ X X X

→←

adjacency matrix

51

concept development With urban site responses studied, detail added to the program definition, attention shifted to combining these studies into a series of conceptual alternatives. This portion of the process leveraged several methods of inquiry including hand sketches, digital illustration, and making of physical models.

The illustration to the on the facing page was one of the first sketches and represents the idea of expressing the form as three identifiable pieces connected by some common fabric. Rather than an actual translation of an idea into a floor plan, this illustration was more intuitive and inspirational. Interestingly, the final siting and floor plan arrangement bears some resemblance to and clearly has roots in this illustration.

preliminary review

52

53

intuitive & inspirational concept illustration

conceptual development (continued) Parti illustrations were developed to help describe how the program could be arranged vertically and still align with the spatial relationship objectives identified in the previous review. Each illustration represents a slightly different approach.

Ultimately, the digitized parti best aligned with developmental phases of students.

The underlying educational principle was, younger students are less mature and experienced, and therefore, should be less integrated with the other user groups. Their educational environments would be located higher in the facility. As students mature, they move down in the facility and are increasing integrated with the business and civic functions.

preliminary review

54

stacked program

weaved program

more separation

55

public path digitized program

more integration

programmatic parti diagrams

concept development (continued) Other sketches followed. Illustrations on this page communicate explorations of interior circulation patters, relationships of entry, and access to natural daylight.

preliminary review

56

unique circulation - single loaded

shared circulation - interwoven pattern

57

shared circulation - racetrack pattern

concept development (continued) Workflow for overlaying the program on siting strategies began in ernest with using the program bubbles and working out plan arrangements with manual tools. The illustration below represents a an example of this process.

preliminary review

For presentation purposes, illustrations were later digitized. Illustrations on the facing page communicate the second stage of the process.

58

conceptual program overlay sample - manual tools

59

educational

business

civic

conceptual program overlay sample - digital tools

pass-through concept The pass-through concept links the existing harbor walk with the new harbor street, a pedestrian boulevard lined with retail and dining establishments.

preliminary review

60 aerial perspective of massing

site section illustration

to harbor walk landscaping as separator from street

d

area of northern facing light: light-sensitive program student educational entry

r

p

a

r k

c a

i n

g

e

semi-private area: sidewalk dining

change of material to identify boundary of site - secured boundary after hours, both ends

s

h

v e h i c l e s

o

r

t

c

p

u

a

t

r a

l l e

a

l

no landscaping for unobstructed view to water

m c o m

e d e

business employee entry

services & deliveries

p

public/visitor business entry

s

t

r i

thick tree canopy to diffuse direct sunlight

e r c i a l

a

n

semi-private area: sidewalk dining

to harbor street: pedestrian only street

public educational entry

conceptual site plan

61

pass-through concept (continued) Plan bubble diagrams at this stage in the process were less about achieving every spatial relationship objective and more about a basic test fit of the program on the site utilizing specific siting strategies. The pass-through concept utilizes two bridges to connect the two halves of the mass.

Internally, the top four floors are composed of entirely educational spaces. The second floor contains the majority of the business spaces. Floor three contains the majority of the civic spaces. Several multi-story volumes link internal spaces vertically.

preliminary review

second floor

62

first floor

third floor

educational

business

civic

fourth floor

sixth floor

63

fifth floor

seventh floor

educational

business

civic

mixing concept The mixing concept prioritizes the Boston Wharf road view corridor to the water, but introduces a semi-enclosed courtyard to encourage pedestrians to linger in the public space rather than simply pass through it.

preliminary review

64 aerial perspective of massing

site section illustration

area of users mixing on site

to unobstructed views of the water area of northern facing light: light-sensitive program

n

d

g

o

r

landscaping as separator from street

r

i

i

public educational entry no landscaping for unobstructed view to water

e i

r

v

a

e p

change of material to identify boundary of site

c o m

d

m

e

s

t

public/visitor business entry

e r c i a l

r

i

a

n

v e h i c l e s

a

n

d

p

business employee entry

a

l

w

l

e

l

c

p

o

a

r

r

k

semi-private area: sidewalk dining

student educational entry semi-private area: sidewalk dining

services & deliveries thick tree canopy to diffuse direct sunlight

conceptual site plan

65

mixing concept (continued) As with the pass-through concept, plan bubble diagrams at this stage in the process were less about achieving every spatial relationship object and more about a basic test fit of the program on the site utilizing specific siting strategies. The mixing concept utilizes two bridges to connect the two halves of the mass. Internally, the only the top two floors are composed of entirely educational spaces. Floors one, two and three contain most of the business and civic spaces.

preliminary review

second floor

66

first floor

third floor

educational

business

civic

fourth floor

sixth floor

67

fifth floor

educational

business

civic

summary, findings & conclusions The preliminary review focused on articulating exploration of site response combinations, adding more detail to the program definition, and concluded with the development of two conceptual alternatives, one of which would be moved forward into schematic design. Critic feedback included the following:

critic questions & feedback

preliminary review

68

• Scale and proportions of the passthrough concept may feel unsafe to pedestrians, particularly at night.

• Don’t be too concerned about blocking the view from the sidewalk on the North side.

Urban environments always benefit from more trees.

• Plan diagrams are too small too read, but alright as they only serve to communicate where the three major program areas reside. Exercise of test-fitting allows designer to internalize the program at this stage.

• As design moves forward, consider study Parisian passages.

• Of the two alternatives, the mixing concept is a stronger urban response, has the potential to allow more daylight into the passage, and is generally more welcoming than the pass-through concept.

• In addition to the main urban response, feel free to set the stage for buildings to follow yours. Give them something to respond to.

Look for additional opportunities to connect the urban context through your site.

• For precedents, consider Phillip Johnson’s Penzoil building in Houston, TX, Rem Koolhaus’s Seattle Public Library, and Diller Scofidio’s Blur Building, and Will Bruder’s Library in Phoenix, AZ. In the weeks following this review, the decision was made to move the mixing concept forward into schematic design.

sc h emat ic review

69

sc h e matic review The objective of the schematic design review was to advance the conceptual design selected. Specific objectives included:

basic objectives • introduce a structural system and grid • explore basic principles of mechanical systems • resolve floor plans and major building sections • explore fenestration patterns and exterior building image taking a step back - parti diagram schematic review

70

Coming out of the preliminary review, it was necessary to take a small step back. Even with the thesis and program clearly defined and site strategy chosen, a parti had not yet been expressed. Similarly, I found myself working primarily in plan to this point. As a break and to think about the project from another angle, I gave some thought to the precedents suggested and developed some sketches of building imagery.

The illustrations on the facing page communicate the parti. This thesis brings three user groups together who are traditionally highly separated from one another. Rather than stratify their spaces on distinct and separate floors, the experiment is to mix them all together so that spaces can share a boundary and benefits can be reaped by all. The final step, and what the previous reviews helped articulate, was the idea to crack this experiment open, to put it on display, and reflect that in the architecture, itself.

typically separate user groups

together under one roof

71

cracked open

mixed up

parti diagram

building image exploration Images on this and the following pages communicate an investigation of the local building vernacular and a highly influential precedent in an effort to explore an overall image for the project.

schematic review

72

fort point channel - existing architectural vernacular

73

seaport district - existing architectural vernacular

schematic review

74

burton barr central library | phoenix, az - will bruder + partners

services & egress at perimeter

alcove as entry signal

75

public passage

architectural stair and vertical circulation adjacent top main entry

interior activities on display

burton barr central library | phoenix, az - will bruder + partners

building image exploration (con’t) Analysis of the local vernacular revealed that the project site lies on a threshold of sorts between the Fort Point Channel neighborhood with its heavy timber construction and largely masonry facades and the new, more contemporary Seaport District with its largely steel and glass.

Bruder’s Burton Barr Central Library possessed several features appropriate for this project and was highly influential.

The illustrations on the facing page communicate an attempt to bring all the understanding gleaned thus far together. As an image, the building wanted to be both contemporary and respectful of the Fort Point Channel neighborhood. It wanted to open itself up and invite pedestrians onto the site.

schematic review

76

Some of the explorations had real value.

Others were expressive of an idea, but never had any real traction. Each exploration, however, expressed an attraction to steel, wood, and glass. A combination of these materials had the potential to be warm and inviting, exhibit a contemporary personality, and still be respectful of the local surroundings. material inspiration

77

building image exploration sketches

plan resolution and structure The final image exploration sketch on this page represented a turning point in the development of the design. It expressed the semi-enclosed courtyard from the mixing concept as an integral part of the passage and introduced the idea of non-parallel facades facing the passage.

The four sketches on this page communicate the iterative stages of those ideas. The final, hard-line illustration in this sequence communicates the final schematic-level second floor plan from which everything else grew. Conceptually it expressed everything leading up to this point and added the element of breaking out from the box, an appropriate expression of what the thesis was attempting to do for these user groups.

schematic review

78

The illustration on the illustrations starting on the facing page represent the schematic level floor plans color-coded to the three program areas.

12 11.1

11

H

10

9

G

Z7

Restaurant

X 6

1864 SF Stair

F

243 SF

E

Men's

Circulation

142 SF

276 SF

4 3

TBD 65 SF Vest

D

5

417 SF Women's

Specialty Lab Public Lobby

1683 SF

1413 SF Art Gallery

74 SF

2

2962 SF

1 C

Vest Restaurant

74 SF

1328 SF

Artist Studio

8

2034 SF Adminstration Suite

Business Tenant Administration

B

2022 SF

772 SF Stair

7.1

416 SF

Parking Garage Entry

6.1

1317 SF

Vest

A

256 SF Stair Restaurant

R

443 SF

2064 SF

UP

Men's 404 SF

Q Commons

Kitchen & Servery

7635 SF

P

1431 SF

Grocery 4476 SF

Women's 402 SF

N

Trash & Recycle 690 SF

Stair 553 SF

M

Grocery Storage & Receiving 1547 SF

L

K

J

first floor

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

schematic floor plan illustration w/ structural grid

79

12 11

10

9

H

G

Studio

Z7

1100 SF

X 6 Stair 404 SF

F

5

Men's 398 SF

4 11.1

E

Buisness Tenant

TBD Conf.

208 SF Conf.

Prof. Off.

Studio

Conf.

Prof. Off.

1222 SF Conf.

196 SF

Circulation Kitchenette & Small Grop Area

8

9950 SF

392 SF

Prof. Off. 146 SF

Women's 399 SF

B

1

187 SF

80 SF Prof. Off. 80 SF

2

185 SF

91 SF

C

3

3912 SF

67 SF

D

91 SF

Seminar

Specialty Lab

95 SF

1842 SF

Prof. Off. 91 SF Prof. Off.

810 SF

7.1

Stair 403 SF

Conf.

Prof. Off.

Specialty Lab

91 SF

1674 SF

6.1 Student Workstation Area

A

Student Workstation Area

Studio

432 SF

866 SF

1100 SF

Stair 303

Business Tenant

R

428 SF

2023 SF

Men's 435 SF

Q Fitness

P

5852 SF

Student Workstation Area 433 SF

N

Women's 502 SF

Small Group Area 668 SF

Stair 544 SF

schematic review

80

M

Project Room 1553 SF

L

K

fourth floor

J

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

schematic floor plan illustration w/ structural grid

12 11

10

9

H

G

Studio

Z7

1083 SF

X 6

Stair 398 SF

F

5

Studio

Men's

1049 SF

398 SF

4 E

TBD 66 SF

Small Group Area

11.1

1264 SF

3

Circulation 10212 SF

D

Specialty Lab 1791 SF

2

TBD 86 SF

Prof. Off.

Prof. Off.

129 SF Prof. Off.

76 SF Prof. Off.

C

76 SF

Kitchenette & Small Grop Area

Library

383 SF

3385 SF

8

139 SF

Conf.

95 SF Prof. Off. 87 SF

399 SF

B

Prof. Off. 87 SF

Stair

Central Storage Prof. Off.

7.1

397 SF

1673 SF

196 SF

Prof. Off.

Women's

1

Specialty Lab Conf.

94 SF

2230 SF

87 SF

6.1

Student Workstation Area 432 SF

Student Workstation Area

A

866 SF

R

Stair

Outdoor Learning/ Area Roof Deck

434 SF

Studio

2144 SF

Men's

1098 SF

435 SF

Storage

Q

272 SF

P

Project Room 1492 SF

Student Workstation Area 433 SF

N Women's

Studio

502 SF

Small Group Area

1303 SF

665 SF

Stair 544 SF

M

Seminar

81

637 SF Project Room 1547 SF

L

K

thirdfloor fifth floor

J

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

building image exploration sketches

12 11

10

9

H

G

Z7 X 6 Stair 404 SF

5

F

4 Outdoor Learning/ Area Roof Deck

11.1

E

4475 SF

3

Project Room 1385 SF

D 2

C

516 SF

119 SF

Mechanical Penthouse

Outdoor Learning/ Area Roof Deck

Room

3677 SF

8

83 SF Room 92 SF

Open to Library Below

B

1

Seminar

Room

76 SF

Seminar 516 SF

2828 SF

Seminar

Room

501 SF

76 SF

7.1

Stair 397 SF

Room 196 SF Room

6.1

Student Workstation Area 432 SF

A

Student Workstation Area

Outdorr Learning Area/ Roof Deck Below

Stair

866 SF

Room

R

434 SF

425 SF Men's 459 SF

Q

Studio 1300 SF Small Group Area

Mechanical Penthouse

432 SF

2045 SF

P

Seminar 639 SF

N

Seminar Women's

647 SF

533 SF Stair

Outdoor Learning/ Area Roof Deck

544 SF

M

4478 SF

schematic review

82 L

K

sixth floor

J

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

schematic floor plan illustration w/ structural grid

12 11

10

9

H

G

Z7 X 6 5

F

4 E

11.1 3

Performance Venue Support

D

Roof

1152 SF

2 1

Performance Venue 3878 SF

C 8

Roof

Open to Library Below Performance Venue Support

B

2124 SF

7.1 6.1

A

Public Performance Lobby 8026 SF

Stair

R

422 SF

Men's 457 SF

Q

Public Roof Deck

Open to Mechanical Penthouse Below

2226 SF

P

N Women's 533 SF Stair 544 SF

M

83 L

K

third floor seventh floor

J

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

building image exploration sketches

12 11 H

10

9

G

Z7 X 6 5

F

4 E

11.1 3

Performance Venue Support

D

1221 SF

2 1

Open To Performance Venue Below

C 8

B

Open To Performance Venue Support Below

7.1 6.1

A

Roof Stair

R

426 SF

Storage 457 SF

Q Open To Mechanical Penthouse Below

P

N Stair 533 SF

Roof Storage

M

535 SF

schematic review

84

L

K

J

eighth floor

educational

business

civic

unprogrammed

schematic floor plan illustration w/ structural grid

12

11.1

11

10

5

4

3

2

L

+119’-0”

L

+102’-8”

L

+86’-4”

L

+70’-0”

L

+53’-8” +37’-4” +21’-0”

85

called 0’-0”

schematic building section

looking north

schematic review

86

looking south

schematic perspectives

public transportation approach

87

commons

schematic perspectives

12

11.1

11

10

5

4

3

2

south elevation LEVEL 9 127' - 0"

LEVEL 8 119' - 0"

LEVEL 7 102' - 8"

LEVEL 6 86' - 4"

LEVEL 5 70' - 0"

schematic review

LEVEL 4 53' - 8"

88

LEVEL 3 37' - 4"

LEVEL 2 21' - 0"

LEVEL 1 0' - 0"

east elevation

schematic elevations

---

AJ

K

B

L

C

M

D

E

N

F

P

Q

G

H R

LEVEL 9 127' - 0"

LEVEL 8 119' - 0"

LEVEL 7 102' - 8"

LEVEL 6 86' - 4"

LEVEL 5 70' - 0"

LEVEL 4 53' - 8"

LEVEL 3 37' - 4"

LEVEL 2 21' - 0"

LEVEL 1 0' - 0"

west plaza elevation R

---

Q

P

N

M

L

K

J

LEVEL 9 127' - 0"

LEVEL 8 119' - 0"

LEVEL 7 102' - 8"

LEVEL 6 86' - 4"

LEVEL 5 70' - 0"

LEVEL 4 53' - 8"

LEVEL 3 37' - 4"

LEVEL 2 21' - 0"

LEVEL 1 0' - 0"

east plaza elevation

schematic elevations

89

2

3

4

5

north elevation H R

10

11

11.1

12

---

G

Q

P

F

N

E

D

M

C

L

B

K

AJ

LEVEL 9 127' - 0"

LEVEL 8 119' - 0"

LEVEL 7 102' - 8"

LEVEL 6 86' - 4"

LEVEL 5 70' - 0"

schematic review

90

LEVEL 4 53' - 8"

LEVEL 3 37' - 4"

LEVEL 2 21' - 0"

LEVEL 1 0' - 0"

west elevation

schematic elevations

91

massing development in site model

summary, findings & conclusions The schematic review focused on translating conceptual design ideas into a legitimate building with a structural system and overall building image.

One of the major moves was the development of a parti diagram that suggested the building should not only respond to the urban view corridor down Boston Wharf Road, but also should open itself up gesturally to the neighborhood. Another major influence was William Bruder’s Burton Barr Central Library.

The shape and proportion of its entry lobby, placement of the central stair and services, and its use of glazing, and use of perforated materials to make interior program activities visible to the pedestrians on the street were incorporated into the project.

critic questions & feedback schematic review

92

• If a wood rain screen system is used for the exterior envelope, be sure to understand how that material interacts at punched opening conditions • Shear bracing expressed at the plaza feels heavier than it needs to be. Consider alternative material or consult structural engineer on removing from every other bay.

• Rather than expressing the curvilinear form at the plaza as a monolithic material, consider articulating the surface pattern based on the program beyond.

• As rendered, the schematic design is not as warm and inviting as your early image sketches. As the design develops, work hard to incorporate those earlier ideas into the materiality of the facades.

• Most significant work needed is at the main plaza. Something uncomfortable about not continuing the columns to the ground below the second floor overhang. Pedestrians will appreciate the ability to move in and out of a colonnade and might give you the opportunity to better zone the plaza into areas for specific activities.

• Take full advantage of roofed areas. Consider them and express them as elevated portions of the plaza.

• Safety of students is paramount.

How will you articulate entry?

d e s ig n d evelo p ment 1 review

93

d e sign d eve lo p me nt review Design development was subdivided into two parts. This first part focused on communicating the fully resolved plans, sections, and exterior elevations. Materiality for exterior building envelop was finalized.

Boundary qualities between interior spaces were developed.

basic objectives • fully resolve floor plans, sections and elevations • express materiality of exterior building envelope • develop boundary qualities between interior spaces

design development 1

94

site plan & massing Design development incorporated comments from the previous reviews including a revision of the plaza and the continuation of structural columns all the way to the ground. The project at this stage included a wood rain screen on three major elevations.

Trees softened the street edge and provided shade. Loading areas and curb cuts were expressed to allow delivery vehicles to load and unload without disruption to the traffic flow.

The site plan on the facing page communicates these new features while the subsequent pages communicate how the refined design relates to the surrounding context.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

2

UP

UP

UP

UP

1

UP

3 UP

95

4

0’

40’

80’

120’

site plan

design development 1

96

1

elevated contextual perspective

2

3

4

97

5

contextual imagery

resolving floor plans Significant effort was expended resolving floor plans to an acceptable level for design development. This meant carefully considering wall types, interior door placement, consideration of ADA egress and other code requirements, expressions of solid and void, locations of visual and acoustical transparency, identifying thresholds between open areas designed for different purposes, and considering where mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems would penetrate floor plates.

A method of inquiry used to produce this work included hand drawing on prints of the digital floor plans. The image on the facing page illustrates the thought process in determining which boundaries would be solid and which would permit a visual connection between adjacent spaces.

design development 1

98

The illustrations on the next several pages communicate the end result of this work.

Leading images represent each overall floor plan. The subsequent pages communicate the level of detail to which the plans were developed. Individual spaces are keyed to the space legend.

space legend 1 kitchen

21 business tenant

2 dining room

22 studio

3 public lobby

23 faculty/staff office

4 welcome/ reception

24 kitchenette

5

business management office

25 small group area

6 conference room

26 professional develop.

7 art gallery

27 fitness area

8 gallery storage

28 fitness check-in area

9 art studio

29 locker room

10 head master office

30 dance/multipurpose

11 executive assistant office

31 project room

12 storage

32 specialty lab

13 dean’s office

33 seminar room

14 counselor office

34 leasable workstations

15 welcome lobby

35 student workstations

16 student commons

36 performance lobby

17 servery

37 performance venue

18 kitchen

38 performance support

19 public market

39 library

20 parking access

40 mechanical penthouse

99

design development sketch

design development 1

100

design development sketch

41

42 RAMP DOWN RAMP UP 43

44

101 41 fire pump room 42 main boiler room #1 43 main electrical room #1

45

44 main boiler room #2 45 main electrical room #2

* parking levels 2 & 3 are similar

parking level 1*

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

1 2 UP

2

3

7

1

UP

8

2 6

5

6

11

5

9

12 13

4

UP

1

20

14

15

16

2

UP

UP

17

16

18

19

UP

12

102

educational

business

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

design development 1

civic

first floor

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

1

10 4

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

21

DN UP

22 6

DN

6

6

26 23

22

6

23

23

DN

6

32

6

23

9

UP

35

21

35

DN UP

UP

25 27

28 29

DN

30

roof 35 25

DN UP

103

12 31

educational

business

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

6

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

23 23 23 24

7

civic

second floor

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

22 DN UP

34

23 23 23

31

6 6

24

23

33

6 23

UP UP

22

23

23

25

21

32

6

32 35

35

DN UP

DN

28

27 29

30 35 25

104

12

educational

business

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

design development 1

UP UP

31

civic

third floor

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

6 6

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

22 DN UP

34 25

6 6

22

6 6

6 23

33

DN

23

UP

22

23

25

21

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

23 23 23 24

32

6

23

32 35

35

DN UP

21

35 25

22

DN UP

105

33 31

educational

business

civic

fourth floor

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

22 DN UP

22 25

33

23 23 23

6 23

39

23

DN UP

25

32

6

23

12 35

35

DN UP

31

22 12 33 35

106

25

22

DN UP

33 31

educational

business

civic

fifth floor PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

design development 1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

22 23 23 23 24

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN

41 31

DN

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

23 23 23 23

40

33 6

33

23

33 35

35

DN UP

41

31

35

40

22 22

107

DN UP

41

educational

business

civic

sixth floor PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

37

roof 38 36

DN UP

41

108

DN UP

educational

business

civic

seventh floor PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

design development 1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

38

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

roof

38

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

38 DN

roof

roof

DN

109

educational

business

civic

eighth floor PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

Women’s Room

DN

Mechanical Chase

UP

Stair 4

110

Plumbing Chase PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT enlarged floor plan, women’s room - not to scale

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

design development 1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT 12

11

10

9

26' - 0"

Stair 1 Conf

UP

Business Tenant

A

Conf

Small Group

26' - 0"

11

10' - 0" 10

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

12

DN

enlarged floor plan, 2nd floor southeast corner - not to scale

8

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

B

111

resolving elevations The parti diagram from the schematic review expressed the idea of cracking open the box to view the contents inside. An architectural expression in the materiality of the exterior reinforced this idea. A Prodema, wood rain screen serves as a datum - a horizontal band trying to keep the building contained. It is interrupted, however, at the plaza where the curvilinear form breaks out from this datum as a fissure in the overall mass.

The use of flat metal panels above and below the rain screen establishes the illusion that the box is made of this material and the rain screen is an applied band. Furthermore, the fenestration of the building is intended to communicate the program beyond. Folding glass panels blur the boundary between inter and exterior on the ground floor and communicate spaces open to the public.

design development 1

112

Punched openings communicate spaces that are only accessible to the public with permission. A center mullion in the punched openings distinguishes business spaces from educational spaces. Finally, the translucent wall panel was intended to create the illusion that one was looking at the interior of the box. As such, it needed to be a completely different material.

A

prodema - manufactured wood rain screen, light brown

B

kalwall - insulated translucent wall panel

D

centrial - flat metal panel

D.1

E

C

D.2

D.3

centrial - flat metal panel

113

nanawall - folding glass curtain wall

materials legend

D.2 D.3

A

D.2

C

E

C

A

C

D.3

north elevation

D.2

D.1

design development 1

D.2

114 B

C

B

A

C

D.2

south elevation

elevations

D.2

E

A

A

D.2 east elevation

D.3

D.1

115 A

D.3

E

A

D.3

E

E

C

D.1

A

C

east elevation

elevations

D.2

E

B

B

E

B

C

C

plaza east elevation

E

design development 1

116

B

E

C

B

B

C

plaza west elevation

elevations

resolving sections Much of the section resolution occurred at the schematic design phase. One significant change in the overall building section was the development of three levels of parking below grade. Although not new at the design development phase, the western atrium volume which serves to connect floors and activity visually, became a feature wall. Specifically, it was an effort to soften the texture of the interior by creating a green wall.

Two of the illustrations on the following pages are technical in nature and communicate floor to floor heights. The other two illustrations are intended to communicate the spatial volume, vertical relationships and visual connectedness between spaces.

117

longitudinal section through atrium

design development 1

118

longitudinal section through bridge

overall building sections

atrium/ botanical air-filtration

performance venue mechanical penthouse occupied roof

instructional spaces

art gallery

services

119 parking

sectional perspective

project room

library

business tenants instructional spaces sidewalk cafe

parking

design development 1

sidewalk cafe

120

sectional perspective

d e s ig n d evelo p ment 2 review

121

d e sign d eve lo p me nt review Part two of design development focused on communicating technical details of structural and mechanical systems as well as expressing the interior spaces.

basic objectives • communicate technical details of structure and mechanical systems • express the qualities of interior spaces

design development 2

122

Two exterior design changes also occurred in the second part of design development.

First, the translucent wall panel achieved its purposed on one level, but ultimately failed because users inside could not experience exterior views and because pedestrians could not experience activity within the building from the ground. Rather than install clear vision glass curtain walls, a product with perforated copper panels inserted between the panes of glass was selected. The material retained the jewel-like quality desired at the curved exterior. It also added some warmth and welcomeness to the building not provided by the translucent wall panels.

Finally, the perforations were selected to be large enough to allow a screened view in both directions across the system.

The second design change related to the plaza. An attempt was made to create variety and usability of the space. Ideas of places to congregate, participate in the street activity, to view passersby, and to give access to and shelter from sun were the result of studying analytical works conducted by William Whyte.

The rendering to the right expresses how differently the perforated copper curtain wall reads and how it allows a screened view into the interior from the plaza. A site plan on the following page communicates the revised plaza design. A depressed lawn surrounded with a low wall, steps and a reflecting pool sub-divide the plaza into distinct zones.

Also illustrated in that image are furnishings for restaurants and the student commons area.

schematic design perspective

123

design development 2 perspective

southeast elevated perspective

1

design development 2

3

124 2

educational

business

civic

revised plaza design

1

125

2

plaza perspectives

design development 2

126

3

student commons perspective

Stu d 120 io 6S F

Sta ir 403 SF

DN

UP

Cu sto dia l 107 SF

Me n's 379 SF Buis nes s 354 Tenan t 3S F

ME PC has e 141 SF

Co nf.

214 SF Co nf.

197 SF

Pro f. O ff.

135 SF

Pro f. O ff.

114 SF

Stu dio 996 SF

Co nf.

198 SF

Pro f. O ff.

115 SF K Sm itchen all Gro ette & pA 341 rea SF

Cir cula tion 105 83 SF

Wo me n's 377 SF

Co nf.

196 SF

Co nf 100 SF

Pro f. O ff.

130 SF

Sem in 623 ar SF

Pro f. O ff.

113 SF

Sta ir 403 SF UP

Spe cia lty Lab 171 6S F

Pro f. O ff.

91 SF

C Pre rtiqu sen e/ Are tation a 480 SF

UP

Stu d 117 io 3S F

Pro f. O ff.

92 SF

Spe cia lty Lab 154 7S F

Co nf.

95 SF

S Wo tuden rks t Are tation a 432 SF

S Wo tuden rks t Are tation a 866 SF

Bus ine ss 204 Tenan t 9S F

DN

4

UP

Sta ir 3 03 430 SF

DN

Me n's 364 SF

Fitn e 303 ss 1S F

He lp D esk 668 SF

Me ns C Ro hangin om g 750 SF

Da nce / Yo ga 483 SF

5 S Wo tuden rks t Are tation a 433 SF

Wo me n's 358 SF

Sm

all G Are roup a 670 SF

Sto rag e 200 SF

educational

business

UP

Sta ir 535 SF

Pro jec tR oom 164 0S F

civic

sample floor plan w/ partial furnishings

127

design development 2

128 4

individual student workstation perspective

5

129

atrium connector perspective

19

1 2

17 5

3

syste ms co ord in ation

system component legend

Buildings are complex assemblies of thousands of products, materials and equipment. Although my understanding of these systems continues to grow, I exerted a concentrated effort to accurately size and locate as many systems as time would allow. The image to the right illustrates a the assemblies in a portion of the project that includes the exterior wall, an occupied roof, 16 and two floor plates.

1. structural glazed guardrail 2. cant 3. vertical, textured, metal panel rain screen 4. 2x wood blocking 5. 3.5” rigid insulation 6. 1/2” densglass sheathing 7. 6” light gage metal framing 8. steel beam 9. steel column 10. K24 steel bar joist @ 3ft o.c.

11. 24” dia. return air duct 12. spray fire proofing 13. armstrong acoustical ceiling clouds 14. 5 1/4” steel decking 15. 6” lightweight concrete 16. 1/2” gypusm underlayment board 17. 60 mil epdm fully adhered membrane 18. extruded aluminum shoe 19. extruded aluminum handrail 20. cast-in-place concrete curb

15

20 5

14

18

4 6

12 8

design development 9 2

13

7

130

11

10

1. structural glazed guardrail 2. cant 3. vertical, textured, metal panel rain sc 4. 2x wood blocking 5. 3.5” rigid insulation 6. 1/2” densglass sheathing 7. 6” light gage metal framing 8. steel beam 9. steel column 10. K24 steel bar joist @ 3ft o.c.

11. 24” dia. return air duct 12. spray fire proofing 13. armstrong acoustical ceiling clouds 14. 5 1/4” steel decking 15. 6” lightweight concrete 16. 1/2” gypusm underlayment board 17. 60 mil epdm fully adhered membrane 18. extruded aluminum shoe 19. extruded aluminum handrail 20. cast-in-place concrete curb

19

1 2

17 5

3

16 15 20 5

4

14

18

6 12 8

13

7 9

11

131 10

construction assembly diagram

southeast perspective

design development 2

132

northeast perspective

design development model

133

atrium connector perspective

summary, findings & conclusions Design development reviews focused on grounding the project in reality. Final resolutions of plans, sections, and elevations occurred. In addition, interior spaces were more fully articulated including furnishings and interior materials.

The following questions and feedback serve both design development reviews.

critic questions & feedback

design development 2

134

• The intent of the plaza design is improved from the schematic review but presents several technical challenges - namely the ability to depress the slab a full 18� where a parking structure exists below. Consider reworking the plaza design for the final review. • It is clear that the building is a structural steel frame with shear bracing at the stair towers and along the curvilinear plaza facades. Although the illustration showing the building assembly is quite nice, consider including a roof to footing technical wall section showing all the building components for the final review.

fin al review

135

f i n al review The final review served as a wrap up to the entire thesis process and to fill-in any gaps in the design. In this case, it also offered the opportunity to revisit the terms of criticism.

I chose to critically examine the project from this point of view and make the case that the project was a success.

To remind the reader, the terms of criticism established eighteen months earlier included the following:

final review

136

terms of criticism Does the architecture: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

137

plaza perspective

con stru c tivism Does the project align with constructivist learning theory?

Constructivism is a learning theory that suggests knowledge is constructed by individual learners based on their unique experiences.

The architecture of the successful project supports this approach by providing rich and diverse spatial experiences as well as access to the experiences of the non-educational use groups.

campfire spaces Ad-hoc and informal spaces for small group work, informal presentations, and brainstorming. Light, mobile furniture.

final review

138

experimentation spaces Structured instructional environment with amenities and services aligned with scientific experimentation.

Durable furnishings with acid resistant work surfaces, access to water, lockable storage, and extensive ventilation. student home base L-shaped and dedicated individual student workstation. Secure personal storage, commercial office furnishings designed for focused individual work or peer to peer collaboration.

seminar spaces Structured instructional environments with egalitarian conference table setting. Tilt, swivel and upholstered conference room chairs. Corporate finish conference table. social spaces Unprogrammed areas along common paths of travel for individual or small group activities.

Cafe and lounge style furnishings. making spaces Structured and unstructured instructional areas suitable for hands-on and project-based learning. Durable work furnishings with extensive horizontal surface.

Extensive vertical surface, access to water and storage. watering holes Unprogrammed areas along common paths of travel focused around the availability of food and beverage. Access to sink and water, refrigeration, prepared foods, and / or vending. Diner-like furnishings.

• Seating for 14 • Projection capable • Carpet

• High-top, mobile seating • High traffic areas • Extensive access to power for personal computing devices • Exposed concrete floor

139

• Extensive horizontal and vertical surface • Mobile and durable high top tables and stools • Extensive and mobile casework • Industrial finished including exposed concrete floor

• Mobile cafe and lounge furnishings • Architectural ceiling and lighting • Hardwood flooring

3rd floor sample variety of learning environment - part 1

• High-top, mobile seating • High traffic areas • Extensive access to power for personal computing devices • Exposed concrete floor

final review

140

• Flexible, multi-purpose furnishings (dense foam blocks) for 25 • Partial screening from main path of travel • Extensive vertical surface with programmable artistic lighting • Exposed concrete flooring

• Perimeter fixed casework with access to water and compressed air • High-top tables and stools

• 10-12 LF of work surface per student • Acoustical and display privacy screens • Access to power and wired data • Mobile and lockable personal storage (doubles as guest seating) • Carpet

3rd floor sample variety of learning environment - part 2

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN UP

co- l ocat i on

level seven

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN UP

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

level six

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN UP

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

level five

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT DN

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN UP

DN UP

level four

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

It is the access to these non-educational user groups that has the greatest potential to enrich learning. To be successful, however, the project must carefully consider the spatial relationships between educational, civic, and business entities. Educational spaces must be interwoven with the business and civic entities rather than separated.

DN

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

Does the project co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT DN UP

UP UP

DN UP DN

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

level three

UP UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

141

DN UP

DN

DN UP

DN UP

UP

DN

more separation

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

level two

DN UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

level one

UP

UP

UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

more integration

UP

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

public path

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

UP

UP

co- l o catio n (co ntin u e d ) Co-location created a concern about safety and security. The measures depicted on these pages communicates the strategies employed to protect students.

pull-side door access

1 co n t r o l s y s t e m

passenger elevator to

2 garage levels only

access control passenger

3 elevator to upper levels 4 no exterior door

hardware - egress only

5 push/pull-side alarmed access control system

final review

142

bu sin ess ten an ts

1

3

art gallery 5

1

5

business tenants

servery 4

k i t ch e n ge ner al public stu de nts & fa cu lty

1

143

r ec e p t i o n

2

1 1 3

4

ground floor security features

e d u catio n al p ar tic ip atio n Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

The mixed use model suggests that benefits exist in both directions; students learn by being in the presence of professionals and professionals benefit from the ability to shape the skill sets of students.

The successful project establishes spatial relationships that locate structured learning environments near, if not immediately adjacent or internally connected to, professional and civic spaces with similar function and purpose.

final review

144

In addition to spatial relationships, the successful project considers time.

It responds to the questions of when will these interactions occur. A master schedule to the below imagines when each user group will occupy the building and where overlaps might occur. The time lines articulate both when and where common activities might occur and better expresses the design intent.

educational

Kitchen

Small Group Area

Student Gallery

Outdoor Learning Space

Tenant Administration Suite

Restaurant 1

Restaurant 2

Large Office Tenant Space

Small Office Tenant Space

Artist Studio Suite

Art Gallery

Fitness Suite

Grocery Store

Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms

Art, Architecture and Technology Library

Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Kitchen Small Group Area Student Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Tenant Administration Suite Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Large Office Tenant Space Small Office Tenant Space Artist Studio Suite Art Gallery Fitness Suite Grocery Store Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Server Room School Front Door Business Tenant Front Door Street Level

Studio

Shares a boundary

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4

No Adjacency Required

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3

‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2

Cannot be Adjacent

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1

X

Administrative Suite

Vertical Adjacency

Faculty Shared Professional Space

↕

Multi‐purpose Seminar Room

Near

Project Room

↔

Student Workstation

Immediately Adjacent

Commons

→←

↔ ↔ ↔ →← ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ →← →←

→← →← ↔ ‐ →← →← ↔ ↔ →← X →← X ↔ X X X →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ X →← ↔ X ‐ ↔ X X X

→← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X →← ‐ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↕ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ X X X

↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ↔ ↕ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →← X →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

X →← ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ X ‐

↔ ↔ ‐ X ↔ ↔ X X ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →←

↔ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← →← ↔ ↕ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐

↔ X ‐ ‐ →← →← ↔ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ →← →← ‐ →← X →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ↔ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ↕ ↕ X X ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ X →← →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

→← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ↕ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ X X X X ↕ ↕

‐ ‐ X X X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X →←

business

civic

adjacency matrix - part 1

145

→← X ‐ ‐ →←

educational

business

Street Level Restaurant 1

Restaurant 2

Large Office Tenant Space

Small Office Tenant Space

Artist Studio Suite

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →←

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ X ↕ ‐

→← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

civic

adjacency matrix -part 2

School Front Door Outdoor Learning Space

↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ↕ →← ‐ ↕ ↔ →← X X →← X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ →← ‐ →← →← ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ →← X ↔ X X‐ X‐ →← →← X →← →← →← →←

Server Room Student Gallery

Small Group Area Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support

X →← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ↔ X X X ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ↔ X →← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ X‐ →← ↔ ‐ X‐ XX ↔ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ XX ‐‐ ‐‐ →← ‐ →← →← →← ‐

Business Tenant Front Door Tenant Administration Suite

‐ ↔ ↔ X X ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ →← X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ XX X‐ XX X‐ ‐X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐X X‐ X‐ →← X XX

Kitchen Performance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ‐ →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X X ‐X ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ↕ X‐ X‐ XX ‐‐ X‐ XX ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐X →← ‐ ‐‐ ‐X X‐ X‐ ↕ X →← ‐ →← ‐ ↕ X

Studio Art, Architecture and Technology Library

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ X‐ ‐ ↔ ‐‐ XX ‐X ‐‐ ‐X ↕ X ‐‐

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms

↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ‐ ↔ ‐ ↕‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ →← ↔ →← ‐ ‐X ‐X ‐‐ XX ↕ X X‐

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Grocery Store

→← →← →← ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ →← ↔ →← ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ →← ↔ X X →← →← X ‐ ↔ ↔ X X X ↔ X‐ ↔ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ ‐‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ X ↔ X X‐ ↕‐ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ↔ X ↔ X X‐ X‐ X‐ X‐ →← X →← X

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Fitness Suite

↔ ↔ ↔ →← ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐ ↕ ‐ ↕ ‐X ‐X ↔ X X‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ →← →← →← ‐ X‐ ‐X →← →← →← →←

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Art Gallery

Shares a boundary

Administrative Suite Artist Studio Suite

Student Gallery

Small Group Area

No Adjacency Required Kitchen

‐

Project Room Restaurant 2

Outdoor Learning Space

‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

Cannot be Adjacent

Studio

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1

146

‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X

Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio ↔ Kitchen X X Small Group Area ↔ →← ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔Student Gallery ↔ ↔ ‐Outdoor Learning Space ↔ ↔ X X Tenant Administration Suite X X X ‐ Restaurant 1 ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ Restaurant 2 ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ Large Office Tenant Space X →← →← ‐ →← ↔ Small Office Tenant Space X →← →← ‐ Artist Studio Suite ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ →← X ↔ X ↕ Art Gallery X →← ‐ ↔ ‐ ↔ Fitness Suite ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ ‐ Grocery Store ‐ ‐ ↔ Multi‐purpose Conference Rooms ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ‐ Art, Architecture and Technology Library ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ XPerformance Venue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose ‐ ↔ ‐ →← ‐ X XPerformance Venue 1 ‐ Support ↔ ‐ →← ‐ ‐ X X ↔ Server Room ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ School Front Door ‐ →← ↔ X X Business Tenant Front Door ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ →← ‐ →← Street Level →←

X

Faculty Shared Professional Space Small Office Tenant Space

final review

‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ X →← ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X ‐

Vertical Adjacency

Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Large Office Tenant Space

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ →← X →←

↕

Student Workstation Restaurant 1

‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ‐ ↔ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ↔ X ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Administrative Suite

Faculty Shared Professional Space

Multi‐purpose Seminar Room ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ X ↕ ↕ →← →← ↔ ↕ ‐ ‐ →← →← ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X

Near Commons Tenant Administration Suite

→← ↔ ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ X →← ‐ ↔ X ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↕ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ ↔ X X X

↔

Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4

→← →← ↔ ‐ →← →← ↔ ↔ →← X →← X ↔ X X X →← →← ‐ ‐ ↔ X →← ↔ X ‐ ↔ X X X

Project Room

Student Workstation

Commons ↔ ↔ ↔ →← ‐ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ →← ‐ X ‐ →← →←

Immediately Adjacent

Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3

Commons Student Workstation Project Room urpose Seminar Room red Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Kitchen Small Group Area Student Gallery utdoor Learning Space nt Administration Suite Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 ge Office Tenant Space all Office Tenant Space Artist Studio Suite Art Gallery Fitness Suite Grocery Store ose Conference Rooms nd Technology Library enue 1 ‐ Multi‐purpose nce Venue 1 ‐ Support Server Room School Front Door ess Tenant Front Door Street Level

→←

school & business functions close receptionists & concierges off duty

school & business functions open

evening public events begin

receptionists & concierges on duty

public use of educational space begins

public access to restaurants and plazas available

school day ends

school day begins

official business day ends public guided tours end

business day begins

public guided tours begin

block 3A

lunch

library

library

sociology

commons

seminar

seminar

english

block 4A

block 4B

dinner

fourth block

pm social

10 PM

life science

restaurant

social time

internship

block 3B

third block

social time

fitness

commons

commons

breakfast

block 2B

second block

tutoring small group

faculty professional

block 2A

am social

outdoor learning

block 1B

first block

6 PM

workstation

block 1A

breakfast

3:30 PM

small group

student experience

12 NOON

specialty lab

10:30 AM

8 AM

small office tenant space

7 AM

dance

dining

business employee experience design review

desk work

147

workstation

conference room

desk work

commons

small office tenant space

commons

workstation

lunch meeting

workstation

student mentorship

restaurant

meeting

conference room

settle in

general public experience guided tours

guided tours

guided tours

performance

art gallery

guided tours

performance venue

guided tours

project room

guided tours

conceirge

relax on the grounds

conference room

restaurant

breakfast

va l u e & visib ility Does the project increase the value and visibility of learning?

Far too often, the learning that occurs is invisible to members of the business community and the general public. The successful project permits members of the public to witness first-hand and in real time at least some of the learning occurring. Care must be taken, however, to balance visibility with the safety of students.

final review

148

One key boundary strategy was to express a high degree of visual connectedness between spaces on the interior. Where acoustical separation was needed, visual transparency took the form of partial curtain walls. Where acoustical separation was not needed, low furnishings fixtures and equipment was used so that a standing person could see all the activity in a given space.

The upper image to the right illustrates the visual connection between the public plaza and the student culinary arts lab. The lower image illustrates the use of glazing strategies to visually connect instructional spaces with circulation and low furnishings to visually connect student workstation, watering holes, and other open spaces.

149

value & visibility perspective

b oun d arie s Does the project articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

The nature of the relationship between educational, business, and civic entities must be expressed in architecture of their shared boundaries. The successful project articulates the qualities of openness and connectedness consistently and according to a system.

final review

150

educational spaces and adjacent with similar function

all professional faculty offices

all conference rooms

• Storefront with clear vision glass

• Storefront with clear vision glass in at least two panels along corridor wall

• Storefront with clear vision glass on at least one corridor wall

site boundary

151

plaza-facing curtain wall

• flooring material change at site boundary • landscaping signals transition to site

• Storefront with clear vision glass on at least one corridor wall

second floor sample boundaries diagram

summary, findings & final conclusions

final review

152

Education and the facilities that serve them need to evolve. This thesis speculated that there are social and educational benefits to be gained from the co-location of educational, business and civic user groups within the same facility. In total, I believe the project to be a success as an initial testing of these ideas. As expressed in the design, it is possible to arrange educational, business, and civic functions in a manner that permits a high degree of interaction among these user groups - a characteristic that is currently absent from the typical education environment. Colocation moves education, business and the general public closer together. By being in the physical presence of one another, each user group has the opportunity to benefit from the other. Students appreciate when their education has value and can engage in real world activities more easily. Business leaders, particularly start-ups, are more easily able to shape the skills sets of their future work force. By expressing a high level of visual connectedness, members of the general public can witness first hand the successes of education.

The critical obstacle to overcome was related to safety and security. Planning and design strategies that included careful articulation of the entry sequence, spatial placement

of public functions, and deployment of technological products resolved these concerns.

Further exploration is needed industry-wide.

It will take educators and members of the business community who are willing to take risks and imagine something different. It will take designers willing to stretch themselves and apply critical and creative thinking to the problem. It will take a public with the imagination and will to support such efforts.

t h esis p ro posal

153

architectural boundaries and the mixed use model: the architecture of secondary learning in the 21st century student: home phone: work phone: email:

Jason G. Boone 317.412.3536 617.964.1700 boonej41175@gmail.com

advisor: Peter Martin work phone: 617.308.4440 email: petermartinarchitect@gmail.com thesis 1:

Summer 2012

table of contents

thesis proposal

154

part I - thesis proposal

one page summary

thesis statement

methods of inquiry

building systems integration statement

site statement

program statement

case study analysis

sketch problem

schedule of reviews & requirements

qualifications of review panel

annotated bibliography

part II - thesis program document

overview

site description & analysis

codes

cultural context

informational context

mission & goals

student: Jason G. Boone home phone: 317.412.3536 work phone: 617.964.1700 email: boonej41175@gmail.com advisor: Peter Martin work phone: 617.308.4440 email: petermartinarchitect@gmail.com Title Architectural Boundaries And The Mixed Use Model: The Architecture Of Secondary Learning In The 21st Century Thesis Abstract “Why do I need to know this?” It’s the classic question. High school students ask it because nearly all secondary structured learning in the United States occurs in a place and in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from the real world. My research suggests that policy-makers, superintendents, principals, faculty, parents, private citizens, the business community and especially students expect and desire an alternative model – one that addresses this disconnectedness.

The architectural proposal brings educational, civic, and business user groups together for the advantage of learning and architecturally articulates the physical boundaries between these user groups for maximum benefit. The proposal speculates that there is a learning benefit to be gained for students at the secondary level from co-locating these specific user groups in a single facility. In order to be successful, however, this mixed use model must carefully and intentionally articulate the boundaries between these groups.

155

Method of Inquiry Definition Of Terms Documentation • Photography • Drawings • Direct Observation Analysis • Hand And Digital Drawing • Physical And Digital Modelling • Personal Interviews Metaresearch Terms of Criticism Does the architecture: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

Building Typology & Approximate Size

thesis proposal

156

The proposal co-locates structured educational spaces for secondary students with civic and private business entities in a mixed use building typology of approximately 200,000 gross square feet.

Site & Location The proposed site exists on an unassigned and undeveloped parcel between Northern Avenue and Seaport Boulevard in the Seaport District of South Boston.

THESIS STATEMENT Claudia Wallis, the author of a 2006 Time Magazine article about 21st Century Schools, created a version of Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle tale to illustrate how far behind our American educational system is relative to other social and technological advances. In her version of the story, Rip Van Winkle awakes after a century of slumber to find himself in the early twenty-first century where everything from cars to cellular telephones to grocery stores dramatically differs from what he remembers. It is only when he stumbles into a school that he recognizes something as familiar1. Wallis focuses the attention of her article on education claiming that both the values on which America bases its educational system and the expected outcomes produced are outdated. She identifies four 21st century skills undervalued and/or missing. Although she did not explicitly associate her Rip Van Winkle tale with educational facilities, which is the focus of this proposal, there is ample evidence to suggest that they, too, have changed little over the last century.

As a response to this observation, this proposal makes an argument for an architectural intervention that both recognizes Wallis’s and others’ suggestions that the outcomes of the educational system must evolve and challenges many of the entrenched, but perhaps obsolete, truisms of educational delivery related to when and where learning occurs. This intervention, which I have named the mixed use model for secondary education, is one that defines a set of architectural considerations intended to position both secondary educational delivery and its educational facilities squarely in the twenty-first century by blurring the boundaries between educational facilities, civic resources, and private business entities.

Questioning the nature of where learning happens is not a new enterprise. Giancarlo De Carlo wrote an essay in the 1969 Harvard Educational review questioning why and how to build school buildings. The essay begins with an articulation of four critical questions challenging the need for and the validity of both the educational system of the time and the facilities that housed it. De Carlo’s four critical questions are as relevant today as they were then. They characterize how educators, policymakers, designers, planners and architects should think about education and educational facilities today.

1

Claudia Wallis, “How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century”, Time Magazine, 1.

157

• Is it really necessary for contemporary society that educational activity be organized in a stable and codified institution?

• Must educational activity take place in buildings designed especially for that purpose?

• Is there a direct and reciprocal relationship between educational activity and the quality of the buildings in which it goes on?

• Must the planning and construction of buildings for educational activity be entrusted to specialists?1 De Carlo’s response to the first question suggests that learning, real and meaningful learning, occurs elsewhere other than within an educational institution and is based on the acquisition of a broad and varied set of experiences. He claims that by its very nature, education that occurs within the confines of an educational institution, as he calls them, is designed intentionally to limit experience.

The position of mid-twentieth century architects and educators like DeCarlo are neither out of date nor unique in their perception of education, but few, if any, architectural solutions successfully respond. As recently as January 2012, a set of community stakeholders in a town just outside Boston communicated similar feelings in an educational visioning workshop. When asked “What will students be doing in 2020?”, small groups responded with:

thesis proposal

• • • • • • • • •

158

Facilitated internships Service learning [Taking advantage of] wide open spaces learning spaces Technological collaboration In-residence collaboration [with one another] Elimination of traditional school day - big opening at mid day Link extracurricular with academics Leverage technology tether Make kids teachers2

And similarly, when asked “How will the community be involved in the educational process in 2020?” small groups responded with: • Volunteer professional expertise provided by community • Hosts to interns • On-site immersion [in professional practice] 1 2

Giancarlo De Carlo, “Why/How to Build School Buildings”, Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and Education, Vol. 39 no. 4 (1969): 12.

Dr. Frank Locker, “Visioning Report”, Unpublished for Randolph Public Schools, January 2012, 3.

• Intentional relationship-building [between professional community and educational institution] - Not just dump kids in work place • Symbiotic relationships [with as many non-educational and post-secondary educational entities as possible] • Competency-based - developmental stages - multi-age at HS and beyond age eighteen3 The thesis of this proposal, then, suggests that architecture has a role to play in expressing these thoughts on the future of secondary educational delivery. But colocating educational environments, civic resources, and private business entities is in and of itself is only a first step. To elicit the most learning benefit, the architectural response requires the careful consideration of the most critical architectural moment, the boundary between them. The physical element defining the boundary between these elements must be as open and connected architecturally as possible.

In closing, educational delivery and educational facilities have changed very little over the last century while business practices, technological advances, and skill sets required for success have evolved significantly. By and large, education and educational facilities continue to be disconnected from the real world. Experts agree that it is imperative that educational facilities supporting students must evolve, too.

Architecture and the architectural disciplines have a role to play in this evolution.

The mixed use model responds to desires from students, educators, and business professionals by first positioning multiple use groups within the same facility and then by making those environments open and connected to one another to the mutual advantage of all. Students will have ready access to rich, meaningful and real learning experiences outside the classroom. Non-educational uses will have access to instructional spaces, a critical mass of customers, and the ability to play an active role in the education of future employees.

3

Locker, “Visioning Report”, 3.

159

METHODS OF INQUIRY

definition of terms documentation • photography • drawings • direct observation analysis • hand and digital drawing • physical and digital modelling • personal interviews metaresearch

The methods of inquiry identified in this section serve to uncover insight related to a wide area of interests and are meant to be deployed at a variety of scales and milestones in the design process. Establishing a glossary of definitions is the first method of inquiry. It is critical to create a common language to be used throughout the thesis in an effort to lesson confusion.

The next logical method of inquiry is documentation. This proposal identifies several means for documentation including photography, gathering of drawings, direct observation, and note taking/sketching. Precedents and existing conditions will be as the primary focus of documentation, but the need to document additional items may prove necessary as the design of the project proceeds. The intent of this line of inquiry, regardless of the subject matter, is to establish a record, a sample set, to be analyzed.

Analysis of information for commonalities, differences, and generalities is proposed as a third method. Analytical means will include hand and digital drawing, digital and physical modelling, and personal interviews. Drawings and models will serve as the best tools to uncover insight about spatial and tactile qualities, but the personal interviews will offer the best understanding of any experiential qualities present.

The objective for this line of inquiry is to draw conclusions that can be applied to the project when making design decisions.

thesis proposal

160

In parallel with these methods of inquiry, this proposal identifies metaresearch as a final line of inquiry. The metarearch proposed reviews the research of others not only related to architecture, but also to educational research pertaining to the impact and benefit of the built environment on learning. The goal of the metaresearch is to understand the process used by others for generating educational architecture and to establish a baseline understanding of what secondary educational delivery requires pedagogically, programmatically, and architecturally.

TERMS OF CRITICISM Success of any architectural theory, concept, or thesis must be evaluated against a set of criteria or terms of criticism. More often than not, the designer has little input and critics define their own terms of criticism. As the exploration of this thesis serves to advance a designer’s education, the narrative that follows defines the terms of criticism to be used by any potential critics. It is important to note that these terms of criticism are intended for the evaluation of the project, the application of the thesis to a specific program, and not strictly the thesis. A successful project must: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

Constructivism is a learning theory that suggests knowledge is constructed by individual learners based on their unique experiences. The architecture of the successful project supports this approach by providing rich and diverse set of spatial experiences as well as access to the experiences of the noneducational use groups.

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

It is the access to these non-educational user groups that has the greatest potential to enrich learning. To be successful, however, the project must carefully consider the spatial relationships between educational, civic, and business entities. Educational spaces must be interwoven with the business and civic entities rather than separated.

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

Far too often the learning that occurs is invisible to members of the business community and the general public. The successful project permits members of the public to witness first-hand and in real time at least some of the learning occurring. Care must be taken, however, to balance visibility with the safety of students.

openness diagram

161

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

The mixed use model suggests that benefits exist in both directions; students learn by being in the presence of professionals and professionals benefit from the ability to shape the skill sets of students. The successful project establishes spatial relationships that locate structured learning environments near, if not immediately adjacent or internally connected to, professional and civic spaces with similar function and purpose.

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

The nature of the relationship between educational, business, and civic entities must be expressed in architecture of their shared boundaries. The successful project articulates the qualities of openness and connectedness consistently and according to a system yet to be determined. A sample articulation system, for example, might dictate that the boundary between educational specialty labs and business specialty labs be visually connected, but closed.

connectedness diagram

thesis proposal

162

BUILDING SYSTEMS INTEGRATION STATEMENT The thesis specifically co-locates several different user groups together in a mixed use facility. This inherently creates challenges related to the major building systems.

To the greatest extent possible, however, the building systems must: • architecturally establish that the different user groups are united in a common mission, • express the building systems as a teaching tool and an integral part of the building aesthetic, • establish the appropriate level of separation and or/duplication of systems for each user group.

In addition to these goals, this proposals adopts an integrated delivery approach.

Solutions for structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems will evolve simultaneously and inform one another. In fact, several of the intended building systems, especially those inherently linked to energy conservation such as passivhaus standards for the building envelope and rain water collection require this approach.

Other important issues and constraints affecting building technologies include zoning, codes, accessibility requirements. The project will be subject to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) requirements that are in addition to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project will also be subject to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation 781 (CMR 781) which adopts the 2009 International Building Code (IBC 2009).

fire separation and MEP/FP diagrams

163

rain water collection diagram

SITE STATEMENT The mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that: • • • • •

state context

Is able to host a wide range of use groups Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still needs core elements Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped environments Currently un- or under-developed

These characteristics acknowledge that this one project has an opportunity to contribute to its surrounding context in a meaningful way and that it’s contribution has limits. Looking for sites with a richness of land use only adds opportunity to the learning environment.

The selected site, see in yellow to the right, is located on a currently undeveloped parcel in an area of Boston named the Innovation District. This area is more commonly referred to as the Seaport District and contains the old Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Institute for Contemporary Art, the Seaport World Trade Center, and the Boston Convention Center.

city context

The site plan to the right communicates a long term master plan for the area.

Dark grey areas represent existing buildings. Light grey areas indicate proposed buildings. The proposed sight for this project lies at the heart of this new development. Maps, illustrations, and diagrams on the subsequent pages identify each proposed parcel in the master plan, communicate expected uses, and give a sense of the vision for the neighborhood.

neighborhood context

thesis proposal

164

It should be noted that the master plan identifies the proposed site as planned open space and that this project intends to honor that plan by providing for outdoor community space on the ground floor. More poetically, however, there is every intent for this project to represent a moment of relief in the relentless grid from the planned building heights adjacent to this parcel. In many ways, the expectation is to maintain the spirit of the master plan while contributing something new and valuable to the neighborhood.

No

rth

ern

Av e

nu

e

Se

ap

Bo

ule

va

rd

re

Su

et

mm

er

Str

ee

t

Ro ice

St

Ea st Se rv

ss

ad

arf re

Wh

ng

Bo sto n

Co

Ro

ad

ort

165

St. S p rtt Seaport Square Green

N. Harbor a ar

Fan

St. per Old Sleeper

Figure 1-1

Bridge

Boulevard

Project Site

Bridge

Seaport Hill

‘B’

Service

L5 Corner Square Square

St.

P Plaza

‘A’ St.

Congress

on ground level below Summer St. mer S t.

N

Summer St.

thesis proposal

or Seaport World er Trade Center

St. Boston

Wharf Rd.

illi s SStilling

St St.

St.

‘M’ Wa y

East

Active Open Space

Boston Tea Party Museum

Congress

Autumn Lane

ns ension e E en St Exte St. illi tillings SStillings

Fort Point Poi Channel n el Distr District ct

Children’s e Museum M eum

St.

orr bo bor rb rbo arbo aarb Harbor H Ha Har

S Thomson St.

Sleeper

St rth St. FFarnsworth

SSt.

Children’s C Wharf Park W

Rd.

ay W Waay Way

Seaport

Harbor

Evelyn Moakley

St. Extension

Avenue

Courthouse Co C o ou u urt rtth rth tho ho h hou o ous ou u use us se se Square qua qu q u uar ua are re e

Pier Pi

Northern

ge dge dg id rriid Brid B ue Bridg ue nu A enue n Aven hern hern he ther the ortth No N d Nort Old

d P Pierr Boulevard

Moakley M Federal Court House

166 Project Area Project Site

WS DEVELOPMENT

23 Acres Seaport Square 7,280 SF Parcel E open space

development parcel map5

5

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-10.

prepared by:

nt erfro Wat Boston Inner Harbor

ICA

Promenade

Pier Street

Fan Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Court House Way

way Kennedy Green

Cove Street

e

Northern Avenue Bridg

Existing & Proposed Land Use of Surroundings

Bridge

Seaport Boulevard

Congress

Seaport Lane

World Trade Center Avenu

B Street

East Service Road

Harbor Street

Congress St

BCEC Expansion

D Street

Congress Street Bridge

Boston Wharf Road

Stillings Street

Thompson Street

Children’s Museum

Autumn Lane Farnsworth Street

Boston Tea Party Ship and Museum

Sleeper Street

e

Ros e

F

Evelyn Moakley

Figure 1-45 Figure 1-21

Northern Avenue

Street Vent Building

Road n Bypass

Boston Convention and Exhibition Center

South Bosto

West Service Road

PREDOMINANT USES:

Summer Street

A Street

Fort Point Channel

Summer Street Bridge

Green / Open Space Residential / Mixed Use Retail / Entertainment Commercial / Mixed Use Education / Institution / Cultural Hospitality

167

Parking ar Project Area Parcel E 0

100'

200'

400'

N

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

land use diagram6

6

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-48.

In addition, there is an expectation is to leverage the information from the land use diagram and from the master plan documents as drivers for the locations of specific program elements within the project. This information will also inform material selections, solar orientation, and massing.

The existing vernacular in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, for example, is largely three to five story rectilinear commercial buildings made of red brick. This area was the creation of the Boston Wharf Company begun in the late nineteenth century for the storage of goods arriving to Boston by ship. The portion of the Seaport District now called Fan Pier was developed much later and is currently under development with mixed use residential and retail buildings between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute for Contemporary Art.

1

The images to the left, below and on page sixteen provide some sense of the existing scale and materiality located around the proposed site. The images communicate a uniformity of material and scale in the Fort Point neighborhood that is not reflected in the newest development near One Marina Park Drive. A critical decision moving forward will be whether or not to be sensitive to this local vernacular, to be responsive to the new development, or to attempt to mitigate the transition as the site is a boundary itself.

2

thesis proposal

168 3

5

6

4

7

8

3

12 10 4 7 8

2

13

11

9 5

6

169

1

11

thesis proposal

12

9

13

10

170

171

PROGRAM STATEMENT A program serving several user groups is necessary to sufficiently test the thesis in this proposal. As the desire to study boundaries grew out of a passion for learning environments and as the project possesses the potential to establish a new model for secondary education learning environments, a logic exists to compile a program with an educational focus. The proposed program serves five user groups: • • • • •

An educational use group Several business use groups Several assembly use groups A residential use group A mercantile use group

There is a recognition that not every use group belongs in or can be accommodated in a single building. The argument for bringing five use groups together in a single program is to provide enough critical mass to benefit students and to demonstrate the validity of the thesis.

thesis proposal

172

The portion of the program identified in the educational use group serves a public charter high school for four hundred and eighty students and a full time faculty/ administration of forty. This portion of the program will anchor the project and expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage. Specific spaces in this portion of the program are those related to structured learning, spaces dedicated for student use. Other spaces, which may or may not belong in this portion of the program, include non-structured learning spaces, spaces for ad-hoc student use, but that may also be used for business or civic entities when not in use by students.

The portion of the program identified in the business use group serves two small scale retail tenants, a twenty person architectural practice, a social media start-up corporation, an artist’s studio, a for-profit fitness business, and a specialized but public library. No single program element is the business use group expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage and the group as a whole will occupy approximately 25% of the total programmed area.

Spatial elements identified in the assembly use group include one large scale performance venue and one small scale performance venue with capacities of

five hundred and one hundred fifty persons respectively. In addition, the program expects to contain additional assembly areas related to the consumption of food yet to be determined. Although the this use group contains several individual spaces with large volumes and floor areas, their collective contribution expects to be less than 25% the overall programmed area.

The residential units in the program are intended to serve as the most private and separated spaces. They are intended to test the thesis at one extreme. The proposed program contains only ten units - eight two bedroom units and two three bedroom units. Ten units is not enough critical mass to sustain the non-educational use groups alone, but a small residential component gives a mixed use building life, particularly after hours and offers additional opportunities for synergy with members of the general public.

The mercantile use group tests the thesis on the opposite extreme. It represents a program element that expects to be very open. The mercantile group will likely represent a grocery store, farmer’s market, and/or dining establishment. Similar to the residential component, a program element focused around food gives a mixed use facility a life it may not have otherwise.

Each use group identified in the program represents users with an interest in learning. The business groups, assembly groups and mercantile groups all have an interest in well educated young people to serve as members of current as well as the future labor pool. The immediate proximity offers them opportunities to recruit, cultivate, and market their industries to talented young people. Students have the advantage of witnessing first hand where and how content is relevant. Although it is impossible to assemble a set of use groups to satisfy all the interests of students, this program represents a vast improvement over the existing paradigms. The sites proximity to more opportunities only adds to the likelihood of this ability to witness something of interest first hand.

The table and illustration on the following pages communicate the expected major space allocations and spatial relationships. The intent of the diagram is to express that use groups will not be separated geographically in the building but rather interwoven with one another. Business and civic “anchors� such as the library and grocery will likely be located in response to existing site conditions such as neighboring uses, pedestrian traffic, and site lines. Determining the location of these anchors will drive spatial relationship decisions for the remainder of the program.

173

thesis proposal

174

conceptual spatial relationship diagram floor plan

conceptual spatial relationship diagram building section

Total Student Enrollment

Space Name Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Retail Suite ‐ 1 Retail Suite ‐ 2 Architectural Firm Suite Business Start‐up Suite Artist Studio Suite Fitness Suite Grocery Store Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Performance Venue 2 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 2 ‐ Support 2 BR Residential Unit 3 BR Residential Unit SUBTOTAL Net to Gross Multiplier Conceptual GSF Target for Project

480 User Catagory Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Unassigned Unassigned Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Civic Civic Civic Civic Civic Residential Residential

IBC Use Group E E E E E E E E E E E N/A B B B B B B M B A B A B R R

Quantity 2 240 6 12 24 1 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2

Size NSF Each 2,500 64 1,200 600 100 1,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,600 (in gross)

Total NSF 5,000 15,360 7,200 7,200 2,400 1,000 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 19,200

800 2,000 8,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 1,000 1,500

800 2,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 8,000 3,000 131,860

1.50

197,790 200,000

175

This strategy of interweaving use groups for the benefit of learning creates challenges for use separation as required by the building code. Business uses and residential uses, for example, must be separated by a 1-hr fire rated assembly.

Similarly, four hundred and eight students have the potential to produce a fair amount of noise. Acoustical separation will be critical for the success of the project. These two requirements for separation are not necessarily in conflict with a thesis related to open and connected boundaries, but creative solutions will be necessary.

ARCHITECTURAL CASE STUDIES The thesis in this proposal states that boundaries, those architectural elements that physically separate and define spatial relationships, play a role in the effectiveness of secondary education learning environments. Research reviewed for this proposal and personal experience reveal that most secondary educational environments are highly disconnected and closed from one another and the outside world - a disconnectedness that prohibits learners ability to witness and participate in those places where their learning has the most value.

Four case studies presented on the following pages test this understanding by expressing boundary conditions in terms of a boundary quality matrix developed for this proposal. The matrix, seen to the right, defines the range of possibilities for nine qualities.

thesis proposal

176

Three of the four case studies analyze every boundary in plan relative to openness and connectedness. One case study evaluates single boundaries relative to the entire matrix. Each analysis reveals something unique, but both techniques are intended to better understand the impact on the experience of the student made by the architectural decisions.

BOUNDARY QUALITY MATRIX

177

Insight Gained from Analysis CR CR

All of the examples analyzed were strictly educational facilities. No portion of their facilities were open to the general public.

CR

Strawberry Vale Elementary School Strawberry Vale Elementary School exists as an Environmental Magnet School which means its entire curriculum is delivered with a focus on environmental science. Reading, math, science and all other subjects leverage examples from the environment. As such, we’d expect the connectedness analysis to reveal intentionally connecting the indoors and outdoors. And, in fact, that is exactly what the analysis reveals. Vision panels and glazing are placed in such a manner to visually connect the classrooms with the natural landscape outside. The analysis also reveals, however, that individual classrooms are highly disconnected from one another implying that teachers teach in isolation and students in one classroom have little or no opportunities to interact with students in other classrooms. Although this is an elementary school, as a case study it demonstrates the validity of the analysis tool. It demonstrates that the mission and focus of the school can be read in the architectural expression of openness and connectedness.

CR

strawberry vale elementary school connectedness diagram - visual connection to the exterior only

ART

ENG

ENG

ENG

ENG

putnam high school openness diagram limited openness to corridor, no openness to adjacent classrooms

thesis proposal

178

Putnam High School Putnam High School is the classic comprehensive high school. The school is organized departmentally y content area. There are general classrooms for English, Mathematics, Social Studies, specialty classrooms for Science, Art, Music and Technology Education. Such an organizational pattern requires students to travel from classroom to classroom on a regular schedule. We might expect to see repeated learning spaces as self-contained as possible with as few openings to the corridor as possible. The openness analysis for Putnam High School reveals exactly that. Standardized classroom spaces have highly selective openings from anonymous corridors. The building itself has highly selective openings to the outside world for control purposes. As a case study, Putnam High School represents the anti-precedent, the model upon which the thesis in this proposal intends to improve.

High Tech High School International High Tech High School International, the first of the High Tech High franchise houses strictly educational facilities, but represents a shift in thinking about the visibility of learning. First and unlike Putnam High School, learning spaces are not confirmed 1to regularized classrooms - although there are some. High Tech High International

leverages the circulation spaces as freely open learning environments. District leadership believes there to be value in students seeing other students learning. As such, we’d expect the analysis to reveal more visual and acoustical connectedness throughout the facility. Although only the analysis of the second floor has been shared, the analysis does, in fact reveal a much greater level of connection internally. Controllable visual connections between classrooms and teacher work rooms allow students to see how teachers work.

Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School adopts the traditional vocational school model where real world professions are simulated in the classroom. The 300,000 SF facility not only houses the core academic subjects, but also houses Construction Trades, Electricity, Automotive Technology, Cosmetology, Commercial Art, and a number of other trades. Although this precedent occupies a position slightly closer to the thesis within this proposal, the exterior boundary conditions do little or nothing to connect this learning to the real world. Even the boundaries of the simulated real-world environments severely restrict access to these spaces by the general public.

Leveraging the Method The intent is to leverage this method of analysis to determine whether or not the project creates architectural boundaries that open learning spaces to and connect them with the real world. The illustration to the right depicts a concept-level understanding of a portion of the proposed program using this graphic language.

teachers

CR

CR

CR STUDIO (circulation) CR

CR

CR

high tech high school connectedness diagram - extensive visual connections to interior

179

concept-level partial plan openness diagram

1

SKETCH PROBLEM Students were challenged to design and illustrate with analytical drawings, sketches, and models the exploratory ideas within each thesis project resulting in a final manifestation of using three walls and three openings. Designs were to state something about the thesis investigation, possibly its site location, intended building programme and/or design philosophy.

Wall Noun. A physical impediment that defines the edge(s) between two or more volumes.

Opening An absence of material within a wall that interrupts the continuity of the wall.

Implied Wall An arrangement of physical elements such that an identifiable but implied plane is created.

Implied Opening An absence of material at the terminus of a wall such that a gap exists in a place where the wall would otherwise intersect another wall.

thesis proposal

180

Definitions and representations of walls and openings are particularly relevant to a thesis about boundaries. From these initial definitions, five basic architectural constructs for walls and openings were developed and explored in a variety of combinations. The end result was an architectural pattern language for expressing openness and connectedness between spaces.

181

wall

three intersecting walls, no openings

three intersecting walls, three nonintersecting openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting rectilinear openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting non-rectilinear openings

implied wall

opening

thesis proposal

182 implied opening at corner

implied opening basic architectural constructs

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings - variation

boundary model as diagrammed

Outcomes and Findings Educational facilities, even those that possess a greater level of openness and connectedness, rarely deploy architectural strategies with a high degree of variety and interest. By leveraging the simple constructs developed over the course of this sketch problem, several opportunities exist to fulfill the intent of the thesis and to create architectural interest.

boundary model reoriented

183

boundary model reoriented

thesis proposal

184

SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS The dates proposed in the ghant chart to the left and the narrative schedule to the right represent personal expectations and are subject to change based on recent alterations to the thesis structure. The proposed dates for the five required reviews and the subsequent submission of the thesis document are by and large separated by six week intervals. If at all possible, the intent is to leverage the summer weeks to prepare for the introductory review and the Christmas vacation to prepare for the design development review.

At present, my understanding is that a schedule of requirements will be made available shortly that communicates thesis faculty expectations for student work at each review milestone. Although there is some documentation available, this proposal intentionally omitted these requirements as they are likely to change with the alterations to the thesis structure. What is articulated below is an expectation for where in the schedule the proposed terms of criticism will likely be the most relevant.

2012 Schedule of Reviews 28 AUG

Introductory

09 OCT

Preliminary

20 NOV

Schematic

2013 Schedule of Reviews 15 JAN

Design Development

26 FEB

Final Presentation

26 MAR

Document

Terms of Criticism 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

28 August 2012 - Introductory Review There is a sense that each of the five terms of criticism will be discussed in general terms. More attention is expected to be paid to constructivist learning theory and the concept of articulating boundaries for the benefit of learning. This attention is likely to take the form of an informational presentation to make faculty members, panel members, and guests familiar with these fundamental premises.

185

09 October 2012 - Preliminary Review Again, the expectation is to review the terms of criticism generally, but the focus of the conversation will rest on conceptual development. As such, the expectation for the terms of criticism is to elaborate on the co-location of program elements and the impact on the value and visibility of learning from a site and spatial relationship perspective.

20 November 2012 - Schematic Design The schematic design review represents a shift in focus from concept-level thinking to systems-level thinking. At this stage, there is an expectation to understand all major building systems and an architectural expression as an integrated design.

All five terms of criticism will likely be revisited, but attention expects to be on the physical articulations of boundaries between program elements of different user groups.

15 January 2013 - Design Development The design development review represents the documentation component of the process. Intense focus will be placed on the technical solutions for specific building components including wall and floor assemblies, MEP/FP coordination, and materials selections among others. If successful, all five terms of criticism will be satisfied.

26 February 2013 - Final Presentation

thesis proposal

186

The final presentation is the opportunity to communicate the project and the underlying process in its entirety. Selected illustrations, models, and documentation will attempt to convey the thesis and the five terms of criticism to the greatest extent possible.

26 March 2013 - Submission of Thesis Document No panel convened. The thesis document will serve as the permanent record of the process undertaken and the work produced.

QUALIFICATIONS OF REVIEW PANEL What follows are the professional qualifications of those selected for the review panel. It should be noted that MEP/FP engineering consultants are not present and further exploration is necessary over the summer to fill these critical roles. It should also be noted that not every panel member has submitted their curriculum vitae and that every effort will be made to collect these prior to the preliminary review. The panel members include: student: advisor: client: specialist: structural: MEP/FP: critic: critic: critic: critic: critic:

Jason G. Boone Peter Martin - Principal, Area4Design Heidi Black - Former Director of Capital Projects* D. Paul Moore, AIA - Associate, DRA* Michael Malenfant, PE - AECOM* Vacant Paul S. Brown, AIA, LEED AP - Principal, Sole Proprietor Essa Ahmed, LEED AP. - Designer, Prellwitz Chilinski Catherine Miller, M.Arch - Designer, DRA Amy Wheeler - Upper School Director, Beaver Country Day* Melissa Demers, M.Arch - Designer, Insight Architecture*

* Curriculum vitae still required.

187

thesis proposal

188

189

!

" " " " " " "

" "#

# ! $ " !

Peter  Martin Principal Â

Education       Active  Registrations

School of Architecture, Leicester, UK ---Diploma of Architecture, 1975 Oxford Polytechnic, UK--- Master of Urban Design, 1978 Lay Dharma Leadership Certificate, University of the West, Los Angeles, CA, 2010 NCARB/Architecture, 1986, Massachusetts Architect License, 1986 Massachusetts Construction Supervisor License, 2007

Partial List of Projects

thesis proposal

190

Peter Martin Architect/area4design---2009—Present ¼ Llewellyn House, St. George Island, FL ¼ Daily Catch Restaurant, Boston, Massachusetts ¼ Architectural Services, Fertility Solutions Clinic, Dedham, MA ¼ Graphic Design Services for Fertility Solutions, Dedham, MA ¼ Construction Observation, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ¼ Tallahassee History Fence, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, Florida ¼ Construction Administration, Palmer Senior Center, Palmer, MA ¼ Rui Martins Residence, Cambridge, MA ¼ Design Build, Holloway Residence, Bolton, MA Carr Lynch Sandell, Inc., Principal, 2001 – 2009 ¼ Project Urban Designer/Manager for Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ¼ Project Urban Designer/Architect for development at Eastbourne Lodge, Newport, RI ¼ Project Architect for development at Marina Bay, Quincy, MA ¼ Project Urban Designer for design guidelines, Cohasset, MA ¼ Project Manager, North Point Park, Cambridge, MA ¼ Project Architect, Bush Terminal Park Master Plan and park buildings, Brooklyn, NY ¼ Project Architect, Mixed-Use Development - Office/Housing, Raleigh, North Carolina; ¼ Project Urban Designer/Manager, Sonesta Beach Resort Master Plan, Southampton, Bermuda

¥

Project Architect/Manager, South Road Housing Development, Sonesta Beach Resort, Southampton, BermudaProject Architect/Manager, Boat Bay Housing Development, Sonesta Beach Resort, Southampton, Bermuda.

Carr, Lynch and Sandell, Inc., Senior Associate, 1999 – 2001 ¥ Project Architect/Designer, Lookout Farm Master Plan Museum and Exhibition, Natick, MA ¥ Project Urban Designer, Glen Cove Water Front, Glen Cove, NY ¥ Project Architect/Manager, Office Space - @Stake Corporation, Cambridge, MA Independent Consultant, 2000 – 2001 ¥ Design/Build and Installation Arecibo Observatory (Cornell University), development of exterior exhibition program, Arecibo, Puerto Rico ¥ Design/Build and Installation of four large interactive sculptures for Parque de los Ninos, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Zalisk Martin Associates, Design Principal of Exhibit Design Company, 1989 – 1999 ¥ Gateway Magnet Schools - Exhibit Program, St. Louis, MO ¥ Genetics Gallery and Environment and Ecology Gallery, St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis, MO ¥ Health Gallery, The Science Place, Dallas, TX ¥ American Airlines Museum, Fort Worth, TX ¥ Museum of Science and Technology, Master Plan and Design of whole museum exhibition program, Syracuse, NY ¥ Luci and Desi Museum, Jamestown, NY (museum celebrating work on Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz); ¥ Environment Gallery and Situation Room Interactive Theater, Great Lakes Science Center, Cleveland, OH ¥ Physics Gallery – Light and Electricity, Arizona Science Center (indoor/outdoor), Phoenix, AZ ¥ Whitaker Center for Arts and Science, Master Plan and Design of Exhibition Program and Traveling Exhibition "Bodies in Motion," Harrisburg, PA ¥ Arecibo Observatory Visitors' Center, Master Plan and Exhibition Program (indoor/outdoor), Arecibo, Puerto Rico ¥ Jimmy Fund – Dana Faber Cancer Institute, various exhibits including Ted Williams Gallery, Boston, MA ¥ Various architectural projects including: Seats, Cambridge, MA, a store for Charrette Corporation; Historic renovation and extensive remodeling of a residence, including furniture design, in Louisburg Square, Boston, MA; and the development of residences new, remodeled, and restored in Concord, MA. ¥ Robin Cook Residence, historic renovation Louisburg Square, Boston, MA ¥ Eberle Residence, Concord, MA

191

Independent Contractor, 1986 – 1989 ¥ Krent Paffett Associates, Consultant, Lead Designer, Museum of Science and Technology, interactive science exhibit, Bridgeport, CT ¥ Lead Designer, Virginia Air and Space Museum Master Plan, Hampton Roads, VA ¥ Interior Designer, restaurants for Roman Delight Pizza (15-20 restaurants); ¥ Construction Supervisor, Bay Bank Harvard, Harvard Square branch, remodeling, Cambridge, MA ¥ Building Contractor, historic renovations of homes in Concord, MA and ¥ Design of various architectural projects in Concord, Lexington, Chelmsford, Wellesley and Cambridge, MA Carr Lynch Associates, 1982 – 1986 ¥ Project Construction Administrator, landscape architecture, Lowell State Heritage Park, Lowell, MA ¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Reno downtown development, $8,000,000 urban design improvements, Reno, NV ¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Tennessee River Park, Master Plan of 20 mile stretch of Tennessee River through design development, and for preliminary three waterfront parks and six miles of linking river edge trails, Chattanooga, TN ¥ Project Construction Administrator, Landscape Architecture, landscape improvements for Franklin Fields public housing project, Boston, MA ¥ Project Architect, Master Plan for pier with Children's Museum Master Plan, St. Petersburg, FL ¥ Project Manager, Planning, Master Plan for Chelsea Soldiers Home, Chelsea, MA ¥ Project Designer/Manager, design guidelines, Hanscom Field Airport, Bedford, MA. The Architects Collaborative, 1980 – 1982 ¥ Project Construction Administration, complete interior renovation of four historic residential structures at Monson State Hospital; MA ¥ Project Architect, overseeing team to create design development and construction documents for the following: Long Island Jewish Hospital, $40,000,000 wing, NY ¥ Temple University Hospital, $88,000,000 tower. Philadelphia, PA ¥ Project Manager, 100-room hotel, University of Baghdad, Iraq.

thesis proposal

192

Maguire and Murray Richmond Survey, 1976 – 1977 ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Luxemore House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New 50 bed dormitory building with 3 staff apartments sited in historic cathedral precinct, Canterbury, UK ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Day Boys House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New Day Boys House with two cellar level science labs sited in Mint Yard, cathedral precincts Canterbury, UK ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Galpins House, Kings School, Canterbury, UK. Conversion of historic refectory building into student dormitory providing additional two levels in existing volume. (* Work published in a special issue of Architectural Review devoted to the King's School Development).

Other Work: ¥ Quiniquennial surveys on behalf of the Church of England for various historic churches in London, UK ¥ Project coordinator for ongoing restoration at Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, UK (Maguire and Murray were "Surveyors to the Fabric" for Lincoln Cathedral).

Robin Moores Alnutt, Kingston up on Thames, UK, 1976 – 1977 ¥ Project Architect various bank branch renovations. (Civic Trust Award for bank design, set in historic center of Ashford, Kent, UK) ¥ Project Architect for a new six-story office building, Woking, Surrey,UK Stephen George and Partners, Leicester, UK, 1975-1976 ¥ Project Architect of a fifty unit public housing project; Leicester, UK ¥ Project Manager/Project Designer conversion and renovation of three large Victorian houses, providing twelve public housing units, Leicester, UK Stillman and Eastwick-Field - Highbury, London, UK, 1972-1973 ¥ Architectural Assistant, apprenticed on various housing, hospital, and school projects masonry, glazing, and interior cabinet detailing.

Teaching Advanced Studio instructor and thesis advisor, Boston Architectural College.

Adjunct professor at Rhode Island School of Design.

Visiting critic at Rhode Island School of Design, Boston Architectural College, MIT. GED, ABE and ESOL teacher at the Community Learning Center, Cambridge, MA

193

Essa Ahmed, LEED AP

86 Prospect Street, Somerville, MA 02143 Cell: (617) 515-0420 eMail: essa.ahmed@gmail.com EDUCATION  Jan 07 – May 11  Sep 98 – Jul 03

Master of Architecture / Boston Architectural College, Boston (USA) B.Sc. Architectural Engineering [Public Buildings] / Alexandria University (Egypt)

EMPLOYMENT Project Designer Architectural Designer Architectural Designer Architect Architect Intern Architect Free-lance Free-lance

Prellwitz Chilinski Associates, Cambridge, USA Lozano, Baskin, and Associates, Watertown, USA STV Incorporated, Boston, USA NHEC (Najeeb AlHumaidhi Engineering Consultancy), Kuwait HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt Saboor (Salah Hegab .PhD), Cairo, Egypt Memphis, Kuwait/Canada

Dec 10 – Present Jan 10 – Dec 10 Jun 07 – Nov 09 Jan 04 – Dec 06 Oct 2003 Summer 2002

TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONS    

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED 2.1) Accredited Professional; (GBCI) (2009) Construction Safety & Health; Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (2009) Project Management; Advanced Management Institute (AMI) for Architecture and Engineering (2008) Mastering 3-D Max R5; VAT Educational Center, Alexandria, Egypt (2003)

TECHNICAL SKILLS

thesis proposal

194

 Fulfilled NCARB/IDP requirements.  Proficient in Revit; AutoCAD; 3Ds Max; Adobe Creative Suite; and SketchUp.

MEMBERSHIPS  American Society of Architects, Boston Society of Architects; Associate (3/08/#30492086)  Egyptian Engineering Syndicate, (9/03 /#18/3544)  Kuwait Society of Engineers (1/05/#1773)

OTHER SKILLS & INTERESTS  Other Languages : Arabic.  Design Related Hobbies : Animation& Cinematography, web designing, photography and sketching.  Hobbies : Swimming, hiking/camping/mountaineering, running, rowing, and traveling.

22 HIGHVIEW AVENUE • WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132 PHONE 617.312.1880 • E-MAIL CATHARRIS2002@YAHOO.COM

CATHERINE MILLER OBJECTIVE

To be a project manager as I continue to work towards becoming a registered architect.

EDUCATION

Masters of Architecture

2001-2009

Boston Architectural College-Boston, MA

Bachelor Of Fine Arts In Interior Design

New England School of Art and Design at Suffolk University-Boston, MA

1996-1999

WORK EXPERIENCE

Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc.-Newton, MA January 2006-present Intern Architect/Designer  Experience in all phases of projects including: schematic design, construction administration, site and building analysis, project cost and feasibility studies, material selection and specifications, programming, master planning, model making; both traditional and computer generated, and rendering perspectives, floor plans, and site plans.  Experience working on town-wide facility evaluation and master plan reports.  Provide a supporting role at community meetings and design workshops.  Represent DRA at several job briefings.

Integrated Design Group-Boston, MA February 2004-September 2005 Intern Architect  Worked on schematic designs, design development, Construction Documents, and Construction Administration.  Developed presentation boards.  Established office standards for CAD and project file structure.  Directed materials library department.

ABAX Architecture PC-Boston, MA April 2001-September 2003 Intern Architect  Worked on schematic designs, design development, and construction documents.  Researched and implemented codes including ADA and MAAB.  Worked on space planning, custom casework design, and fenestration detailing.

Prudential Prime Properties-Boston, MA Real Estate Agent.  Acted as relocation facilitator for rental properties.  Recruited rental and sales property accounts.

January 1999-April 2001

COMPUTER SKILLS AutoCAD · ArchiCAD · Adobe Photoshop · SketchUp · Adobe InDesign Corel DRAW · Corel PHOTO-

195

Paul S. Brown, AIA 32 Greenwood Ave., Needham, MA 02492 Cell: (781) 640-7413 e m a i l : paulsbrown.aia@gmail.com Registered Professional Architect; Massachusetts and Maine.

LEED Accredited Professional. MCPPO Certified.

EDUCATION 1974 - 1978

1982 - 1985

EMPLOYMENT 2001 – Feb. 2012

thesis proposal

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. School of Architecture.

Degree: Bachelor of Environmental Design (Architecture). 3.25 GPA. One semester of foreign study. Elective course emphasis in English.

Boston College. Graduate School of Management (evening MBA program) 24 credit hours completed. 3.25 GPA.

Project Manager, Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts Public school renovation projects. Responsible for maintaining and improving client relationships. Design, Construction Documents and Construction Administration. Firm leadership in the areas of Green/Sustainable Design.

2000 – 2001

Release Manager. Revit Technology Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts Software development. Responsible for coordinating the public releases of major and minor updates to the software product. Management of the release-cycle schedule, facilitation of weekly release meetings with senior management and departmental-level managers. The Revit product is an architectural software tool which was purchased by AutoDesk.

1999 – 2000

Project Manager. Ann Beha Associates, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts Historic Preservation Architecture; various projects on the east coast USA.

1986 - 1999

Vice President, The Dean Architectural Alliance, Inc. , Boston, Mass.

Project Manager with Dean Tucker Shaw, Inc., 1986 – 1990. Medical projects.

Promoted to Associate and Project Manager at Dean Packard Rafuse, 1990 – 1995. (firm reorganization). Corporate interiors and National Park Service work.

Promoted to Vice President at the Dean Architectural Alliance, 1995-1999. (2 nd firm reorganization) Primary client: Lucent Technologies.

Team leadership in the realization of built designs. Project management and senior level firm management. Design. Client management on a daily basis.

Direction of firm staff in the design of architectural projects and the production of construction documents. Writing and reviewing construction specifications.

Management of project budgets and schedules. Communications with clients, engineering consultants and contractors. Evaluation of building systems engineering designs. Supervision of computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) technical staff. Design of complex building-envelope waterproofing systems. Design of sensitive interventions in historically valuable properties of National Monument status.

1984 – 1986

Project Manager, King/Warner Associates, Architects. Boston, Mass.

Architectural Project Management on hospital renovation projects.

1982 – 1984

Architectural Project Manager, Facilities Engineering Department University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts

1978 – 1981

Designer / Drafter; entry-level positions.

William W. Stewart Associates, Inc., St. Louis, MO. 1978 - 1979 The Ritchie Organization (TRO), Boston, MA. 1979 - 1981

196

Resume Paul S. Brown, AIA Page 2 of 2 OTHER 2004

“GREEN DESIGN” (Chapter Co-Author) Chapter on the general principals of ‘green’ design for school construction, within the book: “Secondary School Design and Construction”, published by R.S. Means Corporation.

1981 – 1982

Design Instructor, First Year Architectural Design Studio The Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA.

2007 – Present

Founder; One Penny Per Mile, Inc. An environmental non-profit organization with the mission to develop renewable energy systems and give them away, free, to other educational non-profit organizations. Financed by penny-per-mile contributions from automobile owners. www.onepennypermile.org . A registered 501 (c) (3) organization.

This is an 'evenings and weekends' avocation.

2005 - 2006

Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable Chair; Incentives Work Group. Steering Committee member.

This roundtable led indirectly to the creation of the MA-CHPS standards for green school design in Massachusetts, and had other indirect beneficial impact.

2004 - 2006

AIA Legislative Affairs Committee Active committee Member.

1993 – 1996

Community Access Monitor, Mass. Office on Disabilities Public assistance with state and federal disability access regulations. Volunteer.

1996

Boston Summer Olympics, Feasibility Study Team leader for development of the four cycling venues for the effort to bring the 2008 summer games to the city of Boston. Pro-Bono volunteer design work.

Computer Skills: Have written some very basic beginner code in C++, and HTML. Very familiar with the Windows Operating System, and proficient with all standard (Microsoft) office and project management programs, including MSWord, MSExcel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. Past user of MSProject.

Basic AutoCAD, Sketch-up, and Revit drafting and 3-D modeling capability. Rudimentary Dreamweaver skills.

197

1. Brubaker , C. William. Planning and Designing Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Brubaker like Woolner is an educational expert and architect. “Planning and Designing Schools” is a broad reference resource that not only describes the evolution of school design in the United States, but also describes the breadth and width of the various planning paradigms leveraged in school design, including those that challenge where the boundary of school is.

2. De Carlo, Giancarlo. “Why/How to Build School Buildings.” Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and Education, Vol. 39 no. 4 (1969): 12-35.

De Carlo’s essay establishes that complaints about the existing paradigm of school design are not new. They power and value of this essay is that De Carlo identifies four critical terms of inquiry. The answers to which challenge the need for traditional educational institutions as the locations for meaningful learning.

The essay adds to the body of evidence that schools in isolation possess an inability to represent conditions of the outside world, the place where meaningful learning experiences are possible.

3. Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010.

This document provides valuable information related to the Seaport Square long range master plan. Among the relevant information are parcel diagrams, proposed building heights, and atmospheric sketches communicating the sense and feel of the neighborhood upon completion of the project.

thesis proposal

198

4. Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. Date of publication unavailable.

This document provides valuable environmental information related to the Seaport Square master plan. Among the more relevant data are detailed wind and solar analyses.

5. Fisher, Thomas R. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture. Minneapolis:

1. University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

In his chapter, Monocultures and Multiculturalism, Fisher makes the connection between ecology and the built environment. Fisher argues that diverse built environments benefit in the same way that diverse ecosystems benefit. His argument will serves as a motivating metaphor for the reimagining of architectural boundaries related to school.

2. Fort Point Channel Study Committee. “Designation of the Fort Point Channel Landmark District.” 2009.

This document was crafted to designate the Fort Point Channel District. Its value lies in the information related to the history and original intent of the neighborhood.

3. Graves, Ben E. School Ways: The Planning and Design of America’s Schools.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Graves book in most respects is a predecessor to Brubaker’s “Planning and Designing Schools.” The two, in fact, were contemporaries in the same firm, Perkins and Will. The value of Graves book for this research is that he establishes a list of emerging trends in education among which he lists community schools. Although these emerging trends were identified in 1993, the list can be validated with more recent publications. The idea will be to link these observed trends to the need for an architectural expression of these ideas.

4. Harr, Sharon, ed. Schools for Cities: Urban Strategies. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

This collection of essays communicate the outcomes of a conference titled “ Schools as Catalysts for Community Development held in Chicago in 2000.

The collection will serve in three capacities. First the collection will serve as background to the evolution of the American High Schools. Next, it will establish several of the common obstacles impeding the execution of schools as a collection of diverse use groups with intentionally crafted architectural boundaries.

5. Hertzberger, Herman . Space and Learnin. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008.

199

Two chapters in Hertzberger’s serve to link Thomas R. Fisher and the American High School. In chapter three, Hertzberger identifies several design principles and programme components that establish “The School as the Micro-City.” In lay terms, he establishes the high school as a microcosm of the greater built environment. In chapter four, Hertzberger establishes the converse, “The City as Macro-School.”

1. Kahler, Gert. “The School in the City or the School as City.” Metropolis: Education 3 (2009): 85-95.

Kahler’s essay derives from a European perspective where educational history is much older than in the United States. This piece examines the differences between a school positioned geometrically within a city and a school as a metaphorical city. The key argument states that architects continue to create a representation of schools as cities where corridors resemble city streets and where common areas serve as town squares despite the fact that these characteristics do not and cannot perform as their non-metaphorical counterparts. The argument is that schools should exist within the city, at least, as a contributing member of the greater community. The essay serves as contemporary evidence from international designers supporting high schools as something other than educational facilities that attempt to exist as imitations of the city.

2. Lackney, Jeffrey A. Educational Facilities: The Impact and Role of the Physical Environment of the School on Teaching, Learning and Educational Outcomes.

Milwaukee: Publications in Architecture and Urban Planning, 1994.

thesis proposal

200

Debate continues to this day about whether or not the physical environment plays a significant role in educational outcomes, whether or not the building affects learning. In Chapter Six of the publication, Lackey evaluates several models that contribute bodies of knowledge to this debate. His claim is that no one model had yet reflected the complexity of the educational environment. His evaluation of these models and subsequent development of a proposed comprehensive model of educational environments makes it possible to evaluate the success of a built environment, as well as the many other complex variables associated with educational environments, on specific desired outcomes. This complex evaluation tool

will serve as a metric against which the project in this proposal might be measured by researchers.

1. Locker, Frank. “Visioning Study Report”. February, 2011.

This report was conducted as a consultancy to Drummey Rosane Anderson for Randolph Public Schools as part of a district-wide master plan scope of services.

My role in the project was as project manager directly working with Dr. Locker.

The focus of the study was to identify those characteristics that exemplified 21st century learning and to define the educational facilities capable of supporting those characteristics. It has value for this thesis as a benchmark of user input and corroborating evidence of the underlying thoughts of the thesis and its program.

2. Moore, Gary T. and Jeffrey A. Lackney. Educational Facilities for the Twenty-first Century: Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Milwaukee: Publications for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, 1994.

Chapter six of Moore and Lackney’s larger work on twenty-first century educational facilities identifies “Twenty-seven Patterns for Design of American High Schools.” Among them is “School as a Community Center.” The argument made in the chapter is one that goes beyond simple economy of schools and shared use of key spaces before and after school hours. It suggests that the school in the community has a role to play in building community members’ senses of belonging.

3. Pizziconi, Andrea Christie. “New Urban Strategies”. UrbanLand, March, 2006.

This article by an international developer proposes a business model where large real estate developments may benefit from educational entities as long term tenants. It substantiates the program in this proposal as a viable business.

4. Places and Things for Experimental Schools. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. and Experimental Schools, 1972.

Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. was one of the premier research institutions for educational facilities in the 1970s

201

thesis proposal

202

THESIS PROPOSAL - PART II, PROGRAMMING & CODES

This part of the proposal expands upon the program section from part one. Information contained in this part is intended to ground the project in site, cultural, and informational context and to establish a framework of issues and goals necessary for success.

It should be noted that for ease of review, some data and information is repeated from section one. Every effort, however, has been made to limit these occurrences and, instead, to provide a deeper and richer understanding of the factors affecting the project.

203

SITE DESCRIPTION The mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that: • • • • •

Is able to host a wide range of use groups Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still needs core elements Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped environments Currently un- or under-developed

These characteristics acknowledge that this one project has an opportunity to contribute to its surrounding context in a meaningful way and that it’s contribution has limits. Looking for sites with a richness of land use only adds opportunity to the learning environment.

The selected site, see in yellow to the right, is located on a currently undeveloped parcel in an area of Boston named the Innovation District. This area is more commonly referred to as the Seaport District and contains the old Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Institute for Contemporary Art, the Seaport World Trade Center, and the Boston Convention Center. For site context photos, refer to Part I, pages 14-16

thesis proposal

204

The site plan to the right communicates a long term master plan for the area.

Dark grey areas represent existing buildings. Light grey areas indicate proposed buildings. The proposed sight for this project lies at the heart of this new development. Maps, illustrations, and diagrams on the subsequent pages identify each proposed parcel in the master plan, communicate expected uses, and give a sense of the vision for the neighborhood.

It should be noted that the master plan identifies the proposed site as planned open space and that this project intends to honor that plan by providing for outdoor community space on the ground floor. More poetically, however, there is every intent for this project to represent a moment of relief in the relentless grid from the planned building heights adjacent to this parcel. In many ways, the expectation is to maintain the spirit of the master plan while contributing something new and valuable to the neighborhood.

205

thesis proposal

206

St.

Harbor Way

Thomson St.

Bridge

St. East

St.

Seaport Hill Congress St. Hotel

L5 Corner Square

Congres

207

Project Area Urban Spaces

St.

Cultural within Project Site

‘A’ St.

s

‘M’ Way

Harbor

Sleeper

Stillings

Fort Point Channel District

Wharf Rd.

St.

Autumn Lane

Active Open Space

Boston

St.

St.

Farnsworth St.

Congress

Stillings St. Extension

‘B’

‘K’ Open Corner

Boston Tea Party Museum

N. Harbor

Urban Open Spaces

Boulevard

Children’s Wharf Park

Children’s Museum

Figure 1-7

Rd.

Seaport

Seaport Square Green

Service

Bridge

St. Extension

St. Old Sleeper

Evelyn Moakley

Avenue

Pier

Northern Courthouse Square

Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Court House

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Fan

The aerial photo in the margin to the right and the figure below communicate the extend of natural areas in the neighborhood. The existing state today has limited open space with some green areas along the harbor walk North of Moakely Courthouse, adjacent to the Children’s Museum, and a small park immediately East of One Marina Park Drive. The master plan calls for an open space, Seaport Square Green, on the parcel for this project. The intent is for the project to honor this intent by providing outdoor public space on the ground level and to be the moment of relief in the size, scale, and massing of the adjacent buildings in the relentless grid.

N Stair

P Plaza

Primary Connection Secondary Connection Local Connection

Summer St.

Pedestrian Access within Building

M er

ch

el

00 0 50’ 100’ 0’

20 200’

400’

WS DEVELOPMENT

.

St

prepared by:

7

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-12.

The shadow studies on this and subsequent pages were prepared as part of an environmental impact study for the Seaport Square master plan. The proposed parcel for this project is at the center of the diagrams located on parcel ‘F’. Analysis of these diagrams reveals that the proposed parcel is likely to be in shadow from adjacent buildings for much of the day all year round. It should also be noted that although no analysis of the impact of this project is included, the building height and massing of the proposed building are such that little or no additional shadowing is expected. Confirmation of this suspicion will occur early the thesis review sequence beginning with supplemental information at the preliminary review.

Figure 4.2-1 Shadow During June 21 at 9:00 am

thesis proposal

208

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-29.

Figure 4.2-2 Shadow During June 21 at 12:00 noon

209

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-30.

Figure 4.2-3 Shadow During June 21 at 3:00 pm

thesis proposal

210

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-31.

Figure 4.2-4 Shadow During June 21 at 6:00 pm

211

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-32.

Figure 4.2-23 Shadow During December 21 at 9:00 am

thesis proposal

212

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-31.

Figure 4.2-24 Shadow During December 21 at 12:00 noon

213

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-32.

Figure 4.2-25 Shadow During December 21 at 3:00 pm

thesis proposal

214

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

10 Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-59.

Parking Lot Parking Garage

Parking Lot Parking Garage

1/4

-m

SE

N

AP

OR

TB

LV D

1/4

OR

TB

LV D

diu

Q

.

SU

MM

MM

ER

H ST .

NG

O

SS I ST .

P

2

F

G 4

T

K

3 F

L

M

G

6

R

4

T

J

7

215

U S

K

3

5 6

T.

R

AS

M

L

Existing Off-Street Parking in the Study Area

J

RE

2

Figure 2.1-10

RE

E

SS I ST .

s

E

1

CO

NG

diu

O

A

D

s

P

1

CO

H ST .

A

D

SU

ER

C

B

C

-m B ile Ra

N

AP

Ra

Q

.

SE

ile

S

M

V

M

ER

ST .

WS

T.

D

5 AS

W

SU

ST .

7

U

SU

W M

M

ST .

D

ST .

ER

DEVELOPMENT

V

11 Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-44.

N

prepared by: Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

S Service/Loa

Fan

St.

St.

Stillings

Bridge

12 Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-46.Congress St.

P

‘A’ St.

P S Summer St.

P

‘M’ Wa y

S

‘B’

St. WS

N

Active Open Space

Fort Point Channel District

Service

Autumn Lane

Stillings St. Extension

Seaport World Trade Center

East

P S

Rd.

Harbor Way P Plaza

Boston Tea Party Museum

St.

N. Harbor

East

‘B’

Service

St.

Rd.

Boulevard

S S

Project Area

Congress

P

St.

P S

Seaport

S

Harbor

Summer St. Children’s Museum

P

Seaport Square Green

Wharf Rd.

Parking

P

P S

Seaport World Trade Center

Boston

Service/Loading

P

P

St.

S

Courthouse Square

Harbor

Children’s Wharf Park St.

St.

Congres s

Avenue

S

‘M’ Wa y

Pier St. Extension

St. Old Sleeper

Bridge

Boston

Congress

Evelyn Moakley

Bridge

St.

P Wharf Rd.

St.

216

Boston Tea Party Museum

Harbor Way

walk Harbor

Active Open Space

S P

Autumn Lane Northern

Sleeper

thesis proposal

P

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Fort Point Channel District

Stillings

Project Area

Children’s Museum

Thomson St.

Parking

P S Moakley

Stillings St. Extension Federal Court House

‘A’ St.

Service/Loading

P

Farnsworth St.

St. Sleeper

S

Boulevard

S

Children’s Wharf Park

Site Plan Showing Proposed Parking and Service/Loading Entrances

P

Pier Boulevard

Seaport

Figure 2.1-11

S

Fan

Bridge

Seaport Square Green

Thomson St.

St. Old Sleeper

Evelyn Moakley

P S

N. Harbor

Avenue

St.

Northern Courthouse Square

S P

Farnsworth St.

P

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Court House

Pier St. Extension

Harbor

walk

P Parking

DEVELOPMENT

P prepared by: P Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

S

P Plaza

N

Lots vs. Garage Parking by Phase 7,000

in Lots

Figure 2.1-12

In Garages

Summary of Lots vs. Garage

by Seaport Square Phase

Total Parking Spaces Available

6,000

5,000

4,000 987

2,994

4,794

6,020

6,198

3,000

2,000

3,647

6,375

217

3,155

1,000

1,942 998

0 Existing Lots

1

2

3 Phase

376

188

4

5

6

WS

DEVELOPMENT

prepared by: Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

13 Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-44.

10 min.

5 min.

thesis proposal

218

walking distance diagram

nt erfro Wat

Boston Inner Harbor

ICA Pier Street

Fan Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Court House Way

Bridge

Existing & Proposed Land Use of Surroundings Seaport Lane

B Street

World Trade Center Avenue

Congress St

BCEC Expansion

D Street

Congress Street Bridge

Harbor Street

Thompson Street

Stillings Street

Children’s Museum

Autumn Lane Farnsworth Street

Boston Tea Party Ship and Museum

East Service Road

Seaport Boulevard

Sleeper Street

Ros e

F

Evelyn Moakley

Figure 1-45 Figure 1-21

Northern Avenue

Northern Avenue Bridge

Boston Wharf Road

way Kennedy Green

Cove Street

Promenade

Congres

s Street Vent Building

Residential / Mixed Use

Road ton Bypass

Boston Convention and Exhibition Center

219

South Bos

Green / Open Space

West Service Road

PREDOMINANT USES:

Summer Street

A Street

Fort Point Channel

Summer Street Bridge

Retail / Entertainment Commercial / Mixed Use Education / Institution / Cultural Hospitality Parking ar Project Area Parcel E 0

100'

200'

400'

N

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

14 Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-48.

The image to the left depict the existing density of pedestrian users near the proposed site. The images were taken around noon on a spring Sunday. Image one demonstrates that even without the master plan completed, Seaport Boulevard, with its forty foot wide sidewalks, serves as the main pedestrian corridor from downtown Boston to the attractions and amenities East of the proposed site.

Based on the studies produced for the City of Boston, this pedestrian traffic along Seaport Boulevard is only expected to increase. Image two, by contrast, depicts the existing pedestrian condition along Boston Wharf Road looking North. Although this area provides ample opportunity for parking, pedestrians arriving by car utilize Boston Wharf Road as the means to get to Seaport Boulevard. The significant difference between the two is that the master plan development expects much higher pedestrian traffic along Boston Wharf Road than currently present. In fact, it is expected to be the main North South route between Fan Pier and Congress Street.

1

2

The third image depicts a portion of the Harbor Walk Trail currently under development. Although the image shows temporary power poles and patchy grass, this path is required by law to provide members of the general public pedestrian access to the water’s edge. In fact, just to the right of the image, a new marina is just visible that will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to actually come into contact with the water. All of this information suggests that during and upon build out, both the Fan Pier and the Seaport Square neighborhoods will be lively places with lots of pedestrian activity.

3

4

thesis proposal

220

Image four on this page is representative of traces left by current users as the neighborhood is still in development. On the day this image was taken, I witnessed an employee of One Marina Park Drive extinguish her cigarette in a planter that bounds the new green space just North of the proposed site. Upon closer inspection, the image reveals that this behavior was not new, but rather this person, and likely others, have been using this corner of the planter in this way for some time. I would characterize the behavior as an expression of enough appreciation for the beauty of the new park not to little the grounds, but not so much appreciation as to not hide the debris under the foliage.

The images on this page are related to site documentation in that many of them represent visages of what once was. Most of the images express a material quality that may be worth expressing in the material palette of the proposed project.

Image five depicts a cobble stone street from when the Boston Wharf Company occupied the entire neighborhood. There is a smoothness and a durable quality that may have some value. Image six depicts the scale of the streets in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood. The combination of the relatively narrow street, the modesty of the five story structures on either side, the wide of the sidewalk and the rhythm of the tree canopy that is pleasant. Image seven depicts the interior of a former shipping warehouse now converted to a local art gallery. Much like the street scape outside, the combination of the wide open space, the heavy timber construction, exposed mechanical system, and volume of the space is a warm and pleasant one.

These features may be worth pursuing as architectural language as the project develops over the next year.

Summary The proposed site is currently a fenced off asphalt parking lot, a parcel amongst 23 acres of contiguous parking. The key attractiveness of this parcel is that it possess the characteristics and qualities identified as necessary for the success of the project, namely that zoning permits a mixed use facility and the both the neighborhood and the project can benefit from one another. Other key considerations include the easy access to pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well as public transportation networks. One of the terms of criticism is an assessment of the projects ability to improve the value and visibility of learning.

These qualities offer the opportunity to be successful in this regard.

221

CODES The image to the right depicts the Boston Redevelopment Zoning Map for the Fort Point Harbor Front. The proposed parcel is subject to restrictions and guidelines for the Planned Development Area (PDA) including certain height restrictions. The parcel dimensions, set-back restrictions, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements are provided in Part II, page 72. Zoning codes permit an FAR of 4.25 and a maximum building height of 255’. Although those restrictions equate to an allowable area of approximately 224,000 GSF and approximately 17 stories, the proposed project falls well short of these restrictions at 200,000 GSF and five stories.

In addition to zoning requirements, the project will be subject to several building codes. A partial list of these codes is below. A more comprehensive list will be developed during the early phases of the review process.

CMR 781 - Massachusetts Building Code, 8th Edition MAAB - Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, most recent IECC - International Energy Conservation Code, most recent The Massachusetts Building Code, 8th addition adopts the 2009 International Building Code and references several other trade specific regulations and compliance tests. Of all the regulations, special attention will be given to the MAAB. The program has at its heart an educational facility. As such, every component of the facility must be accessible.

thesis proposal

222

Also of note, is the fact that the building is intentionally mixed use, but with the desire to make certain components of differing uses open and connected to one another.

Current codes require varying degrees of fire separation between use groups. This has the potential to significantly impact the design strategies adopted to fulfill the thesis.

223

CULTURAL CONTEXT As mentioned previously in this document, the nearest existing neighbor with any historical or cultural context in the Fort Point Channel District. Many of the site context photos shown in Part 1, pages 14 through 16 identify the architectural character present. In addition to these photos on this page were identified in a study report to designate the Fort Point Channel neighborhood as a landmark district.15 Other important buildings in the neighborhood include the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Boston Children’s Museum, the newly completed One Marina Park Drive, and the Institute for Contemporary Art. Still others of note that are slightly farther away include the Boston Convention Center and the World Trade Center Complex. Each of these existing buildings have the possibility to influence the character and design choices of this project.

Although the project will be influenced by these architectural considerations, the greater cultural issue is one of changing what ‘school’ looks and feels like. By placing this project in a geographic location dedicated to innovation and the advancement of ideas, this thesis has the greatest opportunity to overcome the cultural inertia of more than a century of the same educational facility strategy. By providing students with the opportunity to see the very places where learning has value, there is a real possibility of shifting the culture of education into the twenty-first century. cornices. The buildings form a handsome and harmonious group. An architecturally similar building once stood on the vacant lot on this block.

thesis proposal

224

Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, American Railway Express Building, 343 Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, Congress Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth floorAmerican added later).

Railway Express Building, 343

AlterationsCongress have been made to this building over time. Early in its existence, Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth a fourth floor was added and in 1936 its interior structure was rebuilt to convert it to floor added later). use as a parking garage. Probably at that time, the central section of the roof parapet was rebuilt in the form of a pediment to give the building what must have been considered an updated look. Parapets of a similar design were commonly 15 Fort Point Channel Study Committee.

“Designation seen during that period on commercial buildings and on both large parking garages and private home garages. In a recent conversion of the building to office use, the present fifth floor was added. Set back from the main façade with a broad overhanging roof and multi-paned glazing across its width, this section reads visually as a separate element. Alterations to the ground floor include the opening of a new centralized main entrance and making floor length windows out of most other openings. Projections added at the ground floor as part of the adaptive reuse have hidden some architectural detail, but appear to be easily removable and not

4. Example of tripartite Fig. 4.Fig. Example of tripartite façade, with a base, façade, arcaded midsection, and “capital” top floor accentuated with a brick dentil cornice. and Photo of 312-320 with a base, arcaded midsection, Summer Street, c. 1905. “capital” top floor accentuated with a

Tripartite brick façades continued to be widelyPhoto used in the during the early 20th dentil cornice. ofdistrict 312-320 century for Stylized Classical style buildings. However, buildings in this freer Summer Street, c.

1905. interpretation of the Classical style adhered to the tripartite form less strictly, just as their Classically-inspired details came to be more streamlined and interpreted in imaginative new ways.

of the Fort Point Channel Landmark District.” 2009.

Also associated with the Classical Revival style in the FPCLD was the use of light-colored brick, because light-colored walls resembled stone. An interest in light-colored exterior materials took hold in American building in the late 1880s.

At about this time, New York architects began to order bricks that were not red.

A building considered seminal in the fashion for non-red brick was the Telephone and Telegraph Building on Cortlandt Street in New York City (Cyrus Eidlitz, 1886-1887). The novel color of the brick in this building was so influential that

INFORMATIONAL CONTEXT Client Profile The client profile is as unique as the project itself. A mixed use educational facility has little opportunity for long term success, particularly in an urban environment, if the owner of the project is a secondary educational institution. Andrea Christie Pizziconi wrote an article titled New Urban Strategies that outlines a business model that might work for this project. She suggests that educational entities, particularly K-12 entities, lack the business savvy and real estate expertise to manage this kind of model. She suggests, rather that the owner should be a development organization with the educational entity being the primary tenant.16 Pizziconi has researched several examples such as Millenium High School in New York City, which occupies several floors of a high rise office building in the heart of Manhattan. So, to is the expectation for this project. The owner will likely be a large real estate development corporation. Their business model identifies the 480- student charter school as the primary long term tenant and several smaller office based, commercial, or retail tenants. As an added value for the developer, the proposal is to include a small number of residential units presumably for faculty, staff and their families.

Interviews Development of this thesis and the determination of the program elements contained in this proposal are largely the result of more than a decade in the field of education, educational facility planning, and design. In that time, countless client and user interviews have occurred, research reviewed and conducted, and dozens of field investigations undertaken.

One of the key drivers, however, was a series of client interviews and stakeholder workshops for a currently active project under my supervision. The key insight from students, building principals, parents, teachers, and community members was a desire for a more student-centered environment. In lay terms, these user groups expressed a desire for a model that made learning more valued and visible, that connected learning more intentionally to the real world, and gave private entities an opportunity to contribute to the learning process in real and meaningful ways.

16 Pizziconi, Andrea Christie. “New Urban Strategies�. UrbanLand, March, 2006.

225

MISSION & GOALS Mission Statement The project will represent a new model for secondary education by co-locating educational, business, and civic entities within a single facility and by articulating the architectural boundaries between these entities to maximize openness and connectedness for the advantage of all.

Issues Image Image or imageability refers to users’ perceptions of the project and its spaces. The primary issues related to image will stem from desires for both a collective image and individual images for the various user groups. Considerations for image may include: a. Massing b. Siting c. Materiality d. Penetrations Separation Appropriate separation between use groups is critical to the project. For each group to benefit use groups can be neither completely separated from one another nor completely open to one another. Careful consideration and articulation of the boundaries between entities will be necessary. In fact, it is this articulation that is at the heart of the thesis.

thesis proposal

226

Circulation Circulation refers to the connective tissue that binds occupied spaces together and is closely tied to way-finding. Considerations for circulation may include: a. Connectivity b. Social Interaction/Isolation c. Wayfinding d. Usability as non-programmed space

Spatial Relationships Spatial Relationships refers to the geometric arrangement of spaces and zones within the project. Relationships are often described in terms of distance, i.e. immediately adjacent, near, distant, or unrelated, but can also be described in terms of boundaries and thresholds. The articulation of spatial relationships is critical to the project in order to maximize the benefit of co-locating different user groups in the same facility. Spatial relationship considerations may include: a. Programme of Space Needs b. Building Organization c. Security d. Wayfinding e. Acoustics f. Opportunities for visual connections Flexibility/Adaptability Flexibility/ Adaptability refers to the project’s ability to reinvent or reorganize itself over time to serve the needs of its users. Levels of flexibility/adaptability may manifest themselves as a need to rearrange furnishings, relocate functions, or even accommodate alternative uses. Considerations for flexibility/adaptability include: a. Structure b. Fixtures c. Furnishings d. Equipment Building Technology Building technology refers to the constructed components of the project. These components include architectural systems such as the exterior envelope, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems. Building technology is an issue with every project, but bringing different use groups together in a single facility raises the issue of separate or integrated systems among other concerns.

Goals Image The goal of the architecture is to express a sophisticated but bold image. The image

227

must be one that inspires, welcomes, and makes the new model for education environments evident to the lay person.

Performance Requirement #1 The scale and materiality of the building shall be sensitive to, but not referential of the surrounding architectural context.

Performance Requirement #2 Exterior and interior surface materials must permit passers-by to experience portions of the activities occurring within.

Performance Requirement #3 The image of the building must express how it is assembled and be either an expression of work produced within or as a learning tool or both.

Separation The goal of the architecture is to provide actual and adjacent experiences in as many circumstances as possible. In lay terms, the activities conducted in each entity must be actually experienced by the ability of a user from another entity actively invited to participate in those activities or experienced through some sensory event without active participation.

Performance Requirement #1 The architecture of the project must permit users from the other entities (particularly student users) to experience, if not actively participate in, the core activity.

thesis proposal

228

Performance Requirement #2 Care must be taken to protect the privacy of individuals or entities when necessary.

The architecture of the project must provide a choice to increase separation when appropriate.

Performance Requirement #3 Portions of the project will be accessible to members of the general public. The architecture of the project must provide unrestricted access to portions of the program open to the general public.

Circulation The goal of circulation is to connect entities with usable, unprogrammed interstitial spaces and to provide visual cues related to wayfinding.

Performance Requirement #1 The major circulation route for the project must not be uniform in scale, materiality, or dimension. It must be varied to provide ad-hoc places to pause and to gather.

Performance Requirement #2 The major circulation route must be articulated in such a manner to support the requirements for separation and spatial relationships.

Performance Requirement #3 Minor circulation routes, those internal to specific entities, must be logical and serve the functional needs.

Spatial Relationships The spatial elements associated with distinct entities may be consolidated into a single area with the exception of the educational elements.

Performance Requirement #1 Project solutions shall locate spatial elements in such a way to satisfy two basic criteria: (a) Permit the experience of an entity’s core activity (b) Satisfy the functional requirements of each entity Performance Requirement #2 Project solutions shall seek out creative adjacencies in an effort to maximize educational benefit.

Performance Requirement #3 The designer shall provide a comprehensive adjacency matrix with symbology to represent varying degrees of adjacency including but not limited to: immediately adjacent, near, vertical adjacency, and no adjacency.

Performance Requirement #4 The designer shall provide a comprehensive conceptual adjacency diagram

229

communicating idealized spatial relationships.

Flexibility/Adaptability The goal of the architecture is to permit programmatic change over time.

Performance Requirement #1 The structural configuration must permit clear space spaces with as few interior columns as possible.

Performance Requirement #2 Business and civic entities must be located in such a manner to permit a reprogramming of their spaces - including for use as educational spaces.

Performance Requirement #3 The architecture must establish spatial elements of varying floor areas and volumes in an effort to provide a range of possibilities. This range better permits relocation of programmatic elements without re-partitioning when needs change.

COST EVALUATION

thesis proposal

230

At this point in the project’s development, it is not yet appropriate to identify a building footprint or a building massing as these items require additional site analysis. What is known at this time is that an expectation exists to occupy only about half the buildable area on the ground floor (approximately 28,000 GSF) and leaving the remaining half to be developed as public open space. Likewise, there is an expectation that the building mass be no more than five stories and approximately 75 feet high at its highest point. How these expectations will be massed is yet to be determined. At present, there are no known vertical set-backs required by the building code and no known horizontal set-backs required from the property line.