2015 worksample

JUN 雋 WANG WORK SAMPLES 2010-2015

Harvard Graduate School of Design (MArch I AP) University of Virginia (BS. Arch) maraluke@gmail.com | +1-(434)-466-2711

01

CONTENT

02

ACADEMIC

42

PROFESSIONAL

49

ME

雋

• MATERIAL • CRAFTSMANSHIP • COMPUTATION Fall 2013 Option Studio, MArch I, Harvard GSD Instructor: Achim Menges Teammate: Zunheng Lai

FIBROUS AMBIGUITY Working with Professor Achim Menges from ICD Stuttgart, our project tries to showcase the architectural potential fiber composite material by exploring new spatial languages, going back to the innate character of this material, understanding what it is and what it wants to become.

2.5D Hexagon Weaving Technique Studies, Type 1

DFS 18

04 1-1. SCAFFOLD PROPERTIES 2D Studies: Scaffold Deformation #1

2D Scaffold Deformation Studies, Type 1

DFS 21

1-1. SCAFFOLD PROPERTIES 3D Studies: Scaffold Typology AA_1.0

BA_1.0

(1 OF 2)

PARAMETERS

PROCEDURES

PARAMETERS

DIAGRAMS

a >> Enclosed + a >> Double Open 1. Introduce L(a,S,k), divided equally into + a >> Distorted (Tangent) S sides, ascending clockwise; each side with two sub lines L(a,S,0) and L(a,S,1) S=6 2. For each line in L(a,S,k), divide equally N=29 into N segements, labled L(a,S,k).P[i], m=0 ascending clockwise n=0 i=1

L(a,4,0)

L(a,3,1) L(a,4,1)

L(a,2,0)

1. Introduce L(a), divided equally into Na segements, with dividing points L(a)_PT[0] to L(a)_PT[Na];

Nb=Na+31=81

2. Introduce L(b), divided equally into Nb segements, with dividing points L(b)_PT[0] to L(b)_PT[Nb];

L(a,2,1) L(a,5,1) L(a,0,1) L(a,0,0)

N=29

L(a)_PT(0)/L(b)_PT(0)

m=0 n=0 i=1

L(b)_PT(Nb)

i=1 3. Connect from L(a)_PT[i] to L(b)_PT[i]

L(a)_PT(1) L(b)_PT(1)

L(a,1,1).P[28]

5. Connect from L(a,m+1,¬n).P[N-1-i] to L(a,m,¬n).P[i+1]

L(a,1,0).P[28] L(a,0,1).P[1]

when i=50 Break

4. Connect from L(b)_PT[i] to L(b)_PT[i+Nb-Na]

(before Step.4) when N-1-i=0 Go to Step.7 when m+3=8 then m+3=1

5. Connect from L(b)_PT[i+Nb-Na] to L(a)_PT[i+1] i=i+1

7. m=m+1 n=¬n

L(a)_PT(2)

DIAGRAMS

when m=7 Break

(1 OF 2)

PARAMETERS

PROCEDURES

DIAGRAMS

a >> Enclosed + a >> Overlap 1. Introduce L(a,S,k), divided equally into S sides, ascending clockwise; each side with two sub lines L(a,S,0) and L(a,S,1) 2. For each line in L(a,S,k), divide equally into N segements, labled L(a,S,k).P[i], ascending clockwise

S=4 N=29 m=0 n=0 i=1

1. Introduce L(a,S), divided equally into S sides, ascending clockwise

5. Connect from L(a,m+3,¬n).P[N-1-i] to L(a,m,¬n).P[i+1]

when m+3=8 then m+3=1

L(a,0) L(a,3)

L(a,2).P[0]

L(a,0).P[0]

4. Connect from L(a,m+1).P[i] to L(a,m+2).P[29-i] 5. Connect from L(a,m+1).P[29-i] to L(a,m+3).P[i]

L(a,2).P[29] L(a,1).P[0]

6. Connect from L(a,m+3).P[i] to L(a,m).P[i+1] when m=7 Break

7. m=m+2 n=¬n

L(a,2) L(a,1)

2. For each line in L(a,S), divide equally into N segements, labled L(a,S).P[i], ascending clockwise

3. Connect from L(a,m).P[i] to L(a,m+1).P[i] (before Step.4) when N-1-i=0 Go to Step.7

4. Connect from L(a,m+3,n).P[N-1-i] to L(a,m+3,¬n).P[N-1-i]

6. Connect from L(a,m,¬n).P[i+1] to L(a,m,n).P[i+1]

L(b)_PT(32)

L(a,2,1).P[28]

PROCEDURES

3. Connect from L(a,m,n).P[i] to L(a,m+3,n).P[N-1-i]

L(b)_PT(32)

4. Connect from L(a,m+1,n).P[N-1-i] to L(a,m+1,¬n).P[N-1-i]

6. Connect from L(a,m,¬n).P[i+1] to L(a,m,n).P[i+1] when m+1=8 Break

a >> Enclosed X 5 + a >> Distorted X 4 (Tangent) S=6

L(a,5,0)

L(a,1,1) L(a,1,0)

DA_1.0

(1 OF 2)

PARAMETERS

DIAGRAMS L(a)_PT(Na)

Na=50

L(a,0,0).P[0]

when m+1=7 then m+1=0

PROCEDURES

L(a,1,0).P[28]

3. Connect from L(a,m,n).P[i] to L(a,m+1,n).P[N-1-i] (before Step.4) when N-1-i=0 Go to Step.7

CA_1.0

(1 OF 2)

a >> Single Open + a >> Overlap L(a,3,0)

L(a,0).P[0] L(a,3).P[29]

7. m=m+1 L(a,2).P[29] L(a,1).P[1]L(a,1).P[0]

L(a,1,1).P[0]

L(a,0).P[0]L(a,0).P[1] L(a,3).P[29]

TOP

TOP

AXONOMETRIC

RIGHT

AXONOMETRIC

RIGHT

TOP

AXONOMETRIC

AXONOMETRIC

TOP

SIDE BACK

BACK FRONT

3D Scaffold Typology Studies

05

entiation

Algorithmic Differentiations on a Given Scaffold

2.5D Spatial Prototype Studies: Hexagon + Triangle

06

33

DMC

PRIMITIVE SURFACE TYPES

2-1. FIBER PLANES TO REINFORCED SURFACE

3D Studies: Interactions Differentiality OBSERVED SURFACE TYPES

CORRESPONDING

REVERSED

RADIATED

SHIFTED

NONCONVERGENCE

Raising the base for interactions

PRIMITIVE SURFACE TYPES OBSERVED SURFACE TYPES

CONVERGENCE

CORRESPONDING

REVERSED

RADIATED

SHIFTED

SURFACE TYPE TRANSFORMATION NONCONVERGENCE NONCONVERGENCE

34

DMC CONVERGENCE

CORRESPONDING(0)

45

90

REVERSED(180)

Raising the base

for interactions TYPES PRIMITIVESURFACE SURFACE TYPES PRIMITIVE

2-1. FIBER PLANES TO REINFORCED SURFACE TOP

3D Studies: Interactions Differentiality OBSERVEDSURFACE SURFACETYPES TYPES OBSERVED

CORRESPONDING CORRESPONDING

NONCONVERGENCE NONCONVERGENCE CORRESPONDING(0)

REVERSED REVERSED

RADIATED RADIATED

SHIFTED SHIFTED

AXONOMETRIC

SURFACE TYPE TRANSFORMATION NONCONVERGENCE

135

45

90

135

+

REVERSED(180)

Forming the PRIMITIVE SURFACE TYPES PRIMITIVE SURFACE TYPES x3 aperture SIDE

TOP

OBSERVED SURFACE TYPES

OBSERVED SURFACE TYPES

CONVERGENCE CONVERGENCE CONVERGENCE REVERSED

CORRESPONDING

AXONOMETRIC

CORRESPONDING(0)

32 SIDE

CONVERGENCE CONVERGENCE

4545

x3

2-1. FIBER PLANES TO REINFORCED SURFACE TOP TOP AXONOMETRIC

90

SHIFTED

135

REVERSED(180)

RADIATED

9090

135135

REVERSED(180) REVERSED(180)

90

135

REVERSED(180)

9090

135135

REVERSED(180) REVERSED(180)

90

135

REVERSED(180)

Bracing for reinforcement

3D Studies: Interactions Differentiality CONVERGENCE CORRESPONDING(0)

45

CORRESPONDING(0)

90

135

REVERSED(180)

SIDE AXONOMETRIC AXONOMETRIC

TOP

45

3 plane types x3 SURFACE TYPE TRANSFORMATION = Hexagon Surface type451 NONCONVERGENCE 90 CORRESPONDING(0) 135 : Aperture - 30%

REVERSED(180)

SIDE SIDE TOP

TOP AXONOMETRIC

CONVERGENCE CONVERGENCE

SIDE AXONOMETRIC

AXONOMETRIC TOP TOP

CORRESPONDING(0) CORRESPONDING(0)

4545

3 plane types x3 = Hexagon Surface type 1 : Aperture - 10%

SIDE AXONOMETRIC AXONOMETRIC

SIDE

CONVERGENCE

TOP

+

NONCONVERGENCE NONCONVERGENCE CORRESPONDING(0) CORRESPONDING(0) NONCONVERGENCE

SURFACE TYPE TRANSFORMATION NONCONVERGENCE

RADIATED REVERSED

TOP

SURFACETYPE TYPETRANSFORMATION TRANSFORMATION SURFACE NONCONVERGENCE

DMC

45

CORRESPONDING SHIFTED

CORRESPONDING(0)

45

CONVERGENCE 90 CORRESPONDING(0)

135

45

REVERSED(180)

3D Studies: Different interactions result in different formations SIDE SIDE TOP

07

3D Spatial Prototype Studies

08

Final Morphological Prototype: Elevation

Final Morphological Prototype: Exterior

09

Final Morphological Prototype: Exterior

Final Morphological Prototype: Exterior

• LANDSCAPE + ARCHITECTURE • INFRASTRUCTURE • HERITAGE Spring 2014 Option Studio, MArch I, Harvard GSD Instructor: Renee Daoust Teammate: Taro Cai

RECIPIENT OF TIME Infrastructure has always been about transition, about taking a subject from one point to the other, it’s dynamic, always in progress, unable to obtain equilibrium.

Our observation regarding expo 67 led to discovery that infrastructure can actually exist as space of perception, closely linked to the way memories are captured, especially during the expo 67 period.

Site Map: Historic Heritage Corridor

12

Site Map: Landscape Feature Distribution

13

Master-Plan, Visionary Perspective

14

Master-Plan, Visionary Plan+Section: Zone A-C

15

Master-Plan, Visionary Perspective: Zone A-C

16

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Section: Zone C-E

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Section: Zone C-E

17

18

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Perspective: Zone C-E

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Perspective: Zone C-E

19

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Perspective: Zone C-E

Master-Plan, Visionary Bridge Activation Perspective: Zone C-E

• URBAN • TYPOLOGY • COMPUTATION Spring 2012 Core Studio, MArch I, Harvard GSD Instructor: Michael Piper Teammate: Alex Watchman, Lulu Li, Kelly Motly

CITY AS PACKING PUZZLE Within a 1,000 x 5,000 urban slice in Queen New York, the objective of the studio is to imagine and justify a system of URBAN CODES upon which a complete group of blocks will be developed from street layout to zoning and eventually individual buildings.

21

SHAPE A

SHAPE B

TRIANGLE

F1

Area to Perimeter Ratio

69

Corner/Intersection

6

SQUARE Area to Perimeter Ratio Corner/Intersection

SHAPE C

F2 61 4

HEXAGON Area to Perimeter Ratio Corner/Intersection

SHAPE D

F3 57 3

CIRCLE Area to Perimeter Ratio Corner/Intersection

F4 54 2

GRID TYPE 2

BLOCK TYPE 1

TALL ISOSCELES

A

A

SMALL BLOCK

Side proportion

A>B Long/short orientation

Wayfinding Characteristics

Horizontal avenues

Angles

40 - 70 - 70

Area

40,000 sqft

Usage

Open space

Commercial/Residential frontages

Residential

B

GRID TYPE 3 A

A

BLOCK TYPE 2

SQUAT ISOSCELES Side proportion

MEDIUM BLOCK B>A

Long/short orientation

Wayfinding Characteristics

Diagonal Avenues

GRID TYPE 1 A

A

Side proportion Characteristics

Residential Commercial/Mixed use

Angles Area Characteristics

70-110-110-70 120,000 sqft Institutional Transportation Commercial/Mixed use

A

Research on grid geometry effects.

Main axial street

30ft offset from boundary

One way street loop at edge Diagonal streets meet at edge

Truncate if less than 50ft Truncate at diagonals at street

Fill with pedestrian paths

80,000 sqft

Usage

LARGE BLOCK A=A=A No wayfinding No axial privilege

Same street frontage

Axial street formed by boundary

70-110-70-110

Area

BLOCK TYPE 1

EQUILATERAL Wayfinding

Two axial streets

Angles

Commercial/Residential Frontages

B

Truncate at diagonals at street

Triangular grid distribution on site.

22

HIGH SPEED

40,000 SQFT 40,000 SQFT 40,000 SQFT

CONCENTRATED

LOW SPEED BOUNDARY

HIGH SPEED

BOUNDARY

000 SQFT LOADING DOCKS BOUNDARY

CONCENTRATED

LOW SPEED BOUNDARY

HIGH SPEED

ENTRY PLAZAS

40,000 SQFT REORIENTATION DISTRIBUTED

40,000 SQFT

LOADING DOCKS

40,000 SQFT

BOUNDARY

CONCENTRATED

INACCESIBILE SURFACE LOW SPEED BOUNDARY

ENTRY PLAZAS

REORIENTATION BOUNDARY

DISTRIBUTED

INACCESIBILE SURFACE

MADE ACCESSIBLE

RAMP TO ROOF

MADE ACCESSIBLE

OCCUPIABLE SURFACE REORIENTATION

LOW SPEED

DISTRIBUTED

BOUNDARY ACCESSIBLE SURFACE DRIVE-IN

MADE ACCESSIBLE

RAMP TO ROOF

WALK-IN INACCESIBILE SURFACE CHECK-OUT AREAS

OCCUPIABLE SURFACE

CCESSIBLE SURFACE DRIVE-IN

WALK-IN CHECK-OUT AREAS

CCESIBILE SURFACE FRAMING PUBLIC PLAZAS

MADE ACCESSIBLE

RAMP TO ROOF

FRAMING PUBLIC PLAZAS

OCCUPIABLE SURFACE

FOLDED SURFACE

ACCESSIBLE SURFACE DRIVE-IN

WALK-IN CHECK-OUT AREAS

FRAMING PUBLIC PLAZAS

FOLDED SURFACE

TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

WALK-IN CHECK-OUT AREAS

TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT

T TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ROOF

O PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ROOF

STRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

FRAMING PUBLIC PLAZAS

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

COINCIDE WITH THE ENTRY RAMP

TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT

COINCIDE WITH THE ENTRY RAMP

LIFT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ROOF

FOLDED SURFACE

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

COINCIDE WITH THE PARKING RAMPS

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

Formal Development Diagram COINCIDE WITH THE PARKING RAMPS

COINCIDE WITH THE ENTRY RAMP

LIFT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ROOF

PACKED-IN RETAIL PROGRAM TO ACTIVATE THE SPACE

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

PACKED-IN RETAIL PROGRAM TO ACTIVATE THE SPACE

COINCIDE WITH THE PARKING RAMPS

TRI

PACKED-IN RE

INACCESIBILE SURFACE

MADE ACCESSIBLE

ACCESSIBLE SURFACE DRIVE-IN

RAMP TO ROOF

DRIVE-IN

OCCUPIABLE SURFACE

WALK-IN CHECK-OUT AREAS

TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT

FRAMING PUBLIC PLAZAS

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

FOLDED SURFACE

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

OINCIDE WITH THE ENTRY RAMP

PEDESTRAIN FRIENDLY LAYOUT

COINCIDE WITH THE PARKING RAMPS

LIFT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE ROOF

PACKED-IN RETAIL PROGRAM TO ACTIVATE THE SPACE

TRIANGULATED TRUSS TO REDUCE MASSIVENESS

23

24

Front Elevation

CAR RAMP

Cross-Section

96’

LEVEL 6

PARKING+RETAIL

84’

LEVEL 5

PARKING+RETAIL

72’

LEVEL 4

PARKING+RETAIL

60’

LEVEL 3

PARKING+RETAIL

40’

LEVEL 2

ATRIUM+PLAZA

30’

LEVEL 1.5

5’

LEVEL 1

RAMP #2

RAMP #1+BIG BOX

R PS

25

CAR PARK + RETAIL

ATRIUM + BIG BOX (GROUND FLOOR)

CAR PARK + RETAIL

CAR RAMPS

ENTRY RAMPS

FACADE

ENTRY RAMPS

ENTRY PLAZA

26

27

• URBAN • TYPOLOGY • COMPUTATION

Spring 2011 Core Studio, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Instructor: Nana Last

INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE This project tries to recreate the institutionalized process by neutralize all existing institutionalized power in a “democratic” exhibit space that invites everyone’s work. By tying the “art works” to a “stock market” system, the exhibit visualized what would otherwise be invisible process of institution of art: the process of it rising in the favor of the public, endorsed by certain organizations, and eventually inherit its power from the society that recognizes it.

30

LAYER 3 Layer 3

LAYER 3 LAYER 3

Layer 2

LAYER 2 LAYER 2 LAYER 2

Layer 1

LAYER 1 LAYER 1

31

3D Floor Realization Analysis: degree of overlap and vertical clearances.

3D Floor Realization: Flattening + Introducing Stairs

3D Massing Structure In-fill

Complete Structure Rationalization and Facade Cover

• COMMUNITY • TYPOLOGY • LOCAL

Spring 2010 Core Studio, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Instructor: Rosana Hernandez

REGENERATION The studio asked the question: what can Architecture contribute to a local community? The site has a mixed demographics of students and local residence, and is situated on a hill that would otherwise be the gap between the two groups of people. It is encouraged to bring the two group together and come up with a program that would allow the architecture to enable the community in some ways.

Exterior Perspective

Interior Perspective

• COMMUNITY • TYPOLOGY • LOCAL

Spring 2010 Core Studio, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Instructor: Rosana Hernandez

ATHLETIC FASHION After reading Delirious New York by Koolhaas and a trip to Downtown SOHO New York, the studio used Downtown Athletic Club as a case study and started our own design. The chosen site is confined in a about 20x100 street corner and it is intended to encourage sectional qualities in design.

Ground Floor Exterior Perspective

36

Design Process Diagram: Athletic Club as Fashion Store

37

Sectional Perspective: Program Map

• MATERIAL • CRAFTSMANSHIP • COMPUTATION Spring 2014 Workshop, School of Architecture, MIT Instructor: Chris Dewart Teammate: Heamin Kim

WOOD WORKER An intense semester of carpentry training, two individual furniture pieces were developed as attempts to bridge the gap between computational imagination and manufacturing.

The Curtain: Close Shot 1

The Curtain: Close Shot 2

40

9.00

13.50

1.25

13.00

10.50

7.50

“The Curtain”: Elevations

1 13” X 9” X 2” (WALNUT) DOUBLE-SIDE MILLING INSERT SPACERS

2 2” X 2” X 15” (WALNUT) 4 AXIS MILLING

3 ASSEMBLE

“The Curtain”: Construction Process

4 WRAP-UP + FINISH

41

(Left) Double-side Milling + (Right) 4 axis milling

Finding surface normal threshold boundary for better milling compatibility.

“The Curtain�: (Left) Digital visualization vs (Right) Physical Object

42

• REFURBISHMENT • TYPOLOGY • URBAN

Summer 2014 Lifestyle, Chicago, Gensler Supervisor: Benjy Ward + Aleksandar Sasha Zeljic

1330W FULTON MARKET Part of the Chicago West Loop re-activation effort. Mixed-use office building re-modeling. New generation of tech companies moving labor forces and other demand outside of the downtown Chicago, and West Loop, the once popular meat industry and now almost abandoned neighborhood, is now looking at its second wind.

43

Entry Interior Shot

44

Aerial View

45

46

• COMPETITION • TYPOLOGY • URBAN

Summer 2012 Georgetown, DC, Lehman Smith Mcleish Supervisor: Ron Fiegenschuh

OFFICE SPACES In-house competition for a Casino project in Japan, with two potential sites at two different bay areas. Contributed one design scheme on my own.

47

ME

JUN WANG

MArch I AP: Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2015 BS Arch: University of Virginia, 2011 e: maraluke@gmail.com c: +1-(434)-466-2711

Jun Wang is a designer and informaniac born in Qinghuangdao, China, and moved from places to places ever since. He had attend more than four different kindergartens, travelled from Tibet to Venice, and worked in different cities like Beijing, Shanghai, DC, New York, etc.. He believes in the power of communication, the beauty of languages, and the value of design. Raised by a music teacher grandma, and computer scientist parents, he loves the rigour of logic and the passion of art, and hopes to lead a life where the two are both present.

Time for a new page.

雋