e[scape] RMIT BACHELORS STUDIO SEMESTER 2 2022
Studio Leaders: Mary Spyropoulos Joshua Lye
www.jlstudio.com.au
About e[scape] Studio Outline The studio will challenge students to experiment with the design of new typologies for high density residential towers with hybrid programming that supports site-specific high density and high-quality human inhabitation, and other forms of programming corresponding to industry 4.0 and green and sharing economy. Specifically, the studio will focus on the residential planning component of tower design, students will investigate the current development patterns of high-density residential tower design. Providing an opportunity to wrestle with basic questions of how we live, what kind of spaces we need and want, and how this affects the dynamics between architecture and social inhabitants in an urban environment. New high-density development must engage with the complexities of contemporary practice by generating alternative design models and processes that are capable of responding to different conditions and challenges. Through these investigations, students will produce proposals for high density residential towers within a selected site in Melbourne’s CBD.
Conceptual Agenda Due to the imminent population growth, we will continue to build new cities at high density. In this context, we will be re-designing the architectural typology of a tower, in search of novel habitation patterns for enhanced wellbeing. The studio will look at the potential for future living beyond established models, connecting its mor phological patterns directly to local physics, exponential technologies, construction methods of CLT prefabrication, disruptive patterns, distributed biomass, emerging community spaces and social dynamics. The studio looks critically at the current planning, automation, and prefabrication examples of current mass timber tower projects and emerging design intelligence platforms to evolve the next generation of scientifically enhanced buildings that are co-designed and built with big data and Ai. Students will critically examine historic and current works of architects such as Moshe Safdie, Jean Renaudie, Daniel Kohler and others that begin to offer richer prefabricated tectonic models as a driver for design thinking rather than a pure method of construction.
Students will work in groups of 2 for the end of semester project Skilling - What students will learn Prior knowledge of Rhino and Grasshopper is highly encouraged but not required. Design Skill Students will learn about design systems that are deeply computational and universal through the simplicity of discrete building blocks, connection logics and complex aggregations. Students will explore a platform of architecture that allows for virtually infinite combinatorics and emergence of complex tectonic states through the collective action of underlying elements. Through this student will gain a knowledge of work across scales from the macro scale of the large tower form and its relation to the larger city context as well as the micro scale of the understanding how to spatially organise both volumetrically and in plan different residential sequences. Communication Skill Students will learn to 3D and algorithmically model complex geometries of their tower designs by working with discrete elements and analytical data sets. Through learning of 3d modelling skills, students will learn how to communicate their projects through diagrams, renders and video animation to best represent the core ideas and themes of their projects.
Scape Students will investigate the current Scape business model and shared student co living offerings.
Site Students will develop proposals on one of the current scape sites in the Melbourne CBD and Carlton areas.
Program Students will investigate the current development patterns of high-density residential models, co-living, industry 4.0 and sharing economies. Providing an opportunity to wrestle with basic questions of how we live, what kind of spaces we need and want, and how this affects the dynamics between ar chitecture and social inhabitants in an urban environment.
Components & assemblage Students willl learn how to design with discrete building systems and their assemblages to generate towers with computational techniques.
Floor planning Students willl learn how to design in plan to resolve the spatially complex geometries of the tower. Developing logics of floorplanning of co living and student shared amentities.
Section Students will be challenged to create higher quality and richer architectural space than the current Scape model. Through the aggregation systems, students will learn to develop strategies for how different co living amenties and programs manifest through architectural space.
Asethetics Ultimately this studio will be searching for novel awe-inspiring aesthetics, intensive high density tower sequences and exploring new fundamentals of architecture that takes the opportunities for more radical innovation in both formal expression and super performance.
Precedents Alisa Andrasek Working under the context of Andrasek’s research lab, projects undertaken in previous practices and Biothing and Wonderlab shape ideas of algorithmic processes and dealing with complexity.
Projects
Bloom 2012, Alisa Andrasek, Jose Sanchez Cloud Pergola , 2018, Alisa Andrasek, Madalin Gheorghe, Bruno Juricic, Ai Build, Arup Engineering Prizma, 2012, Alisa Andrasek, Jose Sanchez, Jose Cadilhe Climath: Mathematics In Stone Competition Proposal For The Mixed Use Urban / Infrastructural Development In Dubrovnik Croatia 18,000 Sq Meters + 12,000 Sq Meters Open Ai
Moshe Safdie Safdie’s Habitat series pioneered the design and construction of three dimensional prefabricated units of habitation. Both as an urban arrangement and mixed residential commercial typologies. The clustering of modular elements based on logics of connection and geometry provides exemplary works into the use of prefabrication as a design driver.
Projects
Habitat Original Proposal, 1964, Moshe Safdie Habitat ‘67, 1964 -1967, Moshe Safdie Habitat Israel, 1969 - 1970, Moshe Safdie Habitat New York I, 1967 - 1968, Moshe Safdie Habitat New York II, 1967 - 1968, Moshe Safdie San Francisco State College Student Union, 1967 - 1968, Moshe Safdie Tropaco Resort, 1968 - 1969, Moshe Safdie Habitat Puerto Rico, 1968 - 1970, Moshe Safdie Habitat Rochester, 1971, Moshe Safdie Habitat Tehran, 1978, Moshe Safdie
Kengo Kuma Through the use of often wooden elements, Kengo Kuma uses discrete elements to articulate spatial conditions based on basic geometrical connection logics. Kuma also develops an ability to push articulation of spatial sequences through varying resolutions of discrete elements. Discrete elements are often both structural as they are spatial decorative in nature.
Projects
GC Prostho Museum Research Center, 2010, Kengo Kuma Associates Yusuhara Wooden Bridge, 2011, Kengo Kuma Associates Sunny Hills, 2013, Kengo Kuma Associates Coeda House, 2017, Kengo Kuma Associates House Vision Tokyo , 2016, Kengo Kuma Associates Aroma Terrace, 2019, Kengo Kuma Associates
Precedents Giles Retsin Retsin’s distinct aesthetics and privileging of the part over the whole produces a framework for discrete design where architecture is viewed through parts that aggregate to slabs, roofs, walls. The idea of the monolith through the part is something that is interesting through Retsin’s work. Retsin deals on the lower resolution of parts but is able to design with articulation through carefully consideration of the geometrical part typology. Retains’ work deals mainly in timber prefabricated components.
Projects
Diamonds , 2016 KarlsPlatz 1, 2015 Blokhut, 2015 Tallin Architecture Biennale, 2018 200m Housing Block, 2018 Nurmberg Concert Hall , 2018 Royal academy of the arts - 2019
Daniel Koehler/Lab-Eds Koehler investigates mereological thinking in architecture through investigation of known typologies and their formations of bits as part of the larger cities whole. His projects push notions of urban neighbourhoods and future cities through the combinatorics of discrete elements of larger building components of the city. Koehler puts forth an alternative model for ‘Large city architecture’, this is of constant interest in my PhD working under similar methods of combinatorics and discrete components.
Projects
RC8 Mereologies: Wa(o)nderYards, 2016 -2017 RC17 The Fourth Part: iiOOOI, 2017 - 2018 RC17 The Fourth Part: Enframes, 2017 - 2018 RC17 The Fourth Part: NPoche, 2017 - 2018 RC17 The Fourth Part: Blockerties, 2017 - 2018 RC17 When Numbers Dwell: Comata, 2018 - 2019
Deliverables The final and mid semester projects will require students to develop a resolved architectural design of a high-density residential tower that addresses the brief of the studio. The final project must clearly demonstrate and communicate a consistent and coherent critical position on the studio thematic and the student’s own creative thinking and solutions. Students are also expected to provide a record of the studio process they have undertaken to generate, develop and refine their final projects.
Concept/Site All site plans must include scale and north point to be located in the bottom right corner of the page. Any diagrams, imagery or graphics that explain your concept and site Site plan which should include the location of your building and your peers. While also highlighting significant landmarks, street names, etc. Components Design process of previous components Current components - show dimensions of components and outline different elements such as window placement of components in different orientations. Diagrams of connection logics - clearly show how your components connect. Aggregations Show design process of previous aggregation studies Show how the current components you are using aggregate to create different sequences. Plans All plans must have wall thickness and window placement. Plans must include scale and north point to be located in the bottom right corner of the page. Section All sections must have wall thickness and window placement. Sections must include scale and north point to be located in the bottom right corner of the page. Renders Include any renders of final semester project Maximum 10 renders of final aggregation
Assesment Criteria In the final crit and portfolio, students must provide visual and verbal and other presentation materials that illustrate the design. In their submission students must analyse their own work, and critically reflect on how the project responds to and addresses the key questions of the studio. The degree to which all aspects of the project respond to and advance the studio question will be an indicator of success in this criterion.
Criteria Response to studio brief 1.
Fulfilment of the design brief and engagement with the key issues of high-density residential design.
2.
Demonstrate an understanding of the design brief and how the proposed project engages with these issues.
Design Outcome 1.
Successful projects will have challenged what the typology of a Tower could be, proposing novel design speculations.
2.
Exhibit an understanding of design at different scales.
3.
Generate a design thinking and ideas that are executed both at the scale of the larger tower organisation as well as the apartment planning.
4.
Demonstrated knowledge of precedents
5.
Offer design outcomes that are rich in architecture space and tectonics.
Design Deliverables and communication 1.
Successful projects will be able to visually represent the project material through architectural drawings, imager and animations.
2.
Demonstration of a clear and concise verbal presentation of the projects design ideas.
Studio engagement 1.
Engagement in the studios culture during design reviews through the semester.
2.
Ability to engage and evolve projects through critical feedback given by tutors.
Grading High Distinction ( 80-100%) Exceptionally clear understanding of subject matter and appreciation of issues; well organised, with formulated and sustained presentation and response to critique. Addresses all the specific objectives with many to a high standard. Evidence of creative insight and originality. Distinction (70-79%) Strong grasp of subject matter and appreciation of key issues; addresses all the specific objectives, with several to a high standard; clearly developed presentation and response to critique. Evidence of creative and solid work. Credit (60-69%) Competent understanding of subject matter and appreciation of the main issues; addresses all the specific objectives, some reasonably well. Clearly developed presentation and response to critique; well prepared and presented. Pass (50-59%) Satisfactory. Appreciation of subject matter and issues. Addresses all the specific objectives; work generally lacking in depth and breadth. Often work of this grade
www.jlstudio.com.au