Portfolio by Kara Sharpe

Decision Variables

x12

x13

x14

Window Type x15 0

0 | washington 0 0 0 BUILDING ASSEMBLIES U 2009

KETC MEDIA COMPLEX | axi:Ome llc 2009

$25.85 $27.13 $21.61 THE Material Cost/Sq. Ft. MISSION CENTER L3C |$21.38 Skandalaris 2010 $28.41 Labor Cost/Sq. Ft. $1.09 $1.09 $1.09 $1.09 $1.09 Total Cost/Sq Ft. Sq. Ft. of SA Total Cost Percent of Assembly SA s.t. Constraints R‐value U‐Value SHGC

Real virtual performance | Harvard GSD 2010 URBAN INTERVENTION | Washington U 2009

executable research

KINETIC ARCHITECTURE | Harvard GSD 2010

architecture

x11

building/site reciprocity | Harvard GSD 2010

$26.95 30.32 $816.96 0.0842

$22.47 44.38 $997.14 0.1233

$28.22 30.32 $855.76 0.0842

$22.70 47.33 $1,074.59 0.1315

$29.51 30.32 $894.58 0.0842

2.9412 0.34 0.32 1

3.2258 0.31 0.21 1

3.7037 0.27 0.2 1

0.0842

0.1233

0.0842

0.1315

0.0842

Binary

Window:Wall

METABOLIC CITY EXHIBIT | Axi:Ome llc 2009

INVERSION | Washington U 2008

DIFFUSION/DEFRACTION | Washington U 2008

formal investigations

BOTTLE | Washington U 2009

phenomenal investigations

PROJECTIVE GEOMETRIES | Harvard GSD 2010

TRANSPARENT REFLECTIONS | Washinton U 2008

Fall 2010 | Harvard GSD

architecture

pp|

4-7

Summer 2009 | Axi:Ome llc pp|

8-11

Fall 2010 | Harvard GSD pp|

12-17

pp|

18-23

Fall 2010 | Harvard GSD pp|

24-27

executable research formal investigations phenomenal investigations

Spring 2009 | Washington U.

Building/site reciprocity

Fall 2010. GSD Core 1 Studio. Prof: Michael Wang

the project aims to treat the building and the site as equally maleable. we often consider the site to be fixed, but what if the site and the building could provide feedback to the one another to create a thoughtful solution. using grasshopper, the project developed with a feedback loop linking the site and the building. the house is considered to be an anomaly in an otherwise idyllic row of typical cambridge, ma houses. as the site tranforms, the house reflects the impact of the surrounding homes. the result is a house that is divided accross a fissure in the site creating 2 bars, one primary and one secondary. the sectional shift sheers program pieces accross the fissure, urging users to experience the fissure space as a connection. the tension of the fissure and resulting impact on the house manifests in impossible, compressed spaces.

transforming site diagram

A2work

A1show

B1 show

exterior renderings

physical model

floor plans

transforming floor plan diagram

A3live

B3 live

interior renderings

B2 work

building/site reciprocity

public media complex

Summer 2009 - Summer 2010. Axi:Ome llc

the project was commissioned by university of missouri, saint louis to house their media classrooms and public radio station in close proximity to the exisiting public television station. the project intends to create public space by allowing for a plaza in between the proposed and the existing. the element of spectacle is activated by privileging views of live radio and television broadcasting to those occupying the plaza. the plaza itself employs terraces and ramped planes to create spaces for both movement and gathering.

* the project was collaboratively designed and fabricated under Sung Ho Kim and Heather Woofter of Axi:Ome llc with fellow students. My role began in the design development phase with schematic floor plans and continued with the helping in the design of the new facade and the plaza. My internship was supported through the Skandalaris Internship Program of the Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Washington University in St. Louis.

Pulitzer Foundation

1. KWMU Office 2. KWMU Office 3. KWMU Office 4. KWMU Office 5. KWMU Office 6. Engineering 7. Engineering 8. M Toilet 9. Master Control 10. Engineering 11. W Toilet 12. KWMU Office 13. KWMU Office 14. Copy/Work 15. KWMU Office 16. KWMU Office 17. Edit 01 18. Production 01 19. HD Studio 06 20. Writers 21. Production 02 22. HD Control 05 23. Edit 02 24. Board Room 25. On Air Studio 04 26. On Air Control 03 27. On Air/ Talent Prep 28. Exterior Terrace

Sheldon

Alley

KETC 1

Nine Network

15 17

Terrace

Board Room

6 7 8

Studio A

Teachers Trust Building

20 22

UMSL/KWMU 24

2nd Floor: 10,213 SF

Olive Blvd.

UMSL/KWMU Total Building (excluding balconies) 29,930 SF

Level 1 Floor Plan Sheldon

Pulitzer Foundation

1. Learning Studio 2. Media Production Room 3. UMSL Office 04 and 05

4. UMSL Floor 2 Office 06 and 07 UMSL Office 08 and 09 29 5. June 2009 6. Storage N 1/32”=1’0” 7. Editing Room

Parking

8. Audio Sound Booth 9. Editing Room 10. Mechanical 11. Meeting Room 12. M and W Showers 13. Storage 14. Storage 15. Reception 16. Student Lounge 17. M Toilet 18. W Toilet 19. Performance Space

Alley

3 4

Studio A

Studio B

Teachers Trust Building

12 13

KETC

UMSL/ KWMU

17 18

1st Floor: 9,678 SF

Olive Blvd.

UMSL/KWMU Total Building (excluding balconies) 29,930 SF

Level 2 Floor Plan Sheldon

Pulitzer Foundation

Parking

Alley

27 1 2 4

7 8 10

1. Kitchen 2. UMSL Office 01 3. UMSL Office 02 Floor 4. UMSL1Conference Room 29Break June 2009 5. Room N 6. M Toilet 1/32”=1’0” 7. W Toilet 8. UMSL Office 03 9. General Manager 10. Secretary Storage 11. Storage 12. Reception/Copy/Mail 13. IT Closet 14. Admin Assistants 15. Business Fiscal Officer 16. Mechanical 17. MEM/CA/MKT 18. Administrative Manager 19. Membership Manager 20. Board Room 21. Development Director 22. Grants Manager 23. Marketing Assistant 24. Marketing Manager 25. Corporate Accounts Manager 26. Conference Room 27. Exterior Terrace

14 15

Teachers Trust Building

16 17

18 19

UMSL/KWMU

KETC 20

23 24

3rd Floor: 10,039 SF

Olive Blvd.

UMSL/KWMU Total Building (excluding balconies) 29,930 SF

Level 3 Floor Plan Parking

Floor 3 29 June 2009 1/32”=1’0”

public media complex 11

plaza circulation diagrams

density and aggregation diagrams of plaza users based on activity

Real Virtual performance

Fall 2010. GSD Materials + Construction. Profs: Danielle Etzler + Mark Mulligan

a one-week long project designed and fabricated with 11 peers. the project aims to address issues of poche and tectonic at the human scale. tensile, rigid, and mechanical systems are layered to create an interactive passage way that engages the user to define its form. the user interacts with moveable barriers in the passage way, creating points of tension on the exterior form. this disconnect of inside to outside creates a relationship between the subject and the object that aims to mimic virtual relationships. the user unknowingly becomes objectified as his actions translate to an external form revealed to a viewer.

14 fabrication process photos

process sketches and detail drawings

resting state

real virtual performance

user intervention

fully inflected exterior view

fully inflected interior view

interior view of poche space

real virtual performance

exterior view

urban intervention

Spring 2009. Washington U. 3rd Year Studio. Prof: Sarah Gibson

the project attempts to resolve voids in the urban fabric of st. louis, mo. sensitive to the current conditions, a time-phased intervention is proposed to revive, expand, and strengthen the social and economical networks. form and program act to maximize usage across changing conditions through a flexible modular structure. the structure can form and reform according to occupancy, purpose, and environmental conditions. the module is both varied and constant, plugging into an abandoned plinth to create demand and attraction. focus is given to the interface between the user and the module at multiple scales and moments.

20 temporal development and usage diagram

299.13

pedestrian movement diagram

urban factors diagram

1:1 10’ x 10’ close proximity panel

1:1.5 10’ x 15’ medium proximity panel

1:2 10’ x 20’ distant proximity panel

contextual influence diagram

urban intervention

close proximity panel

medium proximity panel

distant proximity panel

scale and perception diagrams showing the 3 modules for multiple interfaces

occupation scenarios

view from plinth

urban intervention

KINETIC ARCHITECTURE

Fall 2010. GSD Core 1 Studio. Prof: Michael Wang

the project strives to reconcile the movement of boat locks located on the charles river with a building sited on the locks. the project began with a study of mechanisms to motivate types of movement for changing space. it developed to a system of folding plates that allow the architecture to cycle through different types of inhabitation. the building retracts to 2-dimensions for the boats to pass through the locks. the building then expands to be occupied as an urban park and gathering space with multiple access configurations for different events. finally, the building collapses horizontally for public markets or playing fields. the movement of the locks creates an opportunity for flexible architecture that can evolve our thinking about static buildings.

adaptive occupation scenarios

3 states of movement

kinetic architecture

pp|

Window Type 30-33 x14 x15 0 0

Decision Variables

x11 0

x12 0

x13 0

Material Cost/Sq. Ft. Labor Cost/Sq. Ft. Total Cost/Sq Ft. Sq. Ft. of SA Total Cost Percent of Assembly SA s.t. Constraints R‐value U‐Value SHGC

$25.85 $1.09 $26.95 30.32 $816.96 0.0842

$21.38 $1.09 $22.47 44.38 $997.14 0.1233

$27.13 $1.09 $28.22 30.32 $855.76 0.0842

$21.61 $1.09 $22.70 47.33 $1,074.59 0.1315

2.9412 0.34 0.32 1

3.2258 0.31 0.21 1

0.0842

0.1233

0.0842

Fall 2009 | Skandalaris Center pp|

x16 0

x17 0

x18 1

x19 0

$28.41 $1.09 $29.51 30.32 $894.58 0.0842

$25.60 $1.09 $26.69 36.49 $973.89 0.1014

$18.93 $1.09 $20.02 32.46 $649.79 0.0902

$16.00 $1.09 $17.09 47.33 $808.83 0.1315

$18.81 $1.09 $19.90 36.88 $733.96 0.1024

3.2258 0.31 0.21 1

3.7037 0.27 0.2 1

3.2258 0.31 0.34 1

3.3333 0.3 0.22 1

0.1315

0.0842

0.1014

0.0902

0.1315

0.1024

Binary

Window:Wall

34-35

formal investigations phenomenal investigations

architecture executable research

Fall 2009 | Washington U.

enarios

12%

15%

22.5%

25%

30%

premise of research Co

Co mfo r t

L i fe - c yc l e E n e rgy Co s t E nergy Use CO 2 E missions

Ai r Te mp urature S o un d Li g ht As p e c t

I n i t i al Cap i t al Co s t

lit

Quality

Cost

Pe r fo r ma n ce Ai r Le a k a g e He at G a i n / Lo s s

Old Paradigm

Buildability Fo r m a n d Ae s t h e t i c s

Time Co nt r u c t i o n Co mmi s s i o n i n g

“Pick Two”

B u i l d i n g L i fe - s p a n

Tim e

assembly performance: research

Fall 2009. 6 credit Independent Study. Prof: Jenny Lovell

the independent research was proposed as a conversation between operations management and architecture. linear programming techniques conventionally used to optimize product mixes and scheduling were applied to a typical* residential exterior wall assembly to define a ‘recipe’ based on constraints such as minimum r-value or minimum glazing to solid ratio. analysis of four building codes and guidelines drove the definition of a “best practice”. the research progressed with an evaluation of quality and comfort, both qualitatively and quantitativaly. sustainability is just as much the ways in which we behave with a space as it is the way in which in the space is made. *typical defined by common construction methods in the saint louis area.

skewed relationships

assembly components as decision variables typical saint louis dwelling assembly

Co m fo r t

st Co

I n i t i al Cap i t a l Cost

Quality

Ai r Te m p u rat u re Sound L i g ht As p e c t

Windows Varying in: • Square footage of surface area • U-Value • Solar Heat Gain Coefficient • Price

Pe r fo r m a nce Ai r Le ak ag e H e at G a i n / Lo s s

L i fe - c yc l e E n erg y Cost Energ y Use CO2 Emis s i o ns

Builda bilit y Fo r m a nd Ae s the tics

Exterior Sheathing: Brick • R-value: 0.94 • Price: $10.05/Sq. Ft. • Square footage of surface area dependent on square footage of optimal window Air Space • R-value: 1 • Price: $0.00 • Square footage of surface area dependent on square footage of optimal window

Cont r u c t i on Commi ssi on i n g B u i ldi n g L i fe -spa n

Exterior Sheathing Varying in: • R-Value • Price • Thickness • Square footage of surface area dependent on square footage of optimal window

Ti me

Cost

Air Leak ag e Heat G ain/Los s

Buil dabil it y For m and Aesthetics

Per for m ance

lit

Com for t

Air Tem p u ratu re S ou nd L ig ht As p ec t

Energy Use CO2 Emi ssio ns

I n itial Cap ita l Co st Life - c ycle E nergy Co st

X195:X200: Light Wood Framing Varying in: • Dimension: 2”x 4” vs. 2” x 6” • Spacing • R-Value • Price X189:X194: Batt Insulation Varying in: • Thickness dependent on optimal framing dimension • Total surface area dependent on optimal framing spacing • Price

Co ntruc tio n Co mmissio ning Build ing Life -spa n

Time

X201:X202: Gypsum Board Varying in: • Thickness • R-Value • Price • Square footage of surface area dependent on square footage of optimal window

linear program [ ‘optimal’ wall assembly calculator ] Decision Variables

x11 0

x12 0

x13 0

x14 0

Window Type x15 0

x16 0

x17 0

x18 1

x19 0

x21 0

x22 0

x23 0

x24 0

Brick Veneer x25 0

x26 0

x27 0

x28 1

x29 0

x31 0

x32 0

x33 0

x34 0

x36 0

x37 0

x38 1

x39 0

x41 0

x42 0

x43 0

x44 0

x45 0

x46 0

x48 1

x49 0

x51 0

x52 0

x53 0

x54 0

x55 0

x194 0

x195 0

x196 0

x197 0

x198 1

x199 0

x201 0

x202 0

x203 0

x204 0

x205 0

x206 0

x207 0

x208 1

x212 0

x213 0

x214 0

x215 0

x216 0

x217 0

x218 0

x219 0

Material Cost/Sq. Ft. Labor Cost/Sq. Ft. Total Cost/Sq Ft. Sq. Ft. of SA Total Cost Percent of Assembly SA s.t. Constraints R‐value U‐Value SHGC

$25.85 $1.09 $26.95 30.32 $816.96 0.0842

$21.38 $1.09 $22.47 44.38 $997.14 0.1233

$27.13 $1.09 $28.22 30.32 $855.76 0.0842

$21.61 $1.09 $22.70 47.33 $1,074.59 0.1315

$28.41 $1.09 $29.51 30.32 $894.58 0.0842

$25.60 $1.09 $26.69 36.49 $973.89 0.1014

$18.93 $1.09 $20.02 32.46 $649.79 0.0902

$16.00 $1.09 $17.09 47.33 $808.83 0.1315

$18.81 $1.09 $19.90 36.88 $733.96 0.1024

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 329.68 $3,313.29 0.9158

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 315.63 $3,172.03 0.9098

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 329.68 $3,313.29 0.9010

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 312.67 $3,142.30 0.8944

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 329.68 $3,313.29 0.8976

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 323.51 $3,251.31 0.8907

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 327.54 $3,291.79 0.9172

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 312.67 $3,142.30 0.9072

$3.60 $6.45 $10.05 323.13 $3,247.41 0.8796

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 329.68 $0.00 0.9158

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 315.63 $0.00 0.9098

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 329.68 $0.00 0.9010

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 312.67 $0.00 0.8944

Air Space x35 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 329.68 $0.00 0.8976

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 323.51 $0.00 0.8907

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 327.54 $0.00 0.9172

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 312.67 $0.00 0.9072

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 323.13 $0.00 0.8796

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 329.68 $596.72 0.9158

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 315.63 $571.28 0.9098

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 329.68 $596.72 0.9010

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 312.67 $565.93 0.8944

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 329.68 $596.72 0.8976

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 323.51 $585.56 0.8907

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 327.54 $592.85 0.9172

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 312.67 $565.93 0.9072

$0.96 $0.85 $1.81 323.13 $584.86 0.8796

$1.27 $0.91 $2.18 329.68 $718.70 0.9158

$1.27 $0.91 $2.18 315.63 $688.06 0.9098

$1.27 $0.91 $2.18 329.68 $718.70 0.9010

$1.27 $0.91 $2.18 312.67 $681.61 0.8944

#### #### #### #### #### ####

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.8944

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.8976

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.8907

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.9172

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.9072

$4.16 $11.52 $15.68 45 $705.60 0.8796

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.9158

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 315.63 $388.22 0.9098

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.9010

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 312.67 $384.58 0.8944

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.8976

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.51 $397.92 0.8907

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 327.54 $402.88 0.9172

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 312.67 $384.58 0.9072

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.13 $397.44 0.8796

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.9158

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 315.63 $388.22 0.9098

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.9010

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 312.67 $384.58 0.8944

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 329.68 $405.51 0.8976

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.51 $397.92 0.8907

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 327.54 $402.88 0.9172

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 312.67 $384.58 0.9072

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.13 $397.44 0.8796

2.9412 0.34 0.32 1

3.2258 0.31 0.21 1

3.7037 0.27 0.2 1

3.2258 0.31 0.34 1

3.3333 0.3 0.22 1

0.8608

0.8552

0.8470

0.8408

0.8437

0.8373

0.8622

0.8528

0.8269

0.9158

0.9098

0.9010

0.8944

0.8976

0.8907

0.9172

0.9072

0.8796

0.4304

0.4276

0.4235

0.4204

0.4219

0.4186

0.4311

0.4264

0.4134

0.5769

0.5732

0.5677

0.5635

####

7.9427

7.9704

7.9098

8.1451

8.0561

7.8111

0.4121

0.4094

0.4055

0.4025

0.4039

0.4008

0.4128

0.4082

0.3958

0.5128

0.5095

0.5046

0.5009

0.5026

0.4988

0.5137

0.5080

0.4926

1 1

0.0842 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

0.1233

0.0842

0.1315

0.0842

0.1014

0.0902

0.1315

0.1024

Binary

Window:Wall

Exterior Sheathing x47 0

Studs

Interior Sheathing x209 x211 0 0

1 1 1

1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1

1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1

1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1

‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1

‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1 1 1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

1 1 1 1 1

Decision Variables

x11 0

x12 0

x13 0

x14 0

Material Cost/Sq. Ft. Labor Cost/Sq. Ft. Total Cost/Sq Ft. Sq. Ft. of SA Total Cost Percent of Assembly SA s.t. Constraints R‐value U‐Value SHGC

$25.85 $1.09 $26.95 30.32 $816.96 0.0842

$21.38 $1.09 $22.47 44.38 $997.14 0.1233

$27.13 $1.09 $28.22 30.32 $855.76 0.0842

$21.61 $1.09 $22.70 47.33 $1,074.59 0.1315

2.9412 0.34 0.32 1

3.2258 0.31 0.21 1

Window Type x15 0

x16 0

x17 0

x18 1

x19 0

$28.41 $1.09 $29.51 30.32 $894.58 0.0842

$25.60 $1.09 $26.69 36.49 $973.89 0.1014

$18.93 $1.09 $20.02 32.46 $649.79 0.0902

$16.00 $1.09 $17.09 47.33 $808.83 0.1315

$18.81 $1.09 $19.90 36.88 $733.96 0.1024

3.7037 0.27 0.2 1

3.2258 0.31 0.34 1

3.3333 0.3 0.22 1

x216 0

x217 0

x218 0

x219 0

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.51 $397.92 0.8907

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 327.54 $402.88 0.9172

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 312.67 $384.58 0.9072

$0.40 $0.83 $1.23 323.13 $397.44 0.8796

0.4988

0.5137

0.5080

0.4926

Binary

Window:Wall

‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1

0.0842

0.1233

0.0842

0.1315

0.0842

0.1014

0.0902

0.1315

0.1024

assembly performance

Total Cost $5,786.79 Glazing Siding Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Interior Sheathing LHS 27.48 0.31 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Symbol >= <= <= = = = = = = = <= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

RHS 13.00 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

R‐Value U‐Value SHGC

Binary

Window:Wall Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 6

Window 7

Window 8

Window 9

Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing Brick Air Space Exterior Sheathing Insulation Studs Int Sheathing

Studs to Insulation

Total Cost $5,786.79

Glazing Glazing Siding Siding Air Space Air Space Rigid Insulation Exterior Sheathing Exterior Sheathing Insulation Insulation Studs Studs Interior Sheathing Interior Sheathing

LHS 27.48 0.31 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Symbol >= <= <= = = = = = = = <= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

R‐Value U‐Value SHGC

Binary

Window:Wall Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 6

Window 7

Window 8

Everyday nonprofit professionals, executive directors, and board members struggle to balance achieving their missions and running their organizations. The Mission Center takes the struggle out of operating these organizations, helping nonprofits to maximize their social impact.

The Mission Center is a hybrid social venture that accelerates social change by working with nonprofit organizations to improve the way in which charitable organizations are managed, resourced and scaled. The Founder and CEO, Chris Miller, witnessed the inefficiencies many NPOs face as they struggle to maintain their organizationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; operations while fulfilling their social aims. In response, he set out to build an organization that would provide NPOs with the resources and capacity they lack by offering business and administrative services. My colleagues and I recognized this as an opportunity to address a human-centered problem with business solutions that focus on the people making a difference in the nonprofit sector. I worked with Chris and three colleagues to develop the business model for The Mission Center and take the venture to market. Operations began in April 2010, and The Mission Center is presently cash flow positive with over 50 clients and more than $100,000 in angel investments. The Mission Center provides services to NPO clients such as consulting, HR administration, accounting, and IT to help them carry out their mission-focused work while reducing the burden of the administrative work. For some functions, such as HR administration and accounting, The Mission Center acts as an intermediary between its client and a service provider that it has partnered with. For consulting, The Mission Center provides one-on-one development with organizations through our executive team who has experience in all levels of NPOs and for-profit businesses. While developing The Mission Center, my team observed that the current culture in nonprofits often does not value business functions as core to their social programs. The Mission Center helps NPOs operate more efficiently by providing business services tailored to support their core social programs. The Center also helps NPOs develop capabilities for later so that they can take charge of their organizationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; business functions when they are ready. 34

Value Proposition The Mission Center provides innovative, unique, and tangible value to its shareholders. Foundations can invest in Program Related Investments (PRIs) which allow them to meet their 5% annual payout requirement and earn their principal investment back, plus some interest. PRIs with The Mission Center allow foundations to help many organizations with a single investment. This unique investment opportunity for foundations adds even greater value for socially-conscious investors by mitigating these investorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; risk. The greatest value we can offer our clients by outsourcing their administrative functions is the time and energy we are freeing up, allowing them to focus on their missions. Our clients will also recognize increased efficiencies in their operations in the way the employee relations are handled. The most tangible value for our clients is the cost savings from allowing us to facilitate their employee relations and the newly added time they will have to devote to their mission â&#x20AC;&#x201C; their most valuable asset.

HR Function Model

the mission center

The Mission Center began operations in April 2010. Within 2 months of opening its doors, The Mission Center was able to offer NPOs HR administration, consulting, accounting, and IT services. The Mission Center currently has over 50 clients, is cash flow positive, and has raised over $120k in funding.

Fall 2010 | Harvard GSD

architecture executable research formal investigations

pp|

38-39

Fall 2009 | Washington U. pp|

40-43

Spring 2010 | Washington U. 44-45

phenomenal investigations

pp|

drawings and models of dimetric, trimetric, and transformed views of a geometry

model of a planar-quad panelized surface

PROJECTIVE GEOMETRIES

Fall 2010. Harvard GSD. Prof: Cameron Wu

techniques in projective and transformative drawing and modeling were developed through a 6 week course. the work began with a trimetric projection from plan and section drawings and evolved into modeling transformed trimetric volumes and complex surfaces through planarquadrilateral techniques, the folded plate method, and the secant method.

INVERSION

Fall 2008. Studio 311. Prof: Gia Daskalakis

thomas leeserâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s twin house is used as precedence for a study of inversion. inversion is approached as a transformation of a real input to create an inverse, virtual output. this transformation can also be thought of as an overlapping of the real and the virtual through projection. in either case, there is an input that is transformed to yield an output. if inversion is defined as a transformation of three reflections, then consider the relationship between the original and its inverse, the real and the virtual. leeser identifies this relationship as one with no depth, occurring through a zero space. this relationship could also be described by a volume or a plane.

Thomas Leeser. Twin House. model

inversion

bottle disection

cut sheet with assembly instructions

OBJECT STUDY: BOTTLE

Spring 2009. Washington U. Prof: Aaron Senne

a study of a common household item through a precise dissection and recreation lead to a deeper understanding of the objectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design, fabrication, and functionality. the object is recreated in a perspectival extrusion to explore the representation of the object from a vantage point.

Fall 2009 | Axi:Ome llc

architecture executable research formal investigations phenomenal investigations

pp|

plan 04_05

2’

4’

8’

48-53

Spring 2008 | Washington U. pp|

52-57

Fall 2008 | Washington U. pp|

58-63

metabolic city exhibition

the exhibition addresses the architectural movements led by archigram, the metabolists, and constant. the exhibition table employs circulation to drive a chronological narrative of the movements and their impact on our understanding of architecture, space, and the city. the exhibition featured two films, one of which was proposed to be housed in a film booth. collaborative work through an elective studio and through axi:ome, llc developed the design of the small film booth. due to economic factors, the booth was not realized; however, great thought was given to budgeted fabrication of the booth and the boothâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in the chronological and hollistic understanding of the exhibition.

Summer-Fall 2009. Curated by Heather Woofter of Axi:Ome, llc. The exhibition was awarded honorable mention by IDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2010 Annual Design Review

* the exhibition was collaboratively designed and fabricated by Axi:Ome llc with fellow students and partners. My role began with the design of a film booth through an elective studio and continued through the summer with the development of the film booth and later the furniture design and installation. My internship was supported through the Skandalaris Internship Program of the Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Washington University in St. Louis.

SEATING

skin and aperture diagrams for film booth

DOUBLE SKIN

iterations of film booth design based on buildability and budget version 2

version 3

version 4

version 5

MULTIPLE PROJECTORS

version 1

digital rendering south_east corner 02_03

metabolc city

installation documentation

metabolic city exhibition

panoramic photograph south_east corner 14_15

diffusion/defraction

Spring 2008. Washington U. 2nd Year Studio. Prof: Katerina Tryfonidou

form and program are driven by the reflective properties of crystal and the geometries necessary to control the quality of light, allowing different qualities and magnitudes of light to be applied to different program elements. the study also tested the interaction of crystal and materials of varying densities and opacities which yielded different light conditions.

analysis of crystal

plan diagrams testing dispersion of light

plan diagrams testing qualities of light

light studies

diffusion/defraction

Structure and Light Placement structure and light placement Structure Grid structure grid

Light Grid light grid

Top: Origin

Base: Insertion

Origin + Insertion

Connections: Side Elevation

lower level

street level

upper level

diffusion/defraction

transparent reflections

Fall 2008. Washington U. 3rd Year Studio. Prof: Gia Daskalakis

the project acts as an extension of the existing reflection found on the surface of a pond. reflection is used as a mode of creating relationships between programmatic elements, users of the pool house, and the landscape. images are projected to overlap, implying a cyclical awareness within the space. people and places are related through these transparent reflections.

transparent reflections