The Transparent City Lauren Sajek
The Transparent City
Utilizing the Vague Public Realm A Master’s Research Project presented to the Graduate School by:
Lauren Sajek laurensajek@gmail.com
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of:
Master of Architecture School of Architecture+Community Design College of the Arts University of South Florida
Project Chair: Nancy Sanders Committee: Martin Gundersen, Gail Naylor, Robert MacLeod
“Building transcends physical and functional requirements by fusing with a place, by gathering the meaning of a situation. Architecture does not so much intrude on a landscape as it serves to explain it. Architecture and site should have an experiential connection, a metaphysical link, a poetic link.� -Steven Holl
Acknowledgment
I dedicate my Master’s Project to my boyfriend, John, who took the time to travel twice with me to New York City, a place that I adore, and spend long days walking around the city as a process of discovery trying to learn as much as I can about transparency and existing architecture to apply to my project. I would like to thank Nancy Sanders, for helping me through the process of developing a project which I’m so proud to complete. Also, Martin Gundersen for taking the time to travel to Tampa and meet with me periodically and allow me to push my project that much further through his ideas and guidance. Lastly, a shout-out to #groupthesis, for always being there with great ideas and the motivation to finish our projects.
Contents
Introduction: Considerations of Transparency
1
New York City as the Urban Site
5
New York City Defined Within 3 Distinct Realms
9
A Series of Mobile Galleries
11
Investigation Through a Series of Drawings
13
The Apple Store 5th Avenue
15
The Highline Park
19
The GE Building and Rockefeller Center
23
A Process Through the Considerations of Transparency
25
Studies of Projection, Reflection, and Light
27
The 3-Dimensional Diagram
29
The Endo[Site] Mobile Gallery
35
The Inter[Site] Mobile Gallery
39
The Ecto[Site] Mobile Gallery
43
The Map as the Clue and the Chase
47
List of Figures
49
Research References
53
Introduction: Considerations of Transparency In the Urban Experience Transparent is defined within the Oxford dictionary as having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen, so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous, easily seen through, recognized, or detected. Colin Rowe pushes further in his transparency essay to define it in two specific forms: literal and phenomenal. Literal transparency is defined as perceptual and inherent to substance or matter, such as in mesh screens, translucent walls, etc. Phenomenal transparency is defined as conceptual and inherent to spatial or volumetric organization. Transparency plays a significant role in contemporary architecture. It allows us to perceive space simultaneously, creating different understandings of inside and outside. It is literal and phenomenal forms; permitting layering, overlapping, porosity, multiplicity of scales and direct exchange between material and spatial experience. The material condition and phenomenon of transparency strongly influence the conceptual foundation of this thesis. The Transparent City, through the use of transparency in literal and phenomenal forms, emerges as an exchange between definite and ambiguous relationships to space, light, time, and scale. The layering of transparent materials and the removal and addition of surfaces animates an experience not previously understood or known. The filtering of light, shadows, isolation or framing of space and material, begin to structure an experience of intimacy and ambiguity as these phenomenal factors may not be static. Transparency is important to achieve relationships between the immediate and the distant surroundings. Not only because of the physical transparency of a material, but also because “these stratifications, devices by means of which space becomes constructed, substantiated, and articulate are the essence of phenomenal transparency.� This form of transparency becomes a significant influence in the evolution of the Transparent City; the ability to not only perceive multiple densities of material and space at one time but for the inhabitant to be able to easily understand the inherent location and placement within the immediate context.
“The observer is also denied the possibility of experiencing the conflict between a space which is explicit and another which is implied. He may enjoy the sensation of looking through a glass wall and thus perhaps be able to see the exterior and the interior of the building simultaneously; but in doing so he will be conscious of few of those equivocal sensations which derive from phenomenal transparency.” -Colin Rowe Fig. 1, Prada Store SoHo
The Prada store in SoHo, New York is a project that exemplifies these principles. As seen in the interior of the store in figure 1, Rem Koolhaas utilizes transparency to accommodate the existing historic building facade. Through the layering of a translucent material onto the facade, an apparent relationship between the existing and the constructed is enabled. Inhabitants can interpret the exchange of the two systems and the materials, apertures, and intention. The layering and overlapping of material not only fosters an experience of discovery through the uncovering and understanding of physical construction but allows for a phenomenon of multiple perceptions. “Transparency means a simultaneous perception of different spatial locations. Space not only recedes but fluctuates in a continuous activity.” “The discovery of transparency through an experience and how it can be perceived as many view-points and densities of the occupant lie in the phenomenon of the architecture,” Colin Rowe explains in his essay Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal. This idea initiates my study of spatial experience and human perception; the meaning and misunderstanding of space in architecture. This project will principally focus on exploring the phenomenon of perception and the relationships between space and people through
1|2
the exploration of transparency. Colin Rowe further explains, “Transparency means a simultaneous perception of different spatial locations;” how can transparency and dematerialization of spaces, thresholds, and materials begin to redefine architecture? We begin by questioning what influence these different conditions can have in the field of architecture; how a surrounding context has an experiential impact on the inhabitants without the notion of transparency or material. Is it possible to reconstruct the perception of everyday contexts through a discovery of transparency and dematerialization without physically changing or destroying the existing? This project explores the contrasting difference between the aware and unaware experiences in our current environment. Steven Holl explains his search for phenomenological experience: “To open architecture to questions of perception, we must suspend disbelief, disengage the rational half of the mind, and simply play and explore. Reason and skepticism must yield to a horizon of discovery”. The architectural process progresses through analyzing existing urban context and understanding what conditions influence various experiences; light, reflection, scale, transparency, material and promenade. A process that utilizes existing experiential conditions as the primary driver of design, space, and quality of experience develops through these notions. The intimate spatial experience of New York relies solely on the person and the immediate environment. Ultimately, the project strives to generate a system of mobile galleries within the vertical ground of the city that reconstruct and exploit perceptions through transparency and dematerialization.
3|4
New York City as the Urban Site New York offered an infinite number of possibilites for the progression of ideas within my project. I was fortunate enough to visit this city twice over the duration of my project. New York City is a place famous for its enormous number of inhabitants and establishes itself as a culture of progression. From the origination of New York City and Manhattan, the island has been interpreted as a blank slate to develop a new system of formal values; a new breed of architecture and habitation. The grid that it was created upon establishes a fixed amount of uniform blocks: “In its indifference to topography, to what exists, it claims the superiority of mental construction over reality.” It is also a prediction of the growth of Manhattan. No matter how the city will continue to grow, it must do so in the fixed amount of blocks that were initially recognized. Due to the uniform block, it challenges architects and inhabitants to fully distinguish themselves through the architecture that will occur on the limitations of the replicated site. “The grid’s two dimensional discipline also creates undreamt-of freedom for three-dimensional anarchy.” It is a product of compression and density. Some of the first experimental values in New York originated from the development of Coney Island. The speculative spirit at Coney Island became a driver in the energy of my project. “The block becomes a ‘park’ in the tradition of Coney Island: it offers an aggressive alternative reality, inherent on discrediting and replacing all ‘natural’ reality.” Coney Island was utilized from the 1600s to the 1800s as an experimental territory for architects and people alike. It eventually progressed into what was thought of as a ‘Miniature Manhattan’ and became a place where the exploitation and conceptual-destruction of conventional architecture was significantly embraced; “…indicated the future direction of the island’s pursuit of irrational ends by entirely rational means.” The introduction of electricity in 1890 allowed for the creation of a second ‘daytime’ at night in Coney Island. This allowed for the possibility of a second level of occupation. Illusory skylines with thousands of lights were constructed, intending to overstimulate the imagination and move further from conventional reality. As the skyscraper emerges in the early 1900’s, large scale buildings seem to arise on a continual basis and soon enough the city is looming over its dense number of inhabitants. As we move towards modern architecture and the refinement of the first skyscrapers more transparency emerges and people begin to view the city in different means. Inhabitants build stronger relationships with the city as they can visually connect and start understanding the programs within this new generation of transparent towers.
The density of the population in New York City develops an individual’s need for identity and new meaning within the constructed landscape. The city is constantly evolving and buildings can only sustain themselves temporarily, continuing the existing cycle of progression.
I have captured my travels of New York City through a series of images. Within them I have documented my transparent architecture, public occupations, and experiential conditions. Here I want to address how these places have influenced the energy and direction of my project.
Figure 2, taken in the evening in Madison Square Park, I discovered the reflection of the perimeter buildings [One Madison Park and the Met Life Tower] in a small pool. It was an interesting juxtaposition between the immediate context below and the distant context above.
Fig. 2, Madison Square Park
Figure 3, below the entry staircase at the Apple Store 5th Avenue, the shadows and movement of people are captured through the translucent promenade above. Fig. 3, Apple Store 5th Avenue
Figure 4, looking at the Highline Park from street level, an observation space within the elevated park allows inhabitants a unique perspective of the street below. Fig. 4, The Highline Park
5|6
Figure 5, a random parking lot I stumbled across in the city. The intriguing possibility of a temporary or non-temporary structure used for a specific purpose in which the site may not have been originally intended for.
Fig. 5, Parking Lot
Figure 6, at the World Trade Center Memorial, crowds gather to reflect on the events of 9/11. A site previously used for private commerce, once afflicted, is now a public space intended for reflection.
Fig. 6, World Trade Center Memorial
Figure 7, taken below ground at a subway platform, threshold and layering of space plays a significant role in the interaction of people within. Fig. 7, Subway Platform
Figure 8, walking down the Highline. I not only thought that the field of scattered light in the facade of the Standard Hotel was intriguing, but also intriguing the isolated inhabitant in the circulation core looking out. The contrasting scales of person and building are exploited in this image.
Fig. 8, Standard Hotel
Figure 9, in Washington Square Park a pianist has set up their stage to play music upon. Crowds gathered to listen to the incidental performance. Public space and parks in the city can be utilized for almost anything. I couldn’t stop wondering how difficult it must have been to even get the grand piano into the park. Fig. 9, Washington Square Park
Figure 10, at the Apple Store in Grand Central. I have been to Grand Central numerous times and was surprised to find an Apple Store on the upper mezzanine on my most recent trip. I found the juxtaposition between historic architecture and a store for modern technology most intriguing.
Fig. 10, Apple Store Grand Central
Figure 11, within the New York Times Building looking out into an interior courtyard. It is refreshing to interact with nature and architecture in one of the most modern towers in the city.
Figure 12, I was astounded when I walked by the Citicorp Building for the first time. This tower has the most monumental and impractical approach of any architecture I have ever experienced. The structure of the tower does not even seem possible.
Fig. 11, New York Times Building
Fig. 12, Citicorp Building
7|8
New York City Defined Within 3 Distinct Realms New York City is subjectively divided into three distinct realms for siting the mobile galleries. The first realm is the ‘ground’ section of New York. This exists in the lower section of what is built context and it can also simultaneously occur underground at some instances. It is the excavated condition of the city, the removal of earth to further explore architecture, space and the movement of people. This is most typically our everyday interaction with the built context in New York City; it offers an immediate interaction with not only architecture but also the density of people and vehicles that inhabit the street level. The second realm of New York is the ‘middle’ section of the city. This is the intermediate realm between what lies above and below. This is what exists as urban fabric. It offers a very specific language of what towers throughout the city are made of and the construction that distinguishes them. It exhibits a repetition like no other. It can be thought of as millions of offices, apartments, and spaces that float between the ground and the sky in New York City; people looking out into an urban fabric that acts as a boundary between the individual and nature. Sky is the third realm that I have defined within the city. This is dissolution of the built, a more direct interaction with light and air. This realm offers a vantage point that can provoke self-consciousness of surroundings because they can be seen from a more birds-eye viewpoint. This realm might be more common to a visitor of New York City, or to the city’s most wealthy and powerful inhabitants. Either way, I believe it to be the least commonly experienced of the three realms. Considerations for choosing sites for the three mobile galleries began by looking into the history of significant sites in New York City. Referencing back to Rem Koolhaas’ Delirious New York, the Transparent City aims to re-establish the experimental zone in architecture as previously done with Coney Island in the 1600s to the 1800s. Upon surveying the previous occupations of Bryant Park, a decision was made to permanently site one of the interventions within the park space. Bryant Park, previously known as Reservoir Square, was the site for the Exhibition of Industry of all Nations in 1853. Here, the New York Crystal Palace was constructed to represent innovation, technology, and the future of the City. Among some of the exhibits at the fair were the first elevator with a safety mechanism, a breakthrough making elevators safe enough for the public to easily access buildings of infinite floors. This opened the doors for vertical architecture.
sky
Fig. 13, View from the Highline Park
Fig. 14, View from Willis Tower Observatory
Fig. 15, View from Hotel 71
middle
Fig. 16, Metlife Building
Fig. 17, New York Times Building
Fig. 18, Cooper Union
Fig.19, Madison Square Park
ground
Fig. 20, Metlife Building
Fig. 21, Bryant Park
Fig. 22, World Trade Center Memorial
Built next to the Crystal Palace was the Latting Observatory, a vertical structure, the tallest of its kind in New York, which offered prospect views to areas outside of Manhattan. Revisiting site histories and previous occupations of New York City foster possibilities for connections to a series of future sites for the mobile galleries. The Transparent City reconsiders the ownership of the public realm in New York and the ambiguity of unused territory within. There is a realm that exists beyond parks, plazas, and public and private space that not only may lack ownership but direct occupation. What are the possibilities of commissioning these ignored areas to harbor a new occupation? The public realm needs to be further utilized to seduce inhabitants to interact with the city in different means. The Transparent City strives to re-establish a sense of place for the public and the individual. The density of the population in New York City is as important as a person’s needs for identity and new meaning within a society that is constantly evolving.
9|10
A Series of Mobile Galleries
Fig. 23, Mobile Galleries Axonometric Drawing
The Transparent City project proposed a series of mobile galleries that reconstruct existing perceptions, frame an experiential inversion, and begin to utilize the vague public realm. Three separate interventions operate in their own distinct realm of New York City. They will each have a unique program and theoretical and spatial ideas but refer to the same method of construction and wholistic design. The mobile galleries are intended for the people of New York City and strive to re-establish a sense of place for the individual within the dense population and context.
11|12
Investigation Through a Series of Drawings
The Apple Store 5th Avenue Series
The Highline Park Series
Fig. 24, Apple Store Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 25, Highline Park Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 27, Apple Store Middle Realm Drawing
Fig. 28, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing
Fig. 30, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing
Fig. 31, Highline Park Ground Realm Drawing
The GE Building+Rockefeller Center Series
Fig. 26, GE Building Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 29, GE Building Middle Realm Drawing
The process for inventing an application for the transparency considerations earlier studied began with the development of a series of drawings which self-interpret specific places within New York City. This series of drawings strive to capture an alternative reality through the process of layering, distortion, removal, and addition. The study involves three specific places in the city: the Apple Store 5th Avenue, the Highline Park in Chelsea, and the GE Building in Rockefeller Center. Each of these sites in New York City present unique spatial and experiential intentions. Even though the drawings exist within a formal set, they were each contemplated and constructed individually and can exist on their own. While physically composing these drawings, multiple medias were utilized, not only of different transparencies but also of images and drawings. Each was generated off an opaque collage layer and then further imbued through additional translucent layers. In some instances these translucent layers were cut away to reveal strategic portions of the leading layer. The ultimate intention for the drawing series was to investigate how exploring transparency, layering, and manipulation can begin to alter the existing experience and perception of a place.
Fig. 32, GE Building Ground Realm Drawing
13|14
The Apple Store 5th Avenue The first drawing series engages the site of the Apple Store at 5th Avenue. Broken down into the three distinct realms of New York City, each drawing investigates an intentional zone of the site. The Apple Store at 5th Avenue is most active in the ground realm and most pertinent to this study of place. The ground realm drawing, figure 30, began with a dissection of the current experience while inhabiting the ground plaza and the succeeding procession into the retail store. The experience of above ground surrounds inhabitants within the plaza, a glimpse of Central Park, people walking along 5th Avenue, the large scale towers which surround, and the atmosphere of New York. Inhabitants start their procession above, noting their surroundings and passing through a threshold into the constructed transparent cube acting as the ephemeral entrance to the Apple Store. Moving down a transparent staircase, the city slowly starts to fade away in the background and the retail store becomes clear. The store exists solely underground but does not feel that way because of the flood of light entering from the entrance above. The drawing captures the horizon line and the joint that exists between above (the plaza) and below (the retail Apple Store). It also makes reference to the transparency of the staircase and a person’s ability to see and interact simultaneously with multiple layers of their surroundings at any given moment. The second layer, through the addition of existing image fragments, further constructs the horizon line by dividing the image into planes that emphasize both horizontality and verticality. These are important in the experience of the apple store and drawing. The Apple Store possesses transparency to provoke a sense of place in the context horizontally, but at the same time through the gesture of the store moving out of the ground upwards, finding a place in the context vertically. Lastly, through the removal of segments of the transparent top layer, perspectives of the underground retail space are emphasized, permitting a three-dimensional experience of the drawing.
Fig. 24, Apple Store Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 27, Apple Store Middle Realm Drawing
Fig. 30, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing
15|16
Fig. 30, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing
17|18
The Highline Park The second drawing series frames interactions of the three realms at the Highline Park. The middle realm drawing, figure 28, originates from an image with a repetitive nature from a set of mirrors and reflections. This begins to fragment an image that was previously understood to be whole. The initial opaque layer of the drawing begins with a picture of walking up a staircase to enter the Highline Park in Chelsea. There are numerous reasons why the Highline Park is so wonderful in the city; being underneath the old elevated railroad, walking the city streets, inhabitants of New York probably have no expectation for what lies above the rusted, rigid steel structure. Walking up the staircase a celebration of nature in an unexpected place is revealed. It’s like an oasis in the city, where nature is controlling yet still interacting with the heights of its surroundings. The drawing developed as if the image was looking at itself in a collection of mirrors. What came to life through the image’s own reflection is a series of fragmented pieces dispersing out of its origin. It is like the natural elements of the Highline Park are being reflected into the city and as if the city is reflecting into the park. Through further layering on the initial study, the drawing begins to focus more on the perspectives that were a result of the repetitive nature of the reflections. The perspective is a very important piece of the experiential conditions of mirrors and the decision was made to exploit it through emphasizing the vantage points within the drawing.
Fig. 25, Highline Park Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 28, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing
Fig. 31, Highline Park Ground Realm Drawing
19|20
Fig. 28, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing
21|22
The GE Building and Rockefeller Center The third drawing series captures the experience and prospect view in the sky realm of New York City. The main focus is figure 26 and the observatory spaces at the top floors of the GE Building in Rockefeller Center it inteprets. This drawing represents the historic skyscraper, one that emerged in the 1900s with predominately masonry construction, referenced in the previous writings on New York City. The experience of the GE Building varies from the other sites studied because it deals greatly with the notion of anticipation. Upon walking up to the GE Building at Rockefeller Center, a person begins to understand the scale of themselves compared to the 70 floors of the building looming over. Next, a person must approach one of the many elevators to begin their ascension to the observatory space. This experience warrants the highest amount of anticipation. The inhabitant, nested within an elevator, must wait to see what will greet them upon their destination upwards. At the top, crowds of people gather to capture one of the best views in New York City. A view this satisfactory can only be experienced upon the upper floors of the tallest buildings in the city. The observatory allows inhabitants to strengthen their relationship to light and air, as they interact with the dissolution of the built. Here, a unique vantage point occurs, allowing the ability to discover how the built environment deconstruct into the skyline. The drawing focuses its energy on a back and forth dialogue between this prospect view and the interior of the GE Building being occupied. The skyline of the city is reflected into the interior space and the notion of interior and exterior blurs.
Fig. 26, GE Building Sky Realm Drawing
Fig. 29, GE Building Middle Realm Drawing
Fig. 32, GE Building Ground Realm Drawing
23|24
Fig. 26, GE Building Sky Realm Drawing
25|26
A Process Through Considerations of Transparency Through the considerations of transparency made personally and with influence from the Transparency Essay by Colin Rowe, a construction to exploit various conditions emerged to initiate the process for design and progression forward. A series of parallel transparency programs were defined; projection, reflection, and light/darkness. To begin exploring these ideas, the project referenced back to the series of drawings dissecting the ground, middle, and sky realms of New York City. Specifically referencing two of the drawings, the Apple Store 5th Avenue and the Highline Park, plexiglass constructs were designed and layered with laminations of images and fragments from a portion of each of the drawings. The intention of these two constructs was to explore the new spatial and experiential ideas which arrived virtually from the creation of the 3-dimensional exploration of the drawing. They would be further utilized later to investigate the transparency programs previously defined. This process of evolution from speculative drawings to 3-dimensional constructs found itself to be vital to the spatial and experiential development of The Transparent City project. Similar use of materials and means of construction were utilized throughout the entire sequence of the process to resonate my own comprehensive principles of transparency.
Fig. 33, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct
Fig. 35, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct
Fig. 36, Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct
Fig. 37, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct
Fig. 34, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct
Fig. 38, Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct
27|28
Studies of Projection, Reflection, and Light A series of parallel transparency programs were defined and investigated; projection, reflection, and light/darkness. The first study involved reflection and it was used to discover how the notion of reflection can begin to unfold and extend not only a physical object but also a space and an experience. The second study investigated light+darkness, looking into the possibilities of how the transparent constructs can be affected in whole by a flood of light. It also experimented with the construction of shadows emerging from the introduced light. The last study played with the idea of projection through the constructs. The transparent constructs were placed into a projector and in different instances projected onto either a blank wall or the drawing from which they originated. The idea of being able to further manipulate the original drawing was very intriguing, as well as the ability to further manipulate the transparent construct in its entirety from the series of the studies.
Fig. 39, Reflection Study
Fig. 40, Reflection Study
Fig. 41, Reflection Study
Fig. 42, Light Study
Fig. 44, Projection Study
Fig. 43, Light Study
Fig. 45, Projection Study
29|30
The 3-Dimensional Diagram Three-dimensional diagrammatic galleries emerge through the translation and construction of the prior drawing series. These constructs apply the superimposition of forms, conditions, and experiential ideas onto layers of transparency. In the initial 3-dimensional diagrams, portions of plexiglass were utilized to explore the beginning spatial and experiential ideas for the intervention. These constructs experimented with the systemic idea of construction through scaffolding, which also communicates the idea of temporality. Scaffolding would permit efficient construction and disassembly of the mobile galleries. These galleries are deployable in infinite locations in New York City and they can be utilized for different intervals of time at each site. Through the mobility afforded by the scaffold system, the galleries will aid in the discovery and rediscovery of the city through continuous pursuit and habitation. Figure 49, the ground realm composite diagram, investigates the program of light and darkness and how it can be utilized to reveal a targeted experience. This intervention considers the constructed landscape of the excavated ground realm of New York. Its intention was to provoke a stronger relationship of identity in the city through the awareness of place, habitation, and the thresholds between light and darkness. A constructed shadow depicts a map of the city in which the individual is able to define and place themselves.
Fig. 49, Ground Realm Composite Diagram
Series of diagrams for the ground realm construct. Each of these were seperately translated onto layers of plexiglass to construct the 3-dimensional diagram. From top to bottom: diagram of conceptual considerations, diagram of light and experiential qualities, diagram of spatial forms. Fig. 46, Ground Realm Diagrams
Fig. 47, Ground Realm Construct
Fig. 48, Ground Realm Construct
31|32
Figure 50, the middle realm composite diagram begins with establishing projection as a program and the systemic placement of projection screens for the reception of images. A rhythm is created within the spatial configuration of the intervention and the ideas of constructed views, isolation vs boundary, and interaction with the surrounding urban fabric develop through the study. The inversion between direct views and projection interaction play a significant role in the intended experience of the intervention. Figure 51, the sky realm composite diagram considers the architectural promenade, the process of discovery, and the use of anticipation in spatial experience. This realm involves a direct interaction with dissolution of the built form and concentrates on the individual’s relationship to light and air in the city. Multiple pods allow for a variety of spaces in which the individual can view the city in a solitary setting.
Fig. 50, Middle Realm Composite Diagram
Fig. 51, Sky Realm Composite Diagram Series of diagrams for the sky realm construct. Each of these were seperately translated onto layers of plexiglass to construct the 3-dimensional diagram. From top to bottom: diagram of conceptual considerations, diagram of light and spatial forms, and experiential qualities.
Fig. 52, Sky Realm Diagrams
Middle realm construct, Figure 53, begins to communicate the relationship of the mobile gallery to the existing facade, a building that it remains next to.
Fig. 53, Middle Realm Construct
33|34
The Endo[Site] Mobile Gallery The most permanently sited gallery of the three, this intervention is excavated seven stories beneath Bryant Park. It seduces the public to enter the gallery and either inhabit or stand above a transparent space floating above the reveal of the New York Public Library Archives. Inhabitants enter inside a hierarchal space, where the floor and ceiling planes are transparent, revealing the seven-story cut into the bedrock of New York. Allowed within this cut are apertures, flooding light from above the Endo[Site], through the interior space, and below into the public library archives. This exposes a tension of the uninhabitable and a possibly unknown realm of the city to its inhabitants. It is an inversion of occupying the lowest defined realm but revealing a further extension into deeper territory within the city.
Night rendering of the Endo[Site], illustrating illumination of the mobile gallery and placement within Bryant Park.
Fig. 54, Endo[Site] Night Rendering
Fig. 55, Endo[Site] Model
Fig. 56, Endo[Site] Model
Fig. 57, Endo[Site] Model
35|36
Fig. 58, Endo[Site] Section
Perspective rendering of hierarchal interior space, a play on light and shadow while floating over the excavation of the public library archives
Fig. 59, Endo[Site] Perspective Rendering
37|38
The Inter[Site] Mobile Gallery This mobile gallery is centered on the idea of transparency and projection, fostering a series of isolated projection screens and windows to be viewed simultaneously. The projection screens will play video of a 24 hour loop of the specific captured view, 12 hours opposite of current time. The inhabitant will experience an inversion of New York City day and night in a singular moment, allowing him or her to reflect on the differences in occupation, density, vertigo and their experience of floating space. There are three different reception spaces in which the experiential inversion will occur; one looking north, one looking east, and one looking south. The large reception space looking east also opens up and interacts directly with the adjacent building facade.
Perspective rendering within the reception space, inhabitants look onto projection screens and out into Bryant Park simultaneously
Fig. 60, Inter[Site] Perspective Rendering
Fig. 61, Inter[Site] Section
39|40
Night rendering of the Inter[Site] gallery, illustrating the intervention’s relationship to the building facade and street/sidewalk.
Fig. 62, Inter[Site] Night Rendering
Fig. 63, Inter[Site] Model
Fig. 64, Inter[Site] Model
Fig. 65, Inter[Site] Model
41|42
The Ecto[Site] Mobile Gallery The sky realm intervention captures the prospect view of New York City. It is an inversion of the typical occupant density of existing observatories. It is intended as an individual, solitary experience looking upon the city and releasing from the urban density. Observatorie currently exist in the city, but exist only in the most significant and tallest buildings. The views these buildings are primarily static. Because of the mobility of the Ecto[Site] gallery, it has the ability to capture an infinite amount of outlooks the public realm stereo typically cannot occupy. Each of the prospect pods offer different spatial experiences between the intervention and the individual. Two of the pods are nested within the gallery, another two are placed on the boundary of the scaffold, and the last two protrude out of the scaffold. The gallery offers unique interactions between inhabitants as they move from various pods within and either directly or indirectly come in contact with each other.
Fig. 66, Ecto[Site] Night Rendering
Fig. 67, Ecto[Site] Model
Fig. 68, Ecto[Site] Model
Fig. 69, Ecto[Site] Model
43|44
Fig. 70, Ecto[Site] Section
Perspective rendering, interior view looking at the interactions of inhabitants as they move from various pods within the gallery
Fig. 71, Ecto[Site] Perspective Rendering
45|46
The Map as the Clue and the Chase It was uncertain how these mobile galleries would move through the city, at what duration, who would make the decision to move them, and what influence the people of New York could begin to have on their placement. As an continuing process, an ever changing map emerged. This map calls out potential sites and placement for each of the mobile galleries by dissecting site specific conditions. This map is not static- it can be altered to influence the suggestion of sites by the curators of the galleries, the inhabitants of New York, building owners, etc. It will acts a clue for the coming of the series and will aid in a chase to locate the galleries upon their next moves. The future potential of the mobile galleries is in New York City’s hands.
White buildings represent potential placement for the Inter[Site] mobile gallery: buildings taller than 10 stories with glass facades
Dark grey buildings represent potential placement for the Ecto[Site] mobile gallery: taller buildings with masonary construction
Semi-permanent site in Bryant Park for the Endo[Site] mobile gallery.
Fig. 72, Map of Sites
47|48
List of Figures Figure 1: “Prada Store SoHo” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 2: “Madison Square Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 3: “Apple Store 5th Avenue” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 4: “The Highline Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. October 2010. Figure 5: “Parking Lot” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 6: “World Trade Center Memorial” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 7: “Subway Platform” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 8: “Standard Hotel” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 9: “Washington Square Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 10: “Apple Store Grand Central” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 11: “New York Times Building” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 12: “Citicorp Building” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 13: “View from the Highline Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. October 2010. Figure 14: “View from Willis Tower Observatory” Constantinides, Aline. Photo. June 2011. Figure 15: “View from Hotel 71” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. June 2011. Figure 16: “Metlife Building” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 17: “New York Times Building” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 18: “Cooper Union” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 19: “Madison Square Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 20: “Metlife Building” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013. Figure 21: “Bryant Park” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. February 2013.
Figure 22: “World Trade Center Memorial” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. August 2012. Figure 23: “Mobile Galleries Axonometric Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 24: “Apple Store Sky Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 25: “Highline Park Sky Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 26: “GE Building Sky Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 27: “Apple Store Middle Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 28: “Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 29: “GE Building Middle Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 30: “Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 31: “Highline Park Ground Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 32: “GE Building Ground Realm Drawing” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop/Hand-drawing Montage, Vellum on Watercolor. November 2012. Figure 33: “Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. Figure 34: “Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. Figure 35: “Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. Figure 36: “Highline Park Middle Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. Figure 37: “Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. 49|50
Figure 38: “Apple Store Ground Realm Drawing Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass Model and Sticky-back. November 2012. Figure 39: “Reflection Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 40: “Reflection Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 41: “Reflection Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 42: “Light Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 43: “Light Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 44: “Projection Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 45: “Projection Study” Sajek, Lauren. Photo. January 2013. Figure 46: “Ground Realm Diagrams” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. March 2013. Figure 47: “Ground Realm Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Chipboard Model and Sticky-back. March 2013. Figure 48: “Ground Realm Construct” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model and Sticky-back. March 2013. Figure 49: “Ground Realm Composite Diagram” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. March 2013. Figure 50: “Middle Realm Composite Diagram” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. March 2013. Figure 51: “Sky Realm Composite Diagram” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. March 2013. Figure 52: “Sky Realm Diagrams” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop. March 2013. Figure 53: “Middle Realm Construct Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model and Sticky-back. March 2013. Figure 54: “Endo[Site] Night Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop Montage. April 2013. Figure 55: “Endo[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013. Figure 56: “Endo[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013. Figure 57: “Endo[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013.
Figure 58: “Endo[Site] Section” Sajek, Lauren. Sketch-Up Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 59: “Endo[Site] Perspective Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Rhino Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 60: “Inter[Site] Perspective Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Rhino Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 61: “Inter[Site] Section” Sajek, Lauren. Sketch-Up Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 62: “Inter[Site] Night Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop Montage. April 2013. Figure 63: “Inter[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013. Figure 64: “Inter[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013. Figure 65: “Inter[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model. April 2013. Figure 66: “Ecto[Site] Night Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop Montage. April 2013. Figure 67: “Ecto[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model and Homasote Base. April 2013. Figure 68: “Ecto[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model and Homasote Base. April 2013. Figure 69: “Ecto[Site] Model” Sajek, Lauren. Plexiglass and Museum Model and Homasote Base. April 2013. Figure 70: “Ecto[Site] Section” Sajek, Lauren. Sketch-Up Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 71: “Ecto[Site] Perspective Rendering” Sajek, Lauren. Rhino Rendering/Photoshop. April 2013. Figure 72: “Map of Sites” Sajek, Lauren. Photoshop Montage. April 2013.
51|52
Research References 5th Ave Apple Store. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 24 July 2012. Web. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/bob0sama/8005840749/>. Bettenburg, Nicolas. Inside the 5th Ave. Apple Store Glass Cube. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 2010. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicbet/5467813502/>. Gobetz, Wally. NYC - Rockefeller Center: GE Building. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/6953521666/>. Holl, Steven, Juhani Pallasmaa, and Gómez A. Pérez. Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture. San Francisco, CA: William Stout, 2006. Print. Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print. Lehoux, Nic. Apple Store, 5th Avenue. Digital image. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.bcj.com/public/projects/project/82.html>. Krinsky, Carol H. Rockefeller Center. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print. NYC: Manhattan South of Rockefeller. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyp_/4005594133/>. “Park History.” Bryant Park. Bryant Park Corporation, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bryantpark.org/about-us/history.html>. Regan, Tim. Rockefeller Center. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 11 July 2010. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/regan_photography/4839181011/in/photostream/>. Rockefeller Observatory. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 28 July 2009. Web. <http:// www.flickr.com/photos/dbal84/4567472423/>. Rogers, Eric. Rockefeller Plaza. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 22 June 2010. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/reallyboring/4737148676/in/photostream/>. Rowe, Colin, Robert Slutzky, and Bernhard Hoesli. Transparency. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1997. Print.
53|54