Studio Conduit by Anna Mezheritskaya

STUDIO CONDUIT Anna Y. Mezheritskaya The Boston Architectural College May 19, 2017 Bachelor of Architecture

Instructor: Colin Booth Final Review: April 15, 2017 Design Consultants: Amir Mesgar / Structural Engineer Bruce MacRitchie / Mechanical Engineer Monty Forman / Building Envelope Engineer Design Critics: Ege Ozgirin, MIT Alexandros Haridis, MIT Tagore Hernandez, Group Design Build Chris Winkler, Sasaki Carolyn Brown, Sasaki Chris Hardy, Sasaki Emily Goldenberg, MASS Design Group John Navarro, Lahey Planning Office Karen Nelson, Dean BAC

Degree Candidate / Anna Mezheritskaya

Degree Studio Instructor / Colin Booth

Dean of Architecture / Karen Nelson

Table of Contents

05 Biographical Note 06 09 21 33

Design Statement Site Analysis Schematic Design Studio Conduit

64 Conclusions

Biographical Note

I was born in St. Petersburg, Russia and immigrated with my parents to California at the age of ten. I had always been interested in art, history, mathematics while in school, but discovered architecture only while studying Liberal Arts in college. I fell in love with the disciplineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s breadth and pursued my profesional education at the BAC. While completing my academic studies, I gained professional experience with institutional and educational projects as a designer at Bostonbased Wilson Architects, research and advocacy experience with MASS Design Group, leadership experience as a teaching assistant on a BAC Gateway project. Through all of my experiences at the BAC I developed a passion for sustainable and social design, and interest in urban scale challenges and data-informed design. My future goal is to learn more about different modes of civic engagement through design and explore alternative models of professional practice. I hope to continue growing as a young designer through research and projects that promote environemental sustainability and social equity in the built environment. I hope to explore and discover more ways to make positive change in the world through architectural practice and design.

// Design Statement

In an increasingly cross-disciplinary and integrated world, one of the most important skills a designer can cultivate is the ability to collaborate with others. Designers rarely work alone on projects and success in the face of challenges often requires team effort. In order to remain relevant, architectural and design education should foster collaboration and studio culture as these are the skills that distinguish our profession in a quickly changing and competitive world. The Boston Architectural College (BAC) is the largest architecture and design education program in Boston. The BAC has vast professional and community networks generated by the unique open-admissions and the concurrent nature of the program. The school attracts a very diverse student body of over 700 individuals and boasts a broad network of practicing alumni and instructors. These external connections set the BAC apart

conditions result in a weakened campus community and design culture, stressful lifestyles, and potential learning opportunities and time wasted. In order to strengthen the studio culture on the BAC campus, I propose a new student life building that will serve as conduit for the students’ design exploration and connections to each other. The new building provides dedicated and shared studio spaces for students of all majors, on-campus living and temporary lodging, expanded fabrication facilities, and flexible gathering spaces. The new student building will be inwardly focused, yet softly connect with the vibrant and crowded Newbury street by offering a stoop for passerby pedestrians and lighting up the evenings with a lantern-like glow. It will also support the BAC’s sustainability culture by incorporating the Living Building Challenge principles for environmental and human wellness. The student center will provide fresh herbs, tomatoes and greens to the students with its vertical greenhouse façade and a green roof. It will collect, filter and utilized rainwater on site, use regional and local materials and encourage students to walk via its main communicating ramp.

In the past five years, the school leadership and thought-leaders have redesigned the curriculum to be more integrated and dynamic, yet the physical campus remains the antithesis. The buildings are short of the crucial dedicated spaces for studio culture - places where students can develop their design skills freely and be exposed to each other’s ideas. While pockets of The building would strengthen BAC’s studio culture do exist on campus, they community design culture, student are fragmented and isolated. wellness, and improve the students’ future collaboration skills. The future of Students from different majors rarely the BAC is its students and the network get opportunities to collaborate and ex- of ideas and connections that they will posure to disciplines outside design and create. architecture is virtually non-existent. The majority of students live far away and spend a lot of time every week commuting to classes and work. These

BAC NETWORK

INVOVERTED EXTERIOR

EXTROVERTED INTERIOR 7

SITE ANALYSIS

// Project Site

HER

COM

E STR

REE

N ST

LSTO BOY

ENU

V TS A SET CHU SSA

TRE RD S EFO

NEW

Y BUR

N AVE LTH A E W

Map of project site, located in the regular grid of the Back Bay neighborhood.

The project site is located accross Newbury Street and consists of 41 through 47 Hereford street lots. The current site has five existing brick rowhouses on it with large, empty and sunken rear yards.

Diagram of the project site and existing BAC campus. 10

FO R

ST R

The BAC campus is located at 320 Newbury Street and 951 Boylston Street, in the historic Back Bay neighborhood of Boston. Back Bay is a vibrant mix of residential and commercial uses, with walkable blocks and a human sensitive scale, making it a popular destination for tourists and locals alike.

PROJECT SITE NEWB

URY S TREET

951 BOYLSTON

320 NEWBURY

A GUARDED WILD VOID OF THE SPIRITED FABRIC HUMS ALONG LONELY

Evening view of the project site contrasting Newbury Street.

The current experience of the project site is similar to my personal BAC experience – a paradox of feeling isolated while being a part of a vibrant community. I represented my initial reactions to the site through painting, haiku (see above) and two “periscopes” that highlighted that the site was all about discovery. The site seems like an unused void at first glance, blending into the red and grey tones of Back Bay, but it is place rich in different materials, textures, and even signs of organic life. Going through the different layers and scales of experience enriches the appreciation for this introverted space. I wanted to find a way to incorporate this introverted quality of the existing site into my final design. 11

$100,000

80.00%

$80,000

60.00%

$60,000

40.00%

$40,000

20.00%

$20,000

0.00%

// BAC Campus $0

Tuition

Room & Board

Rate

Financial Aid

Student Demographics STUDENT DIVERSITY

ANNUAL ENROLLMENT Enrollment in Architercture & Design

120.00%

900

100.00%

800 700

80.00%

600

60.00%

500

40.00%

400

20.00%

300

0.00%

200 100 0

Undergrad

Grad

White

African-American

Asian

Hispanic/Latino

Multi-racial

Native American

Unknown

Disability

International

COST TO ATTEND Annual Cost of Attendance

ADMISSION RATES Admission Rate

$120,000

120.00%

$100,000

100.00%

$80,000

80.00%

$60,000

60.00%

$40,000

40.00%

$20,000

20.00%

0.00%

Tuition

Room & Board

Financial Aid

Rate

Enrollment in Architercture & Design

Student Demographics

900 800

120.00%

700 600

100.00%

500

80.00%

400

60.00%

300

40.00%

200 100

20.00%

0.00%

BOSTON ARCHITECTURAL CENTER

1910 - 1961 Undergrad

Grad

16 Somerset Street

White

African-American

Asian

Hispanic/Latino

Multi-racial

Native American

Unknown

Disability

International

BOSTON ARCHITECTURAL CLUB

1889 - 1910

1 Hamilton Place & Others

BOSTON ARCHITECTURAL COLLEGE

Boston Architectural Club founded â&#x20AC;&#x153;for the purpose of associating those interested in the profession of architecture wiht a view to mutual encouragement and halp in studiesâ&#x20AC;?

Relocation to permanent location on Somerset Street. BSA shared the building with the BAC and often held joint meetings and events.

Source: http://www.the-bac.edu/about-the-bac/history

Memorial Library created to honor BAC members killed in WWI. 1938 - Cascieri named dean of BAC (until 1988) 1945 - First women members admitted.

1961 - BAC moves to 320 Newbury Street leading to an International design competition in 1963 for the design of the new building to be completed in 1966. 1974 - Summer Academy launched. 1979 - BAC curriculum is NAAB accredited after a decade of evolution.

1982 - ProArts Consortium formed. 1992 - Cascieri lecture series launched. 1993 - Interior Design program offered.

2016

2004 2007 2008

1993

1982

1979

1961 1963 1966 1967

1945

1938

1929

1910

1889

1961 - PRESENT 320 Newbury Street 342 Newbury Street 951 Boyston Street

2004 - Design Studies program offered 2005 - Distance Program launched. 2006 - Renamed to Boston Architectural College 2007 - Landscape Architecture program offered 2008 - Gateway program initiated 2014 - First Homecoming and 125 years celebrated

Above Left: Old parallel culrriculum and the new integrated urriculum diagrammed Above: The wordle, created by anlayzing BAC marketing materials, shows the focus on learning about design and professional practice.

The BAC has existed for over 125 years and has evolved from being an architectural club to an nationally accredited college. The BAC was historically closely connected with the BSA due to its focus on professional practice. The physical campus has always been compact and migrated around Boston deveral times. The current campus is the largest it has ever been and it is home to the largest single concentration of design students in Boston. The BACâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open admission process fosters the highest enrollment rates out of all other architecture programs offered in Boston. The BAC gives everyone a chance to learn desing at a relatively low cost of attendance, which attracts a diverse student population. This is

an asset of the school. Recognizing the changing landscape of contemporary professional practice, the BAC has recently redesigned its curriculum to integrate subject mattter for more comprehensive student learning. The result is a robust curriculum interlacing various subjects together. Yet the campus remains mostly static and increasingly short on available physical spaces for classes and extracurricular activities, especially after the BAC moved out of the 100 Mass Ave building. There is a dissonance between the instruction methodology and the physical spaces that are useed for it.

Addisionally, only about 50% of the current space is dedicated to student learning, the rest is occupied by administration and support departments. While simultaneously, the limited spaces devoted to learning are underutilized during the day, as the majority of courses meet only during the evening hours. The campus architecture does not reflect the diverse and changing student body or the dynamic curriculum changes.

PROGRAMMING EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGES

storage

S T.

STO

facil it

ies

clas sroo ms

32 0 classro oms

dio

stu

tration adminis student amenities

student am eniti es

circ u lat ion facilities

BURY ST. W NE

51 BO

At the same time, by graphing the schedule of all school courses, it becomes clear that the current physical space is actually underutilized due to the predominance of evening courses. This means The diameter of these two pie graphs is derived from more the size of the twothat buildingsoffering to show their size relative day-time to each other. courses could provide the potential spatial solution for the campus going forward.

os di tu

adm inis tra tio n

The school has experienced an almost 30% reduction in enrollment since 2016, which has helped to maintain roughly the same spatial amenity density per student. However, if the school expands enrollment to a higher rate without expanding campus space for student learning, this will likely put a strain on existing physical resources.

stor.

circ ulat ion

Between the two buildings, the BAC currently has around 60,000 sq. ft. of usable space. The BAC currently has around 60,000 available square feet ofThe usable area. It is spaces divided are used between twoprimarily buildings. 320 forNewbury studios and other St. is the larger of the two, courses, withproviding about 50% of the the school with around 45,000 square campus utilized for support feet. 951 Boylston St. provides around 15,000 square feet.administrative functions. and

Studio Space

11,299

19%

6,017

10%

12,116

21%

3,771

Studios

Classrooms Classrooms Conference Rooms

Circulation Lobbies Horizontal Circulation Vertical Circulation

Facilities Restrooms Maintenance Rooms

Student Amenities 11,287 All diagrams shown on this spread were produced by classmate Abby Pleiss to represent the ratio and sizes of space uses on the BAC Campus. She analyzed the amount of space allocated per student and the times of day when the existing spaces were used. 14

19%

Galleries Library Computer Labs Lounge Area Woodshop CNC Lab/Laser Cutters/3D Printers

Offices

12,060

21%

1,549

Offices

Storage Storage

FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT | SITE RESE

ows the relationship ment and usable square 2006 and 2016. It also ative square footage he BAC had its target 00.

2006

2016

IDEAL

320 Newbury St.

45,000 sq. ft.

951 Boylston St.

9,000 sq. ft.

15,000 sq. ft.

100 Mass Ave.

26,000 sq. ft.

0 sq. ft.

80,000 sq. ft.

60,000 sq. ft.

÷ 1073

÷ 770

÷ 1200*

SQ. FT. / STUDENT

Number of Students

SQ. FT. / STUDENT

e BAC’s enrollment goal. We s, that at that number the BAC mum capacity, so 50 sq ft per

8am-12pm

12pm-4pm

4pm-7pm

7pm-10pm 100%

MON. 0% 100%

TUE. 0% 100%

WED. 0% 100%

CLASS SCHEDULE From a study of the class schedule available online for Fall 2016, I was able to estimate the percentage of classrooms and studios that were occupied during different blocks of time. I was surprised to learn how under utilized the classrooms and studios are during most of the day, except for the 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm block. This leads to the conclusion that a new building should not provide additional classrooms or studios, but this does not take into account the quality of the current facilities.

THUR. 0% 100%

FRI. 0% 100%

SAT. 0% 100%

SUN. 0%

FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT | SITE RESEARCH

// BAC Students

STUDENT CELL professional personal academic

AC experiences ssional practice eir stint. These the directionality ately leads them es interegrated f architecture.

balloongoon

IHDC studios

ikd

David Morgan

let’s spoon! workshop

tremont nail factory gateway

resilient living

madri fine furniture

cw builders

STUDENTS CELLULAR SYSTEM

All diagrams shown on this spread were produced by classmate David Morgan, to represent the student experiences at the BAC.

Due to the concurrent nature of the curriculum, there is a wide range of academic and professional experiences for the students. These unique combinations of experiences - like learning “fingerprints” then lead each student on a unique career trajectory. The variety of student experiences and the professional connections they make enriches the BAC’s network. This is one of the school’s greatest assets. 16

This make u combination in craetes the indiv within the BAC.

FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT

cbt

IKD

stoss landscape

mikyoung kim design wilson architects

meyer+meyer

placetailor

perkins+will FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT | SITE RESEARCH

“ the BAC student holds strengths in social mobility and independent discovery” - RICHARD GRISWOLD

RGANISM

// BAC Studio Culture THESIS SPACE

FOURTH FLOOR LABS STUDENT LIFE OFFICE

THE LOFT EXISTING BUILDINGS HE

EMPTY REAR YARDS

FO R

DS TR

EET

TR YS UR

Currently existing studio culture spaces at the BAC.

Because of the nature of the BAC’s concurrent program and the campus architecture, there are pockets of student studio culture but they are fragmented and isolated from one another. And while the BAC students are very well connected to the outside world, they are often isolated within their programs. Students are exposed to each other’s ideas and work only in class meetings and occasionally when it is exhibited by insturctors throughout campus. The most design learning happens during peer-to –peer interactions in “studio” and “making” spaces. 18

CAMPUS SPACES NOW

FUTURE CAMPUS SPACES

This amounts to only a fraction of each student’s week spent together on campus, and only a portion of that time is spent immersed in studio culture. This is a lost growth and learning opportunity for the BAC students.

STUDENT LIFE OFFICE

This shortage of spaces for studio culture is the greatest weakness of the BAC.

FOURTH FLOOR LABS

A new building dedicated to students and studio culture would improve student growth and strengthen the internal BAC connections.

THE LOFT

“ the BAC is very connected to the outside world...” - KAREN NELSON

SCHEMATIC DESIGN

// Proposed Program The BAC’s greatest assets are the professional and cultural networks our community has built over the last century. The culture of engagement with practice, civics and the world at large is what will extend BAC’s relevance for another century. The greatest weakness is student studio culture. Studio culture can be strengthened with spaces that increase students’ exposure to others’ work, generating new interactions and opportunities. These interactions can be supported with other program, such as integrated on-campus living and fabrication spaces. Providing a combination of on-campus living, temporary lodging, accessible fabrication facilities, shared studio spaces, and flexible gathering infrastructure would increase student connectivity and enrich studio culture on campus. Strategically located spaces that provide exposure, engrossment and equilibrium will support the evolution of a richer BAC hive culture.

Above: Initial sketches of program ratio, distribution and relationship to site. Opposite: Diagrams representing the three types of spaces I hope to create in support of student culture, and spirit collages illustrating how I envision the associated experiences. 22

SPACES FOR ENGROSSMENT

SPACES FOR EQUILIBRIUM

SPACES FOR EXPOSURE 23

// Design Development

In order to create a welcoming and connective building that is also functional, I tested the program relationships, distribution and scale. The goal was to create spaces that would on one hand integrate different programmatic elements, such as living, studio and fabrication uses, while providing balance with places for quiet reflection and individual recharging.

Following a couple test iterations, examination of various precedents and my first midterm review I decided that maintaining the existing buildings would be too problematic and will restrict the program integration that I wanted

to achieve. I went on to explore a schematic option that used the entire site. While initially I arranged the dorms and studios as sharing floors, I later realized that the spatial qualities for studio and dorm spaces are complementary and can be staggered to create double height studio neighborhoods. I tested this in my next desing iteration.

LEVEL 4 - DORMS

LEVEL 3 - STUDIO/HOSTEL

LEVEL 2 - STUDIO/HOSTEL

LEVEL 1 - FABRICATION/PUBIC

LEVEL B - PARKING/MECHANICAL

Above: I looked at the Autodesk’s Pier 9 space, Sou Fujimoto’s work, the Wiley Theater and the Buillit Center for inspiration on spatial quality and systems integration. Left: Conceptual models and plans studying the potential spatial massings and programmatic relationships. Initially, I aimed to adaptively reuse the existing buildings on site and explored how the new form would related to the existing ones. 25

STUDIO FLOOR

NEI

GHB

ORH

OOD

DORM FLOOR

320 NEBURY STREET

FABRICATION FLOOR

SCHEMATIC SECTION N-S

VIEW FROM NEWBURY STREET 26

DORMS

320 NEWBURY

STUDIOS

VIEW FROM NEWBURY STREET

FABRICATION

MAKING

AXON

LIVING

LEVEL 3

GATHERING

LEVEL 2

FABRICATING

LEVEL 1

LEVEL B

The design scheme at the end of the first semester of the course. explored the finer grain of how the programmatic elements could take spatial and architectural shape. Here the studios and dorms are intergrated as neighborhoods and interconnected by a central communicating stair and atrium. This iteration informed me about the amount of program I can realistically fit into the building, how the occupants would circulate inbetween them and how they relate to the site topography and context. 27

DORMS

ATRIUM

TIO LA

B FA

ON CA TI

IO AT UL

DORMS

ATRIUMS

CU CIR

In parallel, I explored the idea of using a ramp as the main circualation element instead of a staircase. The ramp was accessible per ADA requirements, making it more equitable for all students and guests and psychologically easier to traverse. The ramp would encourage more occupants to walk around the building rathen than taking the elevator and provide moments for conversations and interactions.

TIO CA

FA B

This staggering of floors in combination with a central circulation space would create an experience of one continuous studio “town center”.

MAXIMUM SPATIAL INTEGRATION

STUDIOS

I began testing the interactions between the spaces both diagrammtically in section and experientially through digital models and sketches. After several studies I concluded that in order for the studio and dorm neighborhoods to feel interconnected, the studio floorplates would need to be ramped or staggered.

LIMITED SPATIAL INTEGRATION

STUDIOS

CURRENT CAMPUS NO SPATIAL INTEGRATION

Above: Precedents for the quality of the studio spaces include the Harvard GSD and Prattâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studios. Both incorporate staggered floor plates to create distinct but unified volumes. Left: Quick studies of the potential studio functional and experiential qualities helped me understand whether my design was creating spaces of connection, engagement, exposure, or equilibrium.

SHIFT TO ENGAGE NEWBURY

INTEGRATE PROGRAM

WELCOME PUBLIC AND LIGHT

DORM FLOOR

STUDIO FLOOR

BO EIGH

RHO

DORMS

PROGRAM MASSING

STUDIOS

FABRICATION FLOOR

TIO A L

CU R I C

BR A F

TI A C

Above: The exterior envolope presented a challenge as I wanted to incorporate an energy efficient system with vertical greenhouse capability and an architectural screen that was custom fabricated from the bricks of the row houses already existing on the site. I looked to Maya Linâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Novartis facade for inspiration and more standard glazing systems, such as channel glass and double-facades. curtain walls. Left Top: Comparative sketch study of the progressive building architecture options, with the desired section shown. Left Bottom: Facade study sketches and diagrams.

STUDIO CONDUIT At night the new building will be a beacon of activity along Newbury Street

The building facade leaves an impression of veiled transparency on the passerby. It is composed of several different glazing systems, salvaged brick rainscreen, and a custom architectural shade screen made from the salvaged brick of the row houses currently existing on the site.

Level ROOF 80' - 0"

Level 8S 70' - 0"

Level 7S 60' - 0"

2 Level 6S 50' - 0"

Level 5S 40' - 0"

Level 4S 30' - 0"

Level 3S 20' - 0"

Level 2S 10' - 0"

Level 1 0' - 0"

Level B -15' - 0"

SOUTH ELEVATION

SCALE: 1/32”= 1’-0” The amount of “perforation”, or openness of the screen increases from north to south, bringing more natural light into the studio spaces inside.

Level ROOF UPPER 85' - 0" Level ROOF 80' - 0" Level 9 75' - 0" Level 8S 70' - 0" Level 8 65' - 0" Level 7S 60' - 0" Level 7 55' - 0" Level 6S 50' - 0" Level 6 45' - 0" Level 5S 40' - 0" Level 5 35' - 0" Level 4S 30' - 0" Level 4 25' - 0" Level 3S 20' - 0" Level 3 15' - 0" Level 2S 10' - 0" Level 2 5' - 0" Level 1 0' - 0" Level 11 -5' - 0"

Level Level12 B -15' - 0"

EAST ELEVATION 34

SCALE: 1/32”= 1’-0” Level 13 -24' - 4"

The north face is the most guarded, comprised of a solid brick rainscreen accentuated by punched windows of the student bedrooms and sleeping pods, looking into the public alley and at the neighboring buildings.

Level ROOF UPPER 85' - 0" Level ROOF 80' - 0" Level 9 75' - 0"

Level 8 65' - 0"

Level 7 55' - 0"

Level 6 45' - 0"

Level 5 35' - 0"

Level 4 25' - 0"

Level 3 15' - 0"

Level 2 5' - 0" Level 1 0' - 0" Level M -5' - 0"

Level B -15' - 0"

Level B1 -24' - 4"

NORTH ELEVATION

SCALE: 1/32”= 1’-0” The south-west corner of the building is enclosed by a double-skin facade vertical greenshouse to take advantage of the sunlight on site.

Level B -15' - 0"

WEST ELEVATION Level B1 -24' - 4"

SCALE: 1/32”= 1’-0” 35

The vertical greenhouse facade serves several functions from biophilic delight and sunshading during the afternoon hours, to an insulation space that both feeds on the exhaled CO2 indoor air and provides cooling via the stack effect during warmer months. The greenshouse also provides healthy edible greens, herbs, fruit and berries that nourish the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; bodies. The vertical garden also provides a kind of green lab space for learning about hydroponic agriculture and student experiments with growing food in an urban setting. Here students can experience this technology first-hand instead of simply reading about it.

COOL O2

PLANTS FED BY INROOR AIR

WARM CO2

WALL SECTION 1 - GREENHOUSE

The custom brick screen provides atmospheric shading to the east side of the building. giving these studio spaces a unique feeling of being under a tree canopy.

WALL SECTION 2 - BRICK SCREEN

AUDITORIUM WOODSHOP RAINWATER STORAGE SECTION PERSPECTIVE N-S

The building program doubles the campus space dedicated to students and fabrication, and brings both on-site and commuting students in one shared space on campus.

BEDROOMS

LOFT

BATHROOMS

STUDIOS

FAB LAB REC ROOM WET SHOP

10,000 GSF Green Roof Solar Panel Arrays Mechanical Spaces

5,000 GSF 54 Private Rooms Shared Kitchens Open Student Lofts Private Living Spaces

10,000 GSF 12 studios Conference Rooms Kitchenettes 18 Private Rooms 60 Sleep Pods 3D Printing Labs Laser cutting labs 8,000 GSF Public Lobby Student Gallery Open Student Loft Light Fabrication Lab Media Lab

5,000 GSF Splittable Auditorium Recreation Room

10,000 GSF 4 CNC Machines Full Wood Shop Wet Ventillated Shop Loading Dock Installation Space

SECTION N-S EAST

SECTION PERSPECTIVE -EAST 40

PODS DORMS

LOADING DOCK

STUDIOS

INSTALLATION GALLERY

NEWBURY ENTRANCE

SECTION N-S LOOKING WEST

SECTION PERSPECTIVEWEST 41

View Walking Up Atrium Ramp Through Studio Spaces

The atrium and ramp distinguish yet unite the studio neighborhoods vertically and create the “town plaza” of the building. The ramp is separated from the studio spaces only with built out benches and partitions where students can sit for casual conversations, class meetings, or even discplay their models for everyone to see on their way up or down. This is the space where connections are made and ideas are exchanged. 42

TOWN PLAZA AS HORIZONTAL CONNECTOR

BAC STAIR AS VERTICAL CONNECTOR

ATRIUM AND RAMP AS SPATIAL CONNECTOR

Left: Casual conversations and impromptu meetings on the atrium ramp will create new opportunities for exchanging ideas and making friends. Below: The cross-section through the atrium illustrates the relationship between the studio spaces and the potential interactions it may spark.

STUDIOS STUDIOS

LOBBY CNC SHOP

AUDITORIUM

WOOD SHOP SECTION E-W LOOKING NORTH

4 9 3

8 5

HEREFORD STREET

Welcome to the new front door to the student spaces at the BAC. The ramped stoop offers an accessible outdoor seating area for the warmer months, while the building overhang provides shade and cover from the elements. The garage style exterior glazing sytem allows the student gallery to open directly onto Newbury street during nice weather. This both welcomes the public to explore the students’ work and enables large installations.

NEWBURY STREET

Ground Level Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Entrance Student Gallery Student Lounge Light Fabrication Lab Media Lab Upper Auditorium Atrium and Ramp Egress Stair Elevator Bike Racks

The ramp that start in the lobby terminates on the Penthouse level with publicly accessible rooftop terrace and student garden. The atrium is topped with a channel glass skylight, allowing plenty of natural light into the space below and making this a destination for students and the public alike.

4 5

3 2 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

Roof Garden Solar Array Atrium and Ramp Mechanical Space Egress Stair Elevator

Penthouse Level Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

10 4

1 11 Studio Levels 1, 2 and 3 Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

The studio spaces are visualy connected, tall and filled with natural light. The setup of each studio space is flexible to meet the students’ needs and ecourage open display of individual projects for all students to see. The condensed dorm spaces are paired with sleeping pods that students can rent out on a short-term basis for those nights when work has to be done before a deadline.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Studio Space Open Computer Lab Meeting Room Kitchenette Lounge 3D Printing Nook Laser Cutting Room Sleeping Pod Dorm Room Restroom Greenhouse Atrium and Ramp Egress Stair Elevator

The full dorm floors provide students with a more private place to live on campus. Each of these floors offers twelve single bedrooms, shared ADA restrooms, and an enclosed shared kitchen. These spaces serve the students’ basic recharging needs while providing the convenience of quick access to studio and fabrication spaces. The dorms share the lounge spaces with the studio floors below, allowing both residents and commuting students to socialize.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Kitchen Dorm Room Restroom Laundry Room Open Loft Living Room Greenhouse Atrium and Ramp Egress Stair Elevator

2 3 4

9 5 6

4 8

Dorm Levels 1M, 2M and 3M Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

4 7

8 5

Auditorium Level M Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

The auditorium space expands the BAC’s limited inventory of large gathering spaces and offers an introverted space for student groups to use as they see fit. The recreation room on the north side is in a quieter part of the building and is intended for yoga and exercise classes or student club events.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Upper Auditorium Lower Auditorium Restroom Recreation Room Lounge Atrium and Ramp Egress Stair Elevator

This is the space where students can fabricate, test and display their wildest desing crations. Break out the inflatables and the Solar Decathlon entries - the 35 foot tall installation space can accommodate it all. This space is connected directly to the rear loading dock and the open gallery facing Newbury Street, making it accessible for loading and unloading materials and finished experiements alike.

PUBLIC ALLEY

4 8 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CNC Shop Installation Gallery Loading Dock Wet and Spray Shop Restroom Finishing Shop Wood Shop Atrium and Ramp Egress Stair Elevator

Shop Level B Scale: 1/32” = 1’-0”

LL FA

WI NT ER

// Sustainable Systems IN PR G

SUMMER

30°

NE PR

L/S

FAL

ING

SUMMER SOLSTICE

EQUINOXES

S SE

WINTER SOLSTICE

SYSTAINABLE SYSTEMS AXON

VERTICAL GREENHOUSE + SEASONAL ROOFTOP GARDEN The building’s systainability approach is to incorporate applicable Living Building Challenge elements, such as biophilic design, regional materials use, on-site water filtration, renewable energy use and a limited production of food on site.

The vertical greenhouse creates a biophilic environment in the building and will provide about 1% of the food consumed by its occupants. 50

RENEWABLE SOLAR POWER

REVENUE ($)

45 Hereford $20,000 Solar Array

= 5400kWh

POWER (kW)

= 9/YR

3.34T

or 78

90,400kWh

COST ($)

0.71/YR

47 HEREFORD 0

47 Hereford $20,000 Solar Array

5000

10000 20K (9 YR ROI)

REVENUE ($)

15000

20000

25000

HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

55.73T

POWER (kW)

= 6100kWh

30°

= 10/YR

3.77T

or 88

0.80/YR

COST ($)

49 HEREFORD 0

49 Hereford $20,000 Solar Array

5000

10000

15000

20K (9 YR ROI)

REVENUE ($)

20000

25000

30000

35000

HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

POWER (kW)

= 6000kWh

= 10/YR

3.69T

or 86

0.79/YR

150/YR

COST ($)

51 HEREFORD 0

51 Hereford $20,000 Solar Array

5000

10000 20K (9 YR ROI)

REVENUE ($)

15000

20000

25000

20000

25000

HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

POWER (kW)

= 5400kWh

= 9/YR

3.34T

1297

or 78

0.71/YR

COST ($)

53 HEREFORD 0

53 Hereford $20,000 Solar Array

5000

10000 20K (9 YR ROI)

REVENUE ($)

15000 HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

11.86/YR POWER (kW)

= 6000kWh

= 10/YR

3.69T

or 86

0.79/YR

COST ($)

0 320

20000 40000 NEWBURY

60000

20K (9 YR ROI)

320 Newbury $100,000 Solar Array

80000

100000

120000

140000

120000

140000

120000

140000

HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

REVENUE ($)

POWER (kW)

= 31,300kWh

= 52/YR

19.3T

or 448

COST ($)

4.11/YR

20000

40000

60000

100K (9 YR ROI)

= 30,200kWh

18.6T

100000

POWER (kW)

= 50/YR

80000

HIGH-YIELD (9 YR ROI)

951 BOYLSTON REVENUE ($)

951 Boylston $100,000 Solar Array or 433

3.96/YR

COST ($)

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

REPURPOSED LOCAL MATERIAL NW

30°

BRICKS 2.5 MJ/KG 0.19 KG CO2/KG NE

LIME 6.0 MJ/KG 1.35 KG CO2/KG

S SE

AGGREGATE 0.1 MJ/KG 0.16 KG CO2/KG

TIMBER 3.0 MJ/KG 0.003 KG CO2/KG

The materials currently found on site have cultural relevance to the Back Bay and high levels of embodied energy and CO2 that should be considered in future treatment of the site.

CEMENT

5.8 MJ/KG 0.96 KG CO2/KG

CONCRETE 1.3 MJ/KG 0.13 KG CO2/KG

0.5 MJ/KG 0.00 KG CO2/KG

Source: Shahriar Shams, Kashif Mahmud “A Comparative Analysis of Building Materials for Sustainable Construction with Emphasis on CO2 Reduction” (http://www.academia.edu/3308515/A_comparative_analysis_of_building_materials_for_sustainable_construction_with_emphasis_on_CO2_reduction)

// Code Summary and Life Safety APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR) Eighth Edition, Base Volume: International Building Code IBC, 2009 Edition with Massachusetts Amendments Massachusetts Special regulations 780 CMR110.R1 through R7 International Mechanical Code 2009 with Massachusetts Amendments International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 edition with Massachusetts Amendments Architectural Access Board Regulations Massachusetts Board of Elevator Regulations NFPA 10 Portable Fire Extinguishers NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems 2007 Edition Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guideline Fair Housing Accessibility Guideline (FHA) Uniform State Plumbing Code Massachusetts Stretch Code BUILDING INFORMATION Construction Type: I-B Sprinklered: Yes Gross Area: 65,000 SF Building Height: 85 FT Structural Framing: 2 Hr Rated Bearing Walls: 2 Hr Rated Non-bearing Walls: 0 Hr Rated Floors: 1 Hr Rated Roof: 1 Hr Rated

ZONING NARRATIVE I chose to locate the building front along Newbury Sreet, allowing for maximum site use. The project will require a variance to waive the parking requirements, the setback at 25 feet above the street, and the rear yard requirements. The overall building height above street level is compliant; however, it exceeds zoning limitation in the public alley and would require a variance as well. For building height and massing variances I would cite the adjacent 320 Newbry street building and the

Clear Site- Hereford Street Frontage- Residential Occupancy SF Allowable Area: 108,000 Rear Yard: 14'-6"

25'

25'-0"

25' - 0"

16'-0"

Hereford Street

25' - 0"

Clear Site- Newbury Street Frontage- Business Occupancy Newbury Street Dimensional RequirementsNewbury Frontage

21' - 6"

25'-0" 25' - 0"

Hereford Street

Max. Height: 65’-0” Newbury Street

First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. None (Conformity, Section Front Yard: SF 18-2) Actual Total Building Area: 30,820 None (Conformity, Section Front Yard: SF 18-2) Actual Total65'-0" Building Area: 30,820 Max. Height: Side Yards: None Side Yards: None

Hereford Street

21' - 6"

Calculations Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch. 5, IBC 2009) Area Rear Yard: 14'-6" Rear Yard: 14'-6"

31,050 Allowable Setbacks: Area per FAR: 21'-6", noneSF required below combined 21'-6", none required below combined

Setbacks: Area: Hereford 108,000 SF Street Frontage- Business First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. WithAllowable ExistingOccupancy First & Second Stories or(Ch.5 25'-0"IBC max. Increases per Sprinkler Installation 2009)

Max. Height: 65'-0" Max. Height: 108,000 SF Allowable Area:65'-0"

Dimensional Requirements Area Calculations 85'-0" / 6 stories Max. Height: Area Calculations

21' - 6"

Max. Height: 85’-0” / 6 Stories Newbury Street 65’-0”/ 5 Stories 16'-0"

Actual Total Building Area: 44,010 SF 37,530 SF

25' - 0"

Allowable Area: 108,000 SF 14'-6" Rear Yard: Allowable Area: 108,000 SF

Dimensional Requirements 65'-0" / 5below stories Height: 21'-6", none required combined Setbacks:Max. Dimensional Requirements Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories

Hereford Street

SF Actual Total Building Area: 44,010 None Front Yard: 31,050 SF Allowable FAR:SF 31,050 Allowable Area per Area FAR:per

None per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009 Side Yards: Increases Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009)

21'-0", none required combined Setbacks:Max. / 5below stories Height: / 5 65'-0" stories Max. Height: First 65'-0" & Second Stories or 25'-0" max.

Actual Total Building Area:SF37,530 SF Actual Total Building Area: 37,530

65'-0" Max. Height: Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirements Area Calculations None (Conformity, Section 18-2) Front Yard: None (Conformity, Section 18-2) Front Yard:

21' - 6"

14' - 6"

36'-10"+/-

SETBACK LINE

Hereford Street

16'-0" Rear Yard: Clear Newbury Street FrontageResidential Occupancy 108,000 SF Allowable Area: Clear Site-SiteNewbury Street FrontageResidential Occupancy SF Allowable Area: 108,000 Newbury Newbury Street Street

None Side Yards: 31,050 SF Allowable Area per FAR: None Side Yards: Rear Yard: 14'-6" 14,190 SF Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14'-6" Rear Yard:

Hereford Street

80' - 0" 25' - 0"

65' - 0"

21' - 6"

14' - 6"

Area Calculations

6 Stories 44,010 SF

Side Yards: None Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009)

25' - 0"

25'-0"

21' - 6"

14' - 6"

Second stories or 25’-0” max. above grade. Newbury Street

25' - 0"

Calculations ActualArea Total Building Area: 44,010 SF Dimensional Requirements Area Calculations

31,050 Allowable Area per FAR: None (Conformity, Section 18-2)SF Front Yard: Clear SiteNewbury FrontageResidential Occupancy SF Allowable Area per FAR: 31,050 Setbacks: 21’-6”, none req. Street belowStreet combined First & Residential Clear SiteNewbury FrontageOccupancy Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009)

65' - 0"

65' - 0" 25' - 0"

25' - 0"

Rear Yard: 14’-6”

25' - 0" 65' - 0"

Hereford Street

80' - 0"

21' - 6"

16'-0"

80' - 0"

Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories 65'-0" / 5required stories below combined Max. Height: 21'-6", none Setbacks: 30,820 Actual Building First & Total Second Stories Area: or 25'-0" max.SF Dimensional Requirements 30,820 SF Actual Total Building Area: Dimensional Max. Height: 65'-0"Requirements Front Yard: None FrontCalculations Yard: None Area Side Yards: None Side Yards: None Allowable AreaYard: per FAR: 16'-0"31,050 SF Rear Rear Yard: 16'-0" Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5below IBC 2009) 25'-0", none required combined Setbacks: below combined Setbacks: 25'-0", none Firstrequired & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. Allowable First Area:&108,000 Second SF Stories or 25'-0" max. Max. Height: 65'-0" Max. 65'-0" / 6 stories Max. Height: Height: 85'-0"

Hereford Street

Newbury Street Newbury Street

Hereford Street

21'-6", none below required below combined Setbacks: Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) 21'-6", none required combined With Existing- Hereford Street Frontage- Business Occupancy Setbacks: 21' - 0"

21' - 0"

Newbury Street

21' - 6"

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINE

SETBACK LINES

Side Yards: None Existing Existing Area (Non-Basement): 40,18014,190 SF (w/SF area overSF existing) 14,190 Area (Non-Basement):

21' - 0"

Hereford Street

Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories

15' - 0"

Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF 16'-0" Rear Yard: Rear Yard: 16'-0" Increases Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) 21'-0", none required below combined Setbacks: per 21'-0",Stories none required Setbacks: First & Second or 25'-0"below max. combined First &SF Second Stories or 25'-0" max. Allowable Area: 108,000

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINE

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINE

65’-0”/ 5 Stories

Newbury Street

Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Max. Height: None Front Yard:65'-0" 65'-0"(Conformity, / 5 stories Section 18-2) Max. Height: FrontHeight: Yard: None 65'-0"(Conformity, / 5 stories Section 18-2) Max. None Side Yards: Area Calculations Actual Total Building Area: 29,140 SF None Side Yards: 29,140 SF over existing) Actual Total Building Area:SF 34,660 (w/ area Rear Yard: 12'-6" 34,660 SF (w/ area over 31,050 SF Allowable Rear Area per FAR: 12'-6" Yard: Setbacks: 15'-0", none required below combined 14,190 SF below Existing Area (Non-Basement): 15'-0",Stories none required Setbacks: First & Second or 25'-0" max. combined First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) 65'-0" Max. Height: Max. Height: 65'-0" Allowable Area: 108,000 SF

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINES

Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) Setbacks: 15'-0", none required below combined

IncreasesRequirements per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) Dimensional First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. Allowable Area: 108,000 SFRequirements Dimensional

Area Calculations Area Calculations 85'-0" / 6 stories Max. Height:

15' - 0"

Hereford Street

21' - 0"

12' - 6"

15- ' 0"

12' - 6"

15' - 0"

Newbury Street

Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF 12'-6" Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF Rear Yard: Existing

21' - 0"

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINES

15- ' 0"

Max. Height: 65'-0" Actual Total Building Area: 38,715 SF Max.85'-0" Height: / 6 65'-0" stories Max. Height: Dimensional Requirements 50,190 SF (w/area over existing) Area ActualCalculations Total Building Area: 38,715 SF Area Calculations None (Conformity, Section Front Yard: 34,890 SF 50,190 SF18-2) Allowable Area per Occupancy FAR: 31,050 SF WithWith ExistingNewbury Street Frontage42,540 SF (w/area overResidential existing) None Area per Occupancy Side Yards: Allowable FAR: 31,050 SF ExistingNewbury Street FrontageResidential

Allowable Area per FAR: 31,050 SF 38,715 Actual Total BuildingArea Area:per 31,050 SF Allowable FAR:SF 50,19014,190 SF SF Existing Area (Non-Basement):

12' - 6"

FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT | SITE 15- ' 0"

15' - 0"

Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories Dimensional Requirements 65'-0" / 5 stories Max. Height: 34,890 SF Actual Total Building Area: Dimensional Requirements 49NoneTotal 42,540 SF34,890 RESEARCH Actual Building Area: (Conformity, Section 18-2) SF Front Yard: 42,540 SF18-2) Section Front Yard: None (Conformity, Side Yards: None Side Yards: None Rear Yard: 12'-6" Rear Yard: 12'-6" Setbacks: 15'-0", none required below combined First & Second or 25'-0"below max. combined 15'-0",Stories none required Setbacks: First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max. Max. Height: 65'-0"

Newbury Street

Hereford Street

SETBACK LINES

Above: Zoning code analysis diagrams by classmate Steve Hebsch. Opposite: ADA restroom design sketches based on CMR 521 reccomendations. SETBACK LINES

15- ' 0"

Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF With Existing- Newbury Street Frontage- Residential Occupancy Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) Newbury Street With ExistingNewbury Street Frontage- Residential Occupancy Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009 Newbury Street

15' - 0"

36'-10" +/-

Allowable Area per FAR: 31,050 SF None Side Yards: Side Yards: None

Max. Height: 85’-0” / 6 Stories With ExistingNewbury Street Frontage- Business Occupancy

36'-10" +/-

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

65'-0" Max. Height: Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirements Actual Total Building Area: 29,140 SF Actual Total Building Area: 29,140 SF Area Calculations 34,660 SF (w/ area over existing) Front Yard: None 34,660 SF (w/ area ove

Front Yard: None

Allowable Area: 108,000 SF

15- ' 0"

36'-10" +/-

5 Stories 34,890 - 42,540 SF

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

36'-10" +/-

Rear Yard: 12'-6"

Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC(Ch.5 2009)IBC 2009 Increases per Sprinkler Installation WithWith ExistingHereford Street FrontageResidential Occupancy ExistingHereford Street FrontageOccupancy 15'-0", none required below combined Setbacks:Residential NewburyNewbury Street Street 108,000 SF Allowable Area: First & Second or 25'-0" 108,000 SF max. Allowable Area:Stories Area Calculations

80' - 0"

25' - 0"

65'-0" Max. Height: Increases per Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) Max.Sprinkler Height: 65'-0"

Dimensional Requirements SF Allowable Area: 108,000 Area Calculations Area Calculations

12' - 6"

15- ' 0" 36'-10" +/-

36'-10"+/-

6 Stories 38,715 - 50,190 SF

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

25' - 0"

16'-0" Rear Yard: Rear Yard: 16'-0" 31,050 SF

16'-0" Increases per16'-0"Sprinkler Installation (Ch. 5, IBC 2009)

36'-10"+/-

25' - 0"

21' - 0" 21' - 0" Max. Height: 65’-0”

Newbury Street Newbury Street 25' - 0"

/ 5 65'-0" stories/ 5 stories Max. Height: Max.65'-0" Height: None Front Yard: Front Yard: None 65'-0" Max. Height: SF37,530 SF Actual Total Building Area: 37,530 Actual Total Building Area: Side Yards: SideNone Yards: None

85'-0"(Conformity, / 6 stories Section 18-2) Setbacks: 15’-0”, none req. below combined First & Max. FrontHeight: Yard: None 31,050 Allowable Area per Area FAR:per 31,050 SF Allowable FAR:SF Second stories or 25’-0” max. above grade. Actual Total Building Area: 31,900 SF

21' - 0"

65' - 0"

Allowable Area: 108,000 108,000 SF Allowable Area: SF

12' - 6"

36'-10"+/-

25' - 0"

25' - 0" 80' - 0" 25' - 0"

65' - 0" 25' - 0"

21' - 0"

25' - 0" 65' - 0"

Hereford Street

16'-0"

Rear Yard:Newbury 12’-6”Street

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

65' - 0"

SETBACK LINE

16'-0"

Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC(Ch.5 2009)IBC 2009) Increases per Sprinkler Installation Rear Yard: 16'-0"

required below combined Setbacks: 21'-0", none Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirements First & Second Stories or 25'-0" max.

Allowable Area per FAR: With Existing-RequirementNewbury Street FrontageBusiness Occupancy 21'-0", none required combined Setbacks: 21'-0", none below required below combined Setbacks: Dimensional Newbury Frontage First & Second orStories 25'-0" 14,190 SF max. Existing Area (Non-Basement): First &Stories Second or 25'-0" max.

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure 65' - 0"

Newbury Street Street Newbury

Area Calculations 47 FA2016 | DEGREE PROJECT | SITE RESEARCH

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

25' - 0" 65' - 0"

40,180 SF (w/ area over existing)

31,050 31,050 SF Allowable Area per Area FAR:per Allowable FAR:SF None Side Yards:Residential WithWith ExistingHereford Street FrontageResidential Occupancy ExistingHereford Street FrontageOccupancy

36'-10"+/-

25' - 0"

65' - 0"

25' - 0" 65' - 0"

80' - 0" 25' - 0"

5 Stories 37,530 SF

65' - 0"

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

Front Yard: None

21' - 6"

16'-0"

First &Stories SecondorStories or 25'-0" max. First & Second 25'-0" max. Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Max.65'-0" Height: 65'-0" Max. Height:

/ 6 stories Max. Height: 85'-0" Dimensional Requirements Area Calculations Area ActualCalculations Total Building Area: 31,900 SF

Max. Height: 65'-0"

Area Calculations Area Calculations

Allowable Area per FAR: 31,050 SF

Allowable Area per FAR: 31,050 SF Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF

Existing Area (Non-Basement): 14,190 SF Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009)

Increases per Sprinkler Installation (Ch.5 IBC 2009) Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Allowable Area: 108,000 SF Max. Height: 65'-0" / 5 stories

Dotted line indicates possible addition over existing structure

65'-0" 34,890 / 5 stories Max.Building Height: Area: SF Actual Total 42,540 SF Actual Total Building Area: 34,890 SF 42,540 SF

CODES NARRATIVE Since the building is of type IB construction with a sprinkler system, the maximum egress travel distance allowed is 300 ft. All of the egress travel distances are less than 300 ft. The building had two primary means of egress via two fire stairs - ST-1 and ST-2. These continuous stairs are enclosed in two-hour rated shafts with positively pressured ventillation balancing that will prevent smoke from entering into them from the rest of the building. The stair shafts are accessible from every level and are 75 feet apart, which is about 1/2 of the total diagonal distance accross the building footprint. The stairs are also accessible from all levels and help separate different floor occupancies. The egress stairs egress capacity exceeds the occupant loads on each floor, which means the stair shaft doors and treads are wide enough to safely accomodate all of the building occupants in an emergency evacuation. Some occupants may have to travel down the atrium ramp in order to egress the building. To make their exit safe, the atrium is equipped with an emergency smoke evacuation system and smoke shutters along the ramp to prevent smoke from entering the

PLUMBING FIXTURES ANALYSIS Occupancy Level B

Level M

Total Occupancy

Lavatories Required

Showers WCs Required Required

Provided

U F1 A3

4.00 97.00 209.00

n/a 1 2

n/a 1 2M / 4F

n/a 0 0

2 Unisex WC 2 Unisex Lavatories

A3 B

274.00 7.00

2 2

2M / 4F 1M / 1F

0 0

4 Unisex WC 4 Unisex Lavatories

0 0

2 Unisex WC 2 Unisex Lavatories

4 0 0

5 Unisex Shower 7 Unisex WC 7 Unisex Lavatories

2 0 0

5 Unisex Shower 5 Unisex WC 5 Unisex Lavatories

None

Level G

40.00 1 F1 1 8.00 1M / 1F B 2 Levels 1, 2, 3 26.00 2M / 2F R1 4 69.00 2M / 2F B 4 3.00 1 S2 1 Levels 1M, 2M, 3M 12.00 1M / 1F R1 2 16.00 1M / 1F B 2 1.00 1 S2 1 Level PH 9.00 1 S2 1 *** See Table 403.1 for factors used to determine plumbing requirements.

BUILDING EGRESS CAPACITY Door Width Stair 1 32" Stair 2 32" Stair 3 64" ** IBC2009 Table1004

Door Capacity**

Stair Width

32/0.2 = 160 48" 32/0.2 = 160 48" 64/0.2 = 320 120"

Total Egress Stair Capacity Capacity 160 48/0.3= 160 160 48/0.3= 160 320 120/0.3= 400

BUILDING EGRESS LOADS CHECK

Level B

Level M

Level G

Occupancy

Occupancy Area (sq.ft.) Factor*

U F1 A3

976 4,848 1,460

300 50 7

3.25 96.96 208.57

4.00 97.00 209.00

310.00

320

A3 B

957 610

7 100

136.71 6.10

137.00 7.00

144.00

320

1,977 957 778

50 7 100

39.54 136.71 7.78

40.00 137.00 8.00

185.00

640

844 761 6,833 761

200 200 100 300

4.22 3.81 68.33 2.54

20.00 6.00 69.00 3.00

98.00

320

1,532 1,589 180

200 100 300

7.66 15.89 0.60

12.00 16.00 1.00

29.00

320

2,680

300

8.93

9.00

320

F1 A3 B Levels 1, 2, 3 R1 R2 B S2 Levels 1M, 2M, 3M R2 B S2 Level PH S2 *IBC2009 Table 1003.1

Occupancy Load

Total Occupancy

Level Occupant Level Egress Load Capacity

1 Hour-Rated Wall 2 Hour-Rated Wall Egress Route

LEVEL 4 - PENTHOUSE

LEVELS 1M, 2M, 3M - DORMS

LEVEL 1, 2, 3 - STUDIOS

LEVEL G - LOBBY

LEVEL M - MEZZANINE

LEVEL B - BASEMENT

// Structural System

The structural system is comprised of concrete cap foundations with steel piles driven deep into the clay back bay soil. The foundations transition into a concrete slurry wall on the basement level and fireproofed steel framing for the floors above. The framing is combined with three concrete or reinforced CMU cores that contain the elevator and egress stairs. The steel framing is laterally braced with moment frame connections and supports composite concrete and metal decking slabs. The primary structure is shown here along with a typical floor beam to stacked slabs connection that I designed together with the engineer.

Primary Beams Moment Frames Secondary Beams Columns Conditioned Air Supply Diffuser

Greenhouse Catwalk Concrete

LEVEL 4 - PENTHOUSE

LEVELS 1M, 2M, 3M - DORMS

LEVEL 1, 2, 3 - STUDIOS

LEVEL G - LOBBY

LEVEL M - MEZZANINE

LEVEL B - BASEMENT

Steel Deck w/Concrete

// Mechanical Systems Since the site is located in Climate Zone 2, which is dominated by heating days, the most imortant MEP factor is the HVAC system efficiency and building envelope insulation. The building is equipped with an energy-efficient HVAC system that is composed of several components related to the programmatic uses they serve. There is an overall building air intake at the Penthouse level, which distributes fresh air throughout the entire building. There is a main air exhaust system that removes air out of the building, and it primarily targets areas that need negative pressurization - including kitchens and bathrooms. The fabrication spaces on the basement level has a dust collection system that is connected to the main HVAC system and helps to filter out the heavy loads of dust and particles in the air of those spaces in particular. The atrium space has a dedicated fan unit set to operate at a minimum air exchange volumes typically and have the capacity for higher volumes when it is in use. This will save energy for the entire building, as this space may stay vacant several days per week. Lastly, there is rainwater catchment system on the roof connected to a water storage tank below the basement level . This water is filtered on site and used for greenhouse irrigation and flushing toilets. 58

December

January 100 80

February

November

March DESIGN HIGH

DESIGN LOW

20 October

April

AVG. HIGH AVG. LOW COMFORT HIGH COMFORT LOW

September

May

August

June July

HVAC Intake Filter and Fan Unit Conditioned Air Supply Duct Fresh Air Intake Conditioned Air Supply Diffuser

HVAC Exhaust Filter and Fan Unit HVAC Exhaust Filter and Fan Unit Above Used Air Exhaust

LEVEL 4 - PENTHOUSE

LEVELS 1M, 2M, 3M - DORMS

Exhaust Air Duct Exhaust Air Diffuser

Water Pumps and Controls Water Pipes Water Drainage and Collection

LEVEL 1, 2, 3 - STUDIOS

LEVEL G - LOBBY

LEVEL M - MEZZANINE

LEVEL B - BASEMENT

// Construction Sequence 6. INTERIOR PARTITIONS, MILLWORK AND FINISHES

The building systems are conventional and the entire construction process should not take more than a year, with three additional months for possible contingencies in dealing with unexpected conditions or circumstances. The careful disassembly of the existing buildings and the site work, including utilties and foundations will likely take the most time, an estimated 3 to 6 months. This is in part due to the tight urban infill site on the a busy street that has a lot of foot traffic.

3. FLOOR SLABS AND LOAD-BEARING WALLS

5. EXTERIOR ENVELOPE, GLAZING AND ROOF SYSTEM

2. FOUNDATIONS, CIRCULATION CORES AND STRUCTURAL FRAMING

4. SECONDARY CIRCULATION AND MEP SYSTEMS INSTALLATION

The steel framing and the exterior envelope can be prefabricatd off-site for the most part and should take about 2 to 3 months to install. The MEP systems and interior finishes should take about an additional two months to install and a month is need for final building systems testing, balancing, and punch liststing.

1. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SITE WORK

Conclusions

This project has taught me that I still have a lot to learn and develop as a designer. If I had more time to devote to this project, I would conduct more through research on how architecture and its elements support human interacition, activity and wellnes. Taking into account my final critique, I would explore further integrating the living and making spaces and creating more freedom of movement and occupancy within the building.