Undergraduate Landscape Architecture Portfolio

Page 1

mp

MacKenzie Patrick Landscape Architecture Portfolio


mp


landscape architecture portfolio table of contents 4-13 Site Scale

Urban Fibers Site Plan - Rome, Italy 4 Landscape Materiality - Campus Plaza 8 Landscape Materiality - Lakeview Apts 12 Landscape Materiality - Gabion Module 13 Center for Environmental Conservation Design 14

13-27 City Scale

Baltimore Ecological Study - Baltimore, MD 18 Community Design Studio - State College 22 Community Design Studio - Juniata Valley 24

27-35 Region Scale

Great Lakes Harbor Islands Design 26

mp


[Re]Creating Piazza dei Ponte Sant’ Angelo

4

mp

Urban Fibers Site Master Plan - Rome, Lazio


URBAN FIBERS

MASTERPLAN

Location: Rome, Lazio Year: Fall 2011 - Study Abroad Software: Adobe Suite CS5 AutoCAD 2011 Google Sketchup Concept: The re-creation of Piazza di Ponte Sant’ Angelo is intended to utilize and revitalize life along the Tiber River. The Piazza will expand and assign both new and existing public spaces. It will connect people to the city of Rome through carefully structured viewsheds. Structural Sphere Framework -A steel structure with metal wires will create permeable enclosure over the new piazza. -The design emphasizes and reveals connections to Castel Sant’Angelo, by framing it’s shape and providing many viewing opportunities -Vegetation cover is hidden within the structural beams and provides shade to people inside -Viewing space is provided on the exterior balcony and through structural ‘doors’ Via dei Coronari: -Help to expand the dominance of pedestrian spaces and pathways over vehicular traffic -Spaces are linked to Tiber River through views and circulation

5

Urban Fibers Site Master Plan - Rome, Lazio

mp


Framing of Castel Sant’ Angelo

6

mp

Urban Fibers Site Master Plan - Rome, Lazio


7

Urban Fibers Site Master Plan - Rome, Lazio

mp


6 2 87 "

iddle Wall Segment

1' 10 21" Wall Segment

2" Tube Aluminum Railing End Post *Similar End Post

2'3 81 "

2" Tube Aluminum Base Rail

1 41" Aluminum Hand Rail 3 4

Aluminum Railing Posts

Aluminum Railing Posts 2" Tube Aluminum Railing End Post

2'5" 3'

2" Gap Under Railing Concrete Coping *See 1b Copper Flashing, No Weep Holes

3'8" 6" Coping

*See Construction Notes

Railing & Anchor at Coping *See Detail 1b

4'6" Stair

Nosing Bar *See 1c Brick Veneer Cheek Wall *See L2

See 1c

Height

Stairs Foundation & Landing *See Detail 1c

Stairs Foundation & Landing *Similar to Detail 1c

8'6 78 " Length Between Foundations

Prepared Subgrade

9' 10" Concrete Coping 9'7 34 " Stair Concrete Length

Stair, Wall, and Railing Scale 1" 1' 0

8

6"

1'

2'

Section

Construction Notes

mp

1. Rebar: All rebar and nosing bar should be minimum 5. Brick: Standard Modular 3 85" by 2 14" by 7 85". Mortar 2" from the edge of concrete to prevent breaking. should be concave or rooded. Masonry grade should Landscape Studio Rebar should Materiality not go through key joints. - Campus Plaza be Sx. Brick wall is Flemish coursing. Brick coping 1


LANDSCAPE MATERIALITY 28.45

28.45

28.18

28.18

28.18

28.25

28.18

28.25

L2

3

28

TOS 28.15

26

1 2

1 2

. .

. .

2

25

BOS 24.65 1 L3

24.15

24.15 Wall, Paving and Planter Plan L4

s

. .

2

. .

. .

e

.

1 2

2

.. on

C

1

.

1 2

1 .

C

no

1

ete

cr

28

s

te

te

e Se

1

2

.

Se

no

24

d

an nte

Pla

BW 23.85

BW 23.85

2

C

il

eta

rD

3a L2

L4 s

te

e

.

1 s

2

.

2

C

.

2

Se

no

L W

3 L2

1

no

.

2a L2

te

e Se

C

1

BW 23.5

BW 23.5

2 . .

Limestone Paving Pattern Detail L4

26

BW 23.62

BW 23.55

BW 23.5

BW 23.5

1 L2

BW 23.5

BW 23.35

BW 23.45

BW 23.3

s

.

1

2

C

Se

no

e

.

.. 1

25

s

te

te

e

.

1

2

C

.

Se

no

2

23

s

no

1 2

2

Se

1 2

1

.

. .

.

C

. .

te

e

L W

24 3a L2

Site Plan Scale 41

2 L2

9

1

1

2

4

8

Landscape Materiality Studio-Campus Plaza

mp


Bric

ortar *See Construction Notes

Flemish Pattern Chee

*See Construction Notes

3 4"

Bric

wide

ortar *See Construction Notes

Flemish Pattern Chee

*See Construction Notes

6"typ.

6"

#3 Rebar Reinforcement

*See Construction Notes

3' or to frost depth

Concrete Footing Compacted Aggregate

2'

8 stairs: 15" tread, 6" rise Nosing Bar *See Construction Notes

15" typ.

1 2"

Expansion Joint (see plan) Key Joint Joint owel Limestone Paver in Setting Bed w/ Concrete Base (See L2)

2% wash

6"

6"typ.

6"

5. Brick: Standard Modular 3 85" by 2 14" by 7 85". Mortar Rebar should Reinforcement should be concave or rooded. Masonry#3grade *See Construction Notes 3' or to wall is Flemish coursing. Brick be Sx. Brick coping frost depth Concrete Footing of wall. Aggregate should extend mimimum 14" over edge Compacted Prepared Subgrade 6. Limestone: Stones should be cut according to sizing

kept minimal. 6"

10

4" 4" 4"

approved by the Landscape Architect 1'

Stairs, Railing and Foundation Construction Notes

1'

Landscape

6"

rawn By: acKen ie Patric ecember , 2 12 Chec ed By: Revised By: Revision ate:

Railing and Anchor at Coping Scale 1" 1' etail

ateriality Final Pro ect

etail

2'8 "

all

6"

Foundation and Landing mpStairsLandscape Materiality Studio - Campus Plaza Scale 1"

1'

6"

1'

2'

1 2" Expansion Joint (see plan) Key Joint Joint owel Limestone Paver in Setting Bed w/ Concrete Base (See L2)

Prepared Subgrade

6" 4" 4" 4" 1'

Stairs Foundation and Landing Scale 1" 1' etail 6"

1'

2'

Stairs, Railing and Foundation

ole for Epoxy

6"

221"

2% wash

Landscape

2" Aluminum Railing End Post etal Fastener for Coping Epoxy Fill *See Construction Notes

15" typ.

Baird, Bur holder, Kew

ubes

Nosing Bar *See Construction Notes

Fall 2 12

elded Aluminum

2'

8 stairs: 15" tread, 6" rise

Aluminum Railing Posts he Pennsylvania State niversity epartment of Landscape Architecture College of Arts and Architecture

3 4"

1'

rawn By: acKen ie Patric ecember , 2 12 Chec ed By: Revised By:

6"

Revisions:

Railing and Anchor at Coping Scale 1" 1' etail

ateriality Final Pro ect

etail

2'8 "

all

he Pennsy epartment College of A

4"

L3 3 of 4


ew

e Penns lvania State niversit Department of Landscape Arc itecture College of Arts and Arc itecture

Concrete Base Foundation

LANDSCAPE MATERIALITY #3 Rebar Reinforcement

Brick Seating Scale 1 " 1

all End Elevation 0

6"

2

1

50 mm (2") Cut Limestone w/ 38" mortar joints *See Detail 1b

Brick Paver Edging 1 2" Expansion Joint and Dowel Fastener Brick Coping (1") *See Construction otes eneer Fastener Concrete Expansion Joint and Dowel Fastener 6" Aggregate Basecourse Flemis Coursing Brick eneer Seat all *See 1a (Mortar) *See Construction otes Concrete Base Foundation

allSeeFront Elevation 3b 4

8

#3 Rebar Reinforcement

16

Prepared Subgrade

1 382"

Brick Seating Wall all & Pavement Detail Scale 1 " 1 0

6"

1

2

Brick Paver (At Expansion Joint) 1 2"

Expansion Joint and Dowel Fastener

Brick Seating Scale 1 " 1

all

Pavement Detail 0

6"

1

2

Brick Paver (At Expansion Joint) 1 2"

Expansion Joint and Dowel Fastener

50 mm (2") Cut Limestone w/ 38" mortar joints *See Detail 1b 25mm (1") Mortar Setting Bed 100mm (4") Concrete Base #3 Rebar Reinforcement 6" Aggregate Basecourse Prepared Subgrade

2"

4" 6"

Drawn B Mac en ie Patrick December 2012 C ecked B Revised B Revision Date

012

1 382"

L

Limestone Paving and Expansion Joint Scale 1 " 1 0

6"

1

2

50 mm (2") Cut Limestone w/ 38" mortar joints *See Detail 1b 25mm (1") Mortar Setting Bed 100mm (4") Concrete Base #3 Rebar Reinforcement 6" Aggregate Basecourse Prepared Subgrade

2"

4" 6"

Revisions

and

Prepared Subgrade

Baird

16

Fall 2012

8

Final Project

4

Landscape Materialit

012

all Site Section

Brick Seating all Pavement Details Building Stairs and Site Elevation

s and

Burk older

See 3b

Limestone Paving and Expansion Joint Scale 1 " 1 0

6"

1

2

L2

2 of 4 Landscape Materiality Studio-Campus Plaza

11

mp


PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

 (46

)



 

(46)

(47)

(47

)

(45)

(48)

(48

46 47

49

)

48

















49

50

1.63%

TC 40.70 BC 49.20

TC 50.10 BC 49.60

%

TC 49.98 BC 48.48

(50)

TC 50.70 BC/DI 50.20

TC 50.64 BC 50.24

49

%

TC 52.18 BC 51.68

1.50

TC 51.12 BC 50.62

%

3%

%

6%

2.00%

2%

51.57 51.74 51.93

FFE

51.91

HP 52.56

2.00%

%

45.10

2.00

o

TW 47.50 BW 47.40

% 96

2.8

3%

1.

FFE 54.20 45.20

5 o 4

TW 48.00 BW 45.20

47

Pati

TC 50.76 BC 50.26 50.33

50.15

46

50.41 TC 50.99 BC 50.49

50.25

(47)

BW 45.99

45.20

BW 47.25

50.45

45

50.44

50.50

Porc

50.50 50.50

0.50

TW 48.00 BW 45.90

(44)

BS/BW 51.30 BS 51.30

Porc

h FF

(46)

45

51.10

E5

TW 46.00 BW 44.90

44.90

50.51 TW 52.00 BW 51.03

h FF

44.90

(45)

46 TW 47.50 BW 45.00

49.88

(48)

TW 46.00 BW 45.20

48

48 TW 48.50 BW 48.00

47

47.50

FFE 54.20 45.20

49

44.80

BW 48.50

TW 48.50 BW 47.90

47.90

53.00

51

14.30%

% 2.00

45

Pati

)

54.20

50

44.80

(43

FFE

2.00%

TW 46.00 BW 44.60

Porch

1.47%

FFE 54.10 45.10

54.20

2.00%

52

TW 46.00 BW 45.10

)

Porch

52.50

FFE

51.76

52.20

2.00%

1 Stair @ 6" Rise x 1' Run

TS 51.80

51.10

E5

1.80

51.30

FFE 50.50





44 (43)

44

TC 50.26 BC 49.76 TC 50.52 BC 50.02

) (42

2.8

50.12

50.42

%

50.22

(41)

50.32

BS/BW 50.10 50.22

50.60

50.60

3%

5 Stairs @ 6" Rise x 1' Run

2.8

TS 52.60

TS 52.60

0 52.6 FE BW 52.60

hF

Porc

FE

F rch

BS 50.10

(40)

)

50.00

50.40

TW 53.00 BW 50.52

50.32

(41

50.36

3%

1.9 6%

(42)

4.00

L A K E

53.00

4 Stairs @ 6" Rise x 1' Run

TS 54.20

BW 45.10

(44

%

% 51.92

4 Stairs @ 6" Rise x 1' Run

54.10



3% 1.1

FFE 54.10 45.10

45.80

5 Stairs @ 6" Rise x 1' Run

TS 54.20

See Plan Detail 2

FFE 50.60 41.60

FFE 53.00 47.00

BS 51.70 TW 54.00 BW/BS 52.20

BS 52.20

52.50

)

50.60

0%

Porch

FFE

51.88

52

BS 52.10

54.10

Porch

2.5

FFE

52.60

51.96

7%

Porch

45.75

Porch

FFE

52.50

51.64

52

BS 52.10 51.80

(45

1.7

2.67

52.51

FFE 52.3 43.30

46.00

TC 51.52 BC 51.02

51.88



50.00

51.40

51.65

54.10

45

7%

1.1

1.7

46

51.80

TC 51.65 BC 51.15

TC 51.64 BC 51.14

11.22%

)

(46

FFE

0%

FFE 50.50 41.50

Porch

1.50%

50.50

50.36

TC 51.32 BC 50.82

2.00%

FFE

48 47

TC 51.25 BC 50.75

2.83

TC 51.51 BC 51.01

Porch

2.5

R O A D

%

1.13

See Plan Detail 1



TC 50.26 BC 49.76

HP 51.40 TC 51.35 BC 50.85

50.25

)

(47

 (48)

50

0%

2.5

51

49.88

50.15

49

TC 49.30 BC/DI 48.80

TC 50.06 BC 49.76

TC 51.41 BC 50.91

TC 51.65 BC 51.15

51



(47)

1.3

TC 49.75 BC 49.25

TC 49.97 BC 49.47

2.00

%

TC 51.47 BC 50.97

1.50%

48.99

50

TC 51.26 BC 50.76

2.00

50.25

(50)

49.28

49.50 TC 50.69 BC 50.19

(52)

TC 51.32 BC 50.82 TC 50.15 BC 49.65

49

  

00%

1.

TC 50.72 BC 50.22

1.7

)

1.62

1.50%

TC 51.24 BC 50.74

TC 49.75 BC 49.25

TC 49.97 BC 49.47 TC 50.54 BC 50.04

7%

50

TC 50.02 BC 49.52

(51)

(48

(51) TC 50.78 BC 50.28

TC 50.00 BC 49.50

TC 50.58 BC/DI 50.08

2.2

TC 40.70 BC 49.20

TC 49.40 BC 48.90

 

49.08

TC 50.30 BC 49.80

TC 49.18 BC 48.68

TC 48.53 BC 48.03

48.99

TC 49.86 BC/DI 49.36

TC 50.56 BC 50.06

1.88

(48.13)

49.18

50

TC 50.02 BC/DI 49.52

49

(46)

TC 49.30 BC/DI 48.80

1.50%

TC 48.53 BC 48.03

(49)

2.2 7%

TC 49.18 BC 48.68

Po

0

50.6

50.60

TW 53.00 BW 50.60

51.16

52.50



12

Landscape Implementation - Lakeview Apartments Construction PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

mp

FFE 50.60 


VACANT LOT DESIGN

PLANTER

n site and may erent ways (not rock).

de opportunity unity to grow

be low bly native.This ile still tainability of

s within the ive to ing spaces.

13

Landscape Implementation - Gabion Module System

mp


14

mp

Center for Environmental Conservation - State College, PA


CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION Location: State College, PA Year: Spring 2010 - Design Studio Software: Adobe Suite CS4 AutoCAD 2011

Concept: Revealing underlying geology of the site through the flow of nature while subtly recognizing the history of the site through a grid. •The organic flow of the design represents the underground streams which run through the site due to the karst topographic structure •The paved paths, trails, roads and programs are all organized organically •The trees on site are arranged in a sparse grid. The grid represents the existing hedgerows which show the history of the site as a farm •The existing hedgerows have been preserved and a subtle grid organizes all the trees within the site and prairie

15

Center for Environmental Conservation - State College, PA

mp


16

mp

Center for Environmental Conservation - State College, PA


17

Center for Environmental Conservation - State College, PA

mp


Environment

Environmental Awareness Pride in Neighborhood “Take-home� Values

Soil Quality Soil Dependence Water Quality Habitat Creation Air Quality

Community

Education

Resident Involvment NPO involvement Elderly Residents Ownership Responsibility

Elementary Schools Behavior Changes Soil Education Water Education Plant Education Food Education

Chain of Information Summer Programs Generational Overlaps

18

mp

Baltimore Ecological Study Urban Design Project

Environmental Awareness Curiosity Psychological Benefits Recreation Benefits


ECOLOGICAL STUDY

BALTIMORE

Location: Baltimore, MD Year: Spring 2012 - Design Studio Software: Adobe Suite CS5 AutoCAD 2011 Google Sketchup ArcMap Concept: Design phasing will begin at the Baltimore City Public School System, and expand to utilize vacant lots throughout the neighborhood of Oliver. Potentially, the impact of this expansion will overlap many neighborhoods and create a ecological network through the entire city. Integrating the environment and ecological awareness back into the city could benefit not only the environment, but also the culture and values of the residents. Through education, community involvement, and vacant lots reclamation, this design will bring nature back into the city. The design aims to eliminate the presence of biophobia by utilizing vacant lots as educational spaces in Oliver, a neighborhood of Baltimore.

19

Baltimore Ecological Study Urban Design Project

mp


20

mp

Baltimore Ecological Study Urban Design Project


21

Baltimore Ecological Study Urban Design Project

mp


Process Sketches Drawn By: MacKenzie Patrick

22

mp

Community Design Studio - State College, PA

Group members: Travis D’Onofrio, Lucas Merrill


CALDER WAY DESIGN

DOWNTOWN

23

Community Design Studio - State College, PA

mp


Process Sketches Drawn By: MacKenzie Patrick

24

mp

Community Design Studio - Lewistown, PA

Group members: Brendan August, Lucas Merrill


COMMUNITY DESIGN

JUNIATA

Illustrative Masterplan Drawn By: MacKenzie Patrick Group members: Brendan August, Lucas Merrill

25

Community Design Studio - Lewistown, PA

mp


Utilizing the currents of Lake Erie to

collect plastic and build dredge islands, which connect shoreline cities

26

mp

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Analysis


HARBORLANDS

LAKE ERIE JAN

Detroit River Detroit River Convergence Convergence ZoneZone

MAR MAR MAY MAY JUL SEPT SEPT

Toledo, Toledo,Ohio Ohio

NOV NOV

lake lake erie erie currents currents

NOAA Great Lakes Current Map NOAA Great Lakes Current Map http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/currents/glcfs-currents-avg.html http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/currents/glcfs-currents-avg.html

Location: Lake Erie Harborlands Year: Spring 2012 - Design Studio Software: Adobe Suite CS5 AutoCAD 2011 Rhino 4.0

Concept: Recently in national news, it has been reported that there is a large amount of plastic polluting the Great Lakes. The flow of water in the Great Lakes results in a particularly large accumulation of plastic in Lake Erie. This plastic is detrimental to the fish and wildlife, but also to the residents of nearby cities and towns, such as Toledo, OH. It is imperative that mitigation is made to reduce the pollutants coming through the Detroit River. The plastic pollutants should be captured and creatively converted to a usable energy source. Additionally, while protecting the prized walleye of Lake Erie, this new system can create secure habitat for the fish spawning season. As a large system, the islands will serve as a social destination for jogging and biking as a new kind of experience for residents and visitors.

27

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Analysis

mp


28

mp

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Analysis


29

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Masterplan

mp


L AKE

ERIE

ISL AN

DS

ERIE

•N MON ROE

TO

OT

LE

DO

R V E GE R I EFU EE E R M IF M ILDL AU W M TAWA

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Trail System

L AKE

LE

KE

E I ER SL IE AN D

•F •V •V •V LA

PE

E R IE

OT

M TAWA

D OIVERUGE L EEE RE REF TAOUMWMILDLIF

L AKE

Bike Barge L AKE

DS

ERIE

IS L A N

MONRO E

30

mp

•Nodes for relaxation

DETROIT RIVER


31

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Trail System

mp


32

mp

Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Trail System


arches on the pedestrian highway create prospect to venture out across the water

miles of

LEE E E ISL RIE AN D

TRAIL

.1

.3

PE

LA

K

.2 .2

RED TRAILS > 2 MILES

4.7

.7

2.6 miles

2.8 miles

3.1 miles

BLUE TRAILS < 2 MILES

trails and recommended routes

1.2 miles

1.6 miles

1.8 miles

5k run

.1

.6

.4

.2 .2

.3 .1

L AKE

ERIE

L AKE

ISL AN

DS

ERIE

.2

.4 .3

.4

33

HARBOR ISLANDS LAKE ERIE Lake Erie Harbor Islands Design - Trail System mp


34

mp

Interests - Photography


35

Interests - Photography

mp


MacKenzie Patrick Undergraduate of Landscape Architecture The Pennsylvania State University E-mail: mqp5082@psu.edu Phone: (443) 553-4427


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.