MAXIMIZE / DECARBONIZE PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE UF ARCHITECTURE BUILDING
BY NICOLAS DELCASTILLO
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: PROF. JASON ALREAD, CHAIR PROF. DONNA COHEN, MEMBER
A PROJECT IN LIEU OF THESIS PRESENTED TO COLLEGE OF DESIGN CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2020
Abstract Architecture Increasingly incorporates reuse, adaptation, renovation, or repurposing. As we run out of new space, it is critical that we reevaluate the way we re/inhabit our existing buildings in order to maximize their use and minimize their embodied energy. This project uses the college of Design Construction and Planning (DCP) as a case study for how to grow in place. Over its 95-year history, the UF DCP has moved or added a new building every 20-25 years. Of the three on-campus buildings, Rinker Hall is 17 years old, Architecture is 40 years old, and FAC is 56 years old. Architecture needs renovation due to years of deferred maintenance and careless renovation. DCP needs new space and desires a stronger connection between FAC and Rinker Hall. We have a responsibility to maximize / decarbonize existing space, adding newly constructed buildings only as a last resort. This is demonstrated through the following methods: Collection of anecdotal and archival evidence of the history of the college. DCP was founded in 1925. Since then, we have been housed in over 15 campus building, 6 of them built specifically for the college. The existing pedagogy of the College has been measured against that of comparable institutions through bibliographic research and pedagogical studies. The College houses numerous schools, programs, institutes, and centers. The School of Architecture enjoys a strong process driven pedagogy with a focus on manual craft, and digital and analog fabrication. An analysis was conducted on the Architecture Building, which is the largest structure, housing most of the schools and departments. The study was conducted through archival research, interviews, building analysis, and detailed physical and digital modelling. One direct result of this study is the addition of over 500 documents to the University Archives. A speculative pedagogical study was conducted on the needs of the college in 2040 and 2060. Any new facility will need to last a minimum of 40-50 years before renovation. Calculations and investigations were conducted into the energy usage of the existing building. This illustrates which strategies are possible to decarbonize the existing facility / new spaces. Finally, an iterative project was conducted through drawing and modelling to maximize useable space within Architecture from 112,000 square feet to nearly 130,000. This is largely within the existing footprint and was conducted without significant alteration of the quality and character of spaces within the building. Following this is the addition of 14,000 square feet adjacent to support the college need for manufacturing / prototyping spaces. This case study demonstrates that evaluation, maximization, and decarbonization of existing space can and should take place before new buildings are programmed. Addition as a last resort is a process of value finding. Where the college set out to create 30,000 square feet of new space, a deeper look finds that there is only need for about half that. The remainder is added in a way that extends the life of the existing facility and increases its value as the home of Design at the University of Florida.
Table of Contents
07 Introduction
08
College of Design, Construction, & Planning
14
Pedagogy of the School of Architecture
18
Building analysis – UF Architecture Building
52
Architecture Building design process
70
Projected needs of the college / precedent
80
Proposal for additions and alterations
112 Conclusion
114 References and Figures
6
To those who provided knowledge, time, and guidance along the way: Foremost to Jason Alread and Donna Cohen. You have served as advisors, mentors, and friends for years now. The privilege of taking your classes and teaching studio with you is - and will remain - the highlight of my education. Without your passion and steadfast guidance this would be a dull project indeed. I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with you. Evan Seigel, for your willingness to hunt down information for a student. The records you graciously donated represent an incredible resource for architecture students. They complete the history of our home. Julio Grabiel, for taking the time to humor the curiosity of a future architect. The building you helped create has shaped the identity of this school, both as a space for learning and an object of fascination for countless design students. Cydney McGlothlin, your competence, depth of knowledge, and advocacy for students is invaluable. Your willingness to share your time and knowledge is deeply appreciated. We need more people like you at UF. Sarah Coates, for putting up with the near constant pestering and questions and requests for more files over the last 6 months. The archive can be intimidating - you made it accessible and enjoyable. Nicole Arrieta, for being a good friend, and fellow advocate, always right in the thick of the fight. You are always willing to look at the latest drawing or idea, and never afraid to voice disagreement. Your drive to do the right thing, and fierce determination to protect and support the student body is unmatched and should be emulated by all. Thank you.
7
Introduction The practice of architecture is no more about beautiful objects on greenfield sites; we are running out of new space. It is critical that we reevaluate the way we re/inhabit our existing buildings in order to maximize their use and minimize their embodied energy. The University of Florida College of Design Construction and Planning (DCP) is fundraising to add 30,000 square feet to its current building stock. This project uses the UF Architecture Building, and DCP, as a case study for how to approach the large, complicated renovation and addition projects that are becoming the norm in our profession. As we develop adaptation and renovation projects, is it our responsibility as designers and clients to approach the problems with several specific goals: -Build more efficiently -Build more responsibly -Build less -Maximize existing space -Decarbonize -Minimize embodied energy Just as critically the process of design must ensure ample community input and preserve and support those spaces which already work well. The successful implementation of these goals results in a process that adds value, while protecting existent value. This process of evaluation and maximization is independent of design taste or style and strives to supplement where possible and replace that which must be taken away. The UF Architecture Building is a complex building on a complex university site. I have approached the study of the building and developed a proposal for renovation and addition of new space with these goals as a driver.
8
Fig 1: Male Students at Drafting Tables in Peabody Hall Attic
Fig 3: Temporary “E”
Fig 5: UF Architecture Building
Fig 2: Fine Arts C
Fig 4: Entrance to Grove Hall
Fig 6: Rinker Hall
9
History of DCP The University of Florida is Florida’s Land Grant University, founded in 1853. The University began as several institutions and was consolidated to its current Gainesville Campus in 1906. The College of Engineering began at this time, adding the School of Architecture in 1925. The Condensed timeline is as follows (Fig 16): 1925 – School of Architecture formed within College of Engineering 1920’s - Peabody Attic (Fig 1) 1933 – Department of Landscape Architecture formed 1935 – Department of Building Construction formed 1929 – Independent School of Architecture and Allied Arts formed 1940’s – Temporary E, U, C Student Services, Walker Attic (Fig 3) 1948 – Instruction in Interior Design added 1949 – Renamed College of Architecture and Allied Arts 1957 – Renamed College of Architecture and Fine Arts 1964 – Construction of AFA Complex (Fig 2), 1964 – Grove Hall (Fig 4) 1974 – Program in Urban and Regional Planning added 1975 – College split into College of Architecture and College of Fine Arts 1980 – College moves into GPB Architecture Building (Fig 5) 2000 – CoA Renamed College of Design Construction and Planning 2003 –School of Construction Management moves to Rinker Hall (Fig 6) 2012 – City Lab Orlando added The College now encompasses the School of Architecture, School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, Rinker School of Construction Management, School of Interior Design, and Programs in Sustainability and Historical Preservation. DCP has historically moved or built a new building every 20-25 years (Fig 7). Current on-campus facilities include shared space in Fine Arts C, Architecture Building, and Rinker Hall. Off Campus space is shared in the Catalyst Building and Infinity Hall. The Average age for UF buildings is now more than 50 years old, and in keeping with its historical trajectory, the college is looking to add more space.
Fig 7: Timeline of buildings housing the College of Design Construction and Planning
10
Fig 8: Construction of Fine Arts Complex
Fig 9: Architecture and Fine Arts Complex
11
Fig 10: 1960 College Funding Packet
Fig 11: 1960 College Funding Packet
12
Fig 12: Grove Hall
Fig 13: Site Plan of the College circa 1970
13
Fig 14: College Master Plan from 1960
Fig 15: Site Plan of the College circa 2020
After World War II, the college, like the rest of the university experienced a huge increase in enrollment. In 1950, the state legislature approved funding for the new Architecture and Fine Arts Complex. (Figs 8,9). Despite approval, the legislature did not release funding for construction for over 10 years. In the meantime, several wartime barracks served as temporary classrooms through the 60’s. The AFA Complex was designed by Kemp, Bunch, and Jackson of Jacksonville Fl. The early renderings of the AFA Complex (Figs 10-11) show the three buildings roughly as completed. By ribbon cutting in1965, the college had already outgrown its new space and occupied Grove Hall (Figs 12, 13). The 1950 college master plan called for five more linked buildings around a common plaza (Fig 14). The current Music Building is the only remnant of phase II that was constructed. DCP and the College of Arts are linked loosely around the Fine Arts courtyard and 1980 Architecture Building (Fig 15).
14
15
Pedagogy of the School of Architecture The teaching methods of the School of Architecture were studied through the lenses of other comparable institutions. These included The Cooper Union (Hejduk), Yale (Stern), Harvard GSD, MIT, and UT Austin. These are peer institutions that the UF SoA have close relationships with, and whose pedagogical approach generally ties in well with our own. In keeping with the idea of incorporating community input, it is important to understand how we teach in its larger context of architecture pedagogy. At UF, design is approached as a synthesis of thinking, analyzing, and making — it is an iterative process that engages issues of space, historical precedent, sustainability, ecology, urbanity, landscape, and built-form. The Undergraduate program is an unaccredited 4-year Bachelor of Design. This grants the program a great deal of flexibility in how studios and lab courses are taught. Students complete eight semester long studios over their four years – the studio serves as the heart of the curriculum and most other classes and engagements defer to the studio because of that. Not only is the studio the academic hub of the school, it serves as the cultural core as well. UF SoA subscribes to the social learning model – we believe that you learn as much or more from your peers as you do from a professor. The studios build cyclically off one another, going from pure spatial vocabulary and spatial analysis in Year One to city-block scale proposals in Year Four. The strategies and concepts learned in the first semester projects are revisited and built upon as the semesters progress. This is very intentional in the curriculum, and faculty meet semesterly to evaluate the goals and progress of each of the studios. The Graduate School of Architecture is the accredited arm of the SoA and offers a 2-year Master of Architecture Degree. The G|SoA is modeled similarly to the undergraduate program, and in fact shares many of the same spaces, faculty, and class typologies. As an accredited program, the G|SoA must meet NAAB standards with its critical tracking and facilities. The program has evolved greatly over time, from an optional add on to a fully-fledged program that draws students from both UF undergrad and all over the world (Figs 17-18). Perhaps the greatest strength of the program is the teaching assistant program. First Year studios and required undergraduate courses are co-taught by Graduate Students. First and Second year studios are supplemented by Undergraduate TA’s from year 3 and 4. This cross pollination, and the close physical proximity of the studios leads to a strong open-door studio culture at the school. Currently, first year students are in a single room in FAC, and the remainder of the student body is scattered around the architecture building, mostly clumped by year. Where some peer institutions can locate most students in one or few large rooms, we very intentionally create the conditions of social learning by encouraging the students to engage in the teaching process itself.
16
Fig 17: 1968 Curriculum
17
Fig 16: Timeline of the College
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE (M.ARCH) FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREE The University of Florida School of Architecture offers two curricular tracks for the first-professional NAAB-accredited Master of Architecture degree: 1) Core Program (100 credits), consisting of a non-pre-professional degree + 48 preparatory undergraduate credits + 52 advanced-level graduate credits; or 2) Advanced Program (52 credits), consisting of a pre-professional degree + 52 advanced-level graduate credits.
CORE / FOUNDATIONS 48 CREDITS
Note: Students are encouraged to complete ARC 3181 Advanced Digital prior to beginning Advanced Level graduate coursework.
FALL ARC 4071
CORE STUDIO 1
FALL SPRING
ARC 4073
CORE STUDIO 3
(6 CR)
52 CREDITS
SPRING
ARC 6241
ADV GRAD STUDIO 1 (6 CR)
ARC 4072
ARC 4074
CORE STUDIO 2
CORE STUDIO 4 ARC 3503
ARC 6505
ARCH HISTORY 1
INTRO TO STRUCTURES
ADVANCED STRUCTURES
(3 CR)
ARC 1702
ARCH HISTORY 2 ARC 2180
(3 CR) SEMESTER 1 12 CREDITS
(4 CR)
MATERIALS & METHODS 2
(3 CR)
INTRO TO DIGITAL ARCH
ARC 3463
ARC 4620
(3 CR)
ARC 2461
MATERIALS & METHODS 1 (3 CR)
SEMESTER 3 12 CREDITS
SEMESTER 2 12 CREDITS
ARC 3610
ENVIRONMENTAL TECH 1 (3 CR)
SPRING ARC 6355
ARC 6356
ADV GRAD STUDIO 3 (6 CR)
(6 CR)
SPRING ARC 6971/6979
INDEPENDENT MRP/THESIS ARC 6913
(6 CR)
MRP/THESIS PREP ARC 6242
(3 CR)
RESEARCH METHODS
(3 CR)
ENVIRONMENTAL TECH 2
FALL
ADV GRAD STUDIO 2
(6 CR)
ARC 1701
(3 CR)
Revised: 13 March 2018
FALL
(6 CR)
(6 CR)
ADVANCED COURSEWORK
ARC 6281
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
(3 CR)
(3 CR)
ELECTIVE
ELECTIVE
(3 CR)
(3 CR) ARC XXXX
GRADUATE HISTORY/THEORY SEMESTER 5 SEMINAR 13 CREDITS (3 CR)
SEMESTER 4 12 CREDITS
ELECTIVE SEMESTER 7 12 CREDITS
(3 CR)
SEMESTER 8 12 CREDITS
ELECTIVE
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL + STUDY ABROAD There are a number of study abroad options that satisfy curricular requirements. During the summer between semesters 6 and 7, students may elect to participate in the East Asia or Mexico Summer Study Abroad programs. Both of these 9-credit programs include ARC 6356 Advanced Graduate Studio 3 (6 credits) and a Graduate History/Theory Seminar (3 credits). In the Fall of the final year (semester 7), students can elect to participate in the Vicenza Institute of Architecture (VIA) Semester Study Abroad program in Vicenza, Italy. The 15-credit VIA program includes: ARC 6356 Advanced Graduate Studio 3 (6 credits), ARC 6911 Graduate Lighting Seminar (3 elective credits), ARC 6912 Italian Language and Culture (3 elective credits), and ARC 6913 MRP/ Thesis Prep (3 credits).
Fig 18: Current Curriculum
(3 CR)
SEMESTER 6 15 CREDITS
School of Architecture
18
19
UF Architecture Building Analysis The UF Architecture Building is a 4-story brutalist structure of 112,000 square feet. Designed by Ferendino Grafton Spillis Candela, it sits on a ridge separating the collegiate-gothic core of the UF campus from the modern dormitory district. The building is divided into the office wing and the studio wing. The offices are a red brick brise soleil grid. The studio wing is two banks of exposed concrete terraces arranged around a three-story atrium. Circulation in the studio wing is open air. There is a prominent campus circulation route through the building’s breezeway between the office and studios. The south side of the studio wing is terraced, and the north façade is a curve that dialogues with the adjacent lawn and Gator Pond. My initial research discovered an information vacuum surrounding the Architecture Building. The colleges history was well established, but there were no process drawings or photographs, and anecdotal evidence was from only two professors. This was a constant frustration for much of the process. In order to maximize those aspects of a place that work well, it is important to understand how previous decisions impact the space today. Thus began the search. At the direction of the University Archives, I began by turning to The Alligator, the UF student newspaper. The Alligator maintains an extensive record. With these, I was able to begin piecing together the story of the building in the context of the campus. Eight issues in particular tell a story about the design process of the building, the planning that went into it, and the controversy surrounding it (Figs 19-26). The initial campus layout and buildings were designed after 1906 by William A. Edwards. In 1925, Fredrick Law Olmstead Jr reorganized the growing campus around the Plaza of the Americas. In 1950, Dan Kiley created the third (and most influential) master plan for UF (Fig 27). This plan established a remarkable pair of green corridors, the first sweeping southwest from the Plaza of the Americas (creating the north lawn) and back up to present-day Fraternity Row. The second swept southeast from the Florida Gym to the Yulee Pit. Crossing near the Reitz Union, the greens were to link the dormitories to the academic core. The shape of the greens and placement of many important buildings bear the mark of Dan Kiley (Fig 28). The first building to be constructed on this plan was the UF Hub –by Andrew J Ferendino. The last building completed under this plan is the Architecture Building. Although different in shape from the interlocked bars on the Kiley Plan, the building is nonetheless rooted deeply in the modern planning of the campus. Redrawing the college site plan (Fig 29) begins to show how these geometries strengthen visual and pedestrian linkages with neighboring buildings. Next, I located the construction documents for the building. These explain how the structure was put together – and they are remarkable (Figs 30-42). In the documents is evidence of the structural and spatial logic of the building. The geometry in plan shifts 45-degrees to the west, 30-degrees to the east. The studios step back at a 45-degree angle from the second to fourth floors. Also evident is how much we have edited the studio walls. At one point the atrium walls were solid, now they are glazed. The balcony walls have been moved out onto the terraces. The accumulation of edits to the south wall have caused numerous issues with the building. The construction documents illustrate how these mistakes have compounded.
20
Fig 19: February 12, 1973 - Goodby Grove: ode from its students
Fig 20: July 15, 1976 - 6 New Buildings in Design Stages
In compliance with a 1969 order by a fire marshal, Grove Hall is being slowly shut down. The Hallways are filled with graffiti, among the caricatures and quotations is the plea “Save Grove Hall - Fireproof it!” and “Goodby Grove - We Shall Overcome”. The studio culture of Grove Hall, with 24 hour access, close contact between students and the lack of worry about making a mess were some of the aspects that made the building beloved by architecture students. The cost to fireproof Grove was $134,000 - Too much for the board of regents. So it will be replaced.
Leading the page is an early elevation of “General Purpose Building B” - The Architecture Building.
The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
At this point in 1967, four major buildings were under construction, and six are being designed. Norman Hall Addition, Newins-Zeigler Hall, GPA (Turlington, at the time the largest building on campus), Veterinary Medicine, Mass Seating Natatorium (The Oconnell Center), and the Journalism Building were all designed and constructed around the same time as Architecture.
21
Fig 21: October 30, 1976 - 36 Buildings Slated for Demolition
Fig 22: July 26, 1977 - Construction Underway for 2-Unit Complex for Architecture, Fine Arts
By 1976, most of the UF campus was either temporary structures, or dilapidated 60-year-old Collegiate Gothic buildings. The Board of Regents decided to demolish a number of these to keep in line with their space planning algorithms - a version of which are still being used today. Monies for new construction was largely granted with the understanding that old buildings would come down
Demolition of Grove Hall, the International Center, and a parking lot on the site of Fine Arts D is scheduled to complete this week. It is noted that two large pecan trees are being removed for FAD, as there was no way to put a building there without affecting them.
Buildings Slated for Demolition included; Floyd, Anderson, Flint, Newell, Women’s Gym, and Chapman.
Both buildings, part of the same project are scheduled to be completed in January 1979 at a cost of $4,846,398. The contractor is Drake Contracting, Inc of Ocala. (Which is today being run by the Drake family). The Architect is Ferendino Grafton Spillis Candela
22
Fig 23: February 14, 1978 - Old UF building may be salvaged
UF has a plan to save five of the six historically significant buildings if it can be determined that it will cost less to restore them than it would to raze them.
Fig 24: May 18, 1978 - Flint’s hazards prevent move of building School
The buildings that may be saved include Anderson, Flint, Floyd, Newell, Peabody, and Reid. The Women’s Gym is no longer at risk of being demolished, but Chapman Hall has already been razed to make way for the Natatorium (Oconnell).
The Plan to move the Building School into Flint Hall has been scrapped because the building is in need of “massive repairs.” Dean of Architecture Mark Jaroszewicz made the announcement after it was determined that $100,000 worth of repair would be needed to bring the structure up to fire safety standards. Nearly half of the building school faculty was threatening to resign rather than move.
The article notes that Reid is scheduled to be demolished as soon as GPB is finished.
Building Construction will move up from the ground floor of Fine Arts C to the main floor of the same building.
The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
23
Fig 25: November 1, 1979 - UF refuses to accept 2 new buildings
Fig 26: November 16, 1982 - Architecture building has that sinking feeling
UF Department of Planning and Analysis has refused to accept full ownership of two newly constructed campus buildings. GPB and Horticultural Sciences Buildings did not meet UF standards per contract.
Two years after its dedication, the $5.8 million
GPB was scheduled for substantial completion in April 1979, however, there are inadequacies in the plumbing and water drainage system.
Drake Construction has 60 days after the substantial completion date to meet UF building standards and the date for final completion.
architecture building is literally cracking up and may pose safety hazards. Most UF architecture professors, engineers, and Physical Plant personnel agree that the building is safe. The cracks in the brick are mostly found around the area called the “expansion joint�. The walkways that connect the two wings of the building are sagging downward, causing bricks below to crack. Though there is some controversy among the professors, the majority agree the cracking simply represents settlement.
24
25
Fig 27: 1950 Dan Kiley Master Plan - Edited to place North upwards
26
27
Fig 28: Current UF Campus Map
28
29
Fig 29: Enlarged Current Site Plan of the College
30
Fig 30: Combined Roof Plan, A10-A11, UF Architecture Building
Fig 31: Combined 4th Floor Plan, A8-A9 UF Architecture Building
Fig 32: Combined 2nd Floor Plan, A4-A5, UF Architecture Building
31
Fig 33: 4th Floor Electrical Plan E-5
Fig 34: 3rd Floor HVAC Plan, AC-5
32
Fig 35: Alternate 2, Bridge to FAC. A-51
Fig 36: Alternate 2, Bridge to FAC. S-28
33
Fig 37: Stair 1 Detail A-13
Fig 38: Alterante 1, Atrium Roof. S-20
34
Fig 39: South Terrace / Balcony Section. A-33
Fig 40: Building Sections. A-30
35
Fig 41: Atrium Wall Elevation. A-20
Fig 42: Atrium Wall Structural Elevation. S-15
36
37
Fig 43: Redrawn Ground Floor Plan
38
39
Fig 44: Redrawn Second Floor Plan
40
41
Fig 45: Redrawn Third Floor Plan
42
43
Fig 46: Redrawn Fourth Floor Plan
44
45
Fig 47: Redrawn Building Section
Fig 48: Redrawn Building Section
46
The last part of the building analysis was the most important - drawing the building. For me, design is research, and there is no design without drawing. By drawing the building, as it sits, I was forced to reconsider some of the decisions the architects made in planning for the site and spaces. The plans (Figs 43 – 46) show the complex interactions of space and structure. The main sections (Fig 47-48) are most useful in showing just how small the atrium is, despite its outsized impact on the building. The opening is artfully crafted and feels like a much larger space. Evident here is the dramatic stepping of the southern balconies as the building jumps the 13-foot elevation change on site. The plans and sections go far towards explaining the building, but do not tell the whole story. It became necessary to create a full digital model of the building. Development of the Rhino model to sufficient resolution for drawing generation took about three weeks. I have been adding detail and refining since. The first document I made is an exploded Isometric (Fig 49) explaining the various building systems: the concrete, brick veneer, storefront, partition walls, HVAC, and railings. Concurrent to this I exported very simple isometric views of the entirety of the building (Fig 50). These documents pair well with the plan, and photographs to allow the viewer to orient themselves in the complex and understand the system logic. With the investigation of what the building IS complete, the next step was to determine how the building is occupied. Being a flat slab structure, with very little in the way of ceilings and finishes, and non-structural partitions bounding most rooms, the spaces in the building have been extremely flexible up to this point. To this end, a programming survey was conducted of the college (Fig 51). Spaces were divided into eight categories: Studio, Atrium/Gather, Classroom/Lab, Study, Office, Fabrication, Circulation, and Service. The data is subdivided by building, category, and as a college. The results were surprising: The College has less studio space than expected and has a severe shortage of making space. The Architecture Building has very little classroom. The relative size of the Architecture Building is also a surprise - it represents well over half of the college’s total space. To further parse the data, I mapped the program back into the digital model, creating exploded isometric projections to explore how spaces lock together to create our building (Fig 52-54). Fig 49: Isometric Systems Analysis
47
Fig 50: Isometric Massing Analysis
48
Fig 51: College Space Usage Analysis
49
Fig 53: Building Program - Studios and Offices
Fig 52: Building Program Breakdown
Fig 54: Building Program - Circulation
50
A
B
51 A series of poorly detailed renovations to the terraces over the years is causing flooding in several studios. The built-up roof is also nearing the end of its life and needs replacing. One of several proposals to address these issues includes capping the atrium. The design process for this idea has been conducted with little student input, resulting in largely uncivil discussion. This underlines the importance of community engagement in all projects, especially those dealing with occupied space.
C
D
An atrium roof was designed in 1977 as alternate #1 for the building. Despite being left out, it has been used as a justification for adding a cap now, 40 years later. The digital model allowed accurate renderings of the atrium under several versions (Fig 55). 55A as it is today, 55B under the design roof. 55C-H show various alternates. These renderings served as a tool for discussions, so that stakeholders knew what it meant to say, “the building was designed with a roof�. As of publish, despite student opposition, the College has requested additional funding for an ETFE cap. It is ironic that standing in the way of a roof is what prevented it in 1979 – funding. The fight over the roof has led me to believe that building edits must be made with maximum user input. It makes little sense to fund controversial and expensive changes to a beloved space, more so when the building is approaching a potential overhaul. It is my conclusion that discussion of an atrium cover can only be part of the larger project.
E
G
F
H
Fig 55: Atrium Roof , Existing, Designed, and Alternates
52
53
Architecture Building Design Process By February 2020, my study on the building was based on the construction documents, a handful of images from the University Archives, several news articles, the drawings and model I had created, and the building itself. This was a good set of information, but it was nonetheless dissatisfying. Where were the sketches? Early Photos? Was the building meant to be bigger? Was there a missing third wing? Is the curve meant to align with the pond? Spillis Candela was purchased by AECOM in the late 90’s. I had tried sending an inquiry to AECOM corporate, but got no response. I called Drake Construction in Ocala – the builders. I had a pleasant conversation with Holland Drake, who remembers when his father and uncle built several buildings at the University. Turlington, Architecture, Fine Arts D, the Music Building, and Journalism were done by Drake. There are no records left. Frustrated, I dialed the number on the 1977 construction documents – and it rang through. AECOM’s Coral Gables office answered the phone. It turns out that when AECOM bought Spillis, they kept the same address and phone system! More surprising, after 20 years, the office is only just moving, and was about to begin purging files. The receptionist was skeptical that documents would remain from the 70’s but she nonetheless connected me through to people willing to help. I was assisted by Evan Seigel, who managed to locate several photographs on the server. About a week after, I received a package containing the originals and an additional two dozen photographs, polaroids and negatives. Also enclosed were over 500 Kodachrome slides. These encompass the design process, the initial building schemes, and photographs from construction to completion. All this information has been graciously donated to the University Archives and is now preserved and accessible to students. More, Evan put me in contact with Mr. Julio Grabiel – one of the GBP architects. He has filled in much of the story. The initial proposal was presented in December 1974 to the UF Board of Regents (Fig 56). The slides tell the story of how It was designed as a connector between Music and Fine Arts, acting as a gateway from the residential district to the academic core of campus (Fig 57). The Pond was a focal point, and views to adjacent greens and landmarks were considered. The building was not an object, but a form resultant from the forces present on the site. As evident in the presentation model (Fig 58,) the building was to be much larger. The west bank of studios was significantly longer, and oriented true north/south. The building was a long sweeping terrace split into three wings by huge landscape ramps. An addition to Fine Arts C was proposed, with a physical bridge connection to Architecture. From the very beginning, the architects were considering the movement of students, and the relationships between the various zones of activity and other spaces in the college (Fig 59). These loose geometries lock into place by the first presentation in 1974 (fig 60). Here you can see the space resolving into hard geometries centered around a sunken amphitheater and large plaza. The three wings are evident, the studios offset at 45 degrees and the office wing arrayed out 30 degrees.
54
Fig 56: 1974 Presentation - Spillis Candela Pictured from Left: Julio Grabiel, Alberto Socol, Peter Spillis, Alberto Otero
55
Fig 57: Site Considerations Slides from 1974 Presentation - Spillis Candela
56
Fig 58: Photographs of 1974 Presentation Model - Spillis Candela
57
58
Fig 59: Initial Massing Ideas for Building
Fig 60: 1974 Presentation Plans, Each Floor
59
Fig 61: 1975 Revised Plans, Each Floor
Fig 62: 1977 Final Presentation Plans, Each Floor
60
Fig 63: Final Presentation Drawings -1977
61
In the mid 70’s construction costs were fluctuating wildly. The initial scheme was deemed unaffordable, and by 1975 the first revision process was complete (Fig 61). The design now has a much smaller west wing, with space for future expansion. The center wing has shrunk considerably, and the beginnings of the atrium appear. The office wing is now smaller, but still contains a planted atrium. The building is a nautilus shell, spiraling clockwise towards the west. The third set of plans, finished in 1977, hit the mark (Fig 62). The building is smaller, but still impressive. The circulation and movement along the second floor and ringing the atrium is much clearer. The building becomes a hook, catching movement from the Fine Arts plaza and sweeping along the lawn before gesturing upwards towards the Plaza of the Americas. Northbound travel is funneled up a massive earthwork ramp into of the building, rewarding pedestrians with views of the lawn and Gator Pond as they crest the hill. Southbound travel is confronted with a framed overlook towards Beaty Towers and Payne’s Prairie on the horizon. The heart of the building is a huge open atrium, ringed by walkways and studios. It is a space to display work, throw a football, to revel in the sun or the stars at all hours. This is the purest, least extravagant proposal yet. We cannot know if it was recognized in 1977, but this is a campus icon, and a quintessentially Florida building. Figure 63 shows the presentation plans. The brilliant siting of the building is revealed by this version of the site plan (Below). It may cause headaches for campus management now, but the truly open second floor knits the building into its place more than any other structure on this campus. Perhaps even in the city.
62
B
A
C
E
G
D
F
H
63
I Fig 64 - Construction Photos -1977-1979
64
A
B
C
D
E
65
F Fig 65 - Finished Photos - 1980
66
G
I
H
J
67
K Fig 65 - Finished Photos - 1980
68
68A
68B
67A
Fig 66: Newsletter Sketches - 1980
67B
67C
Fig 67: UF News Photographs -1980,1988,1988
69
68C
68D
Fig 68 - Occupation Photos - Early 1980’s
70
71
Projected Needs of the College / Precedent DCP is quickly approaching its 100-year anniversary. In preparation, the college has announced the goal of renovating the Architecture Building and the addition of new space, under the provisional name of “Collaboratory”. DCP is working to fundraise 20 million dollars, which will be matched by the state for a total budget of 40 Million. Based on this figure, and compared to similar projects on campus, I estimate the new building can be about 30-40 thousand square feet. This number depends on how much of the budget is spent on the Architecture Building, but it serves as a good ballpark. The program for this new space has not been laid out in detail, but the college has announced these goals: Interdisciplinary Spaces for all DCP Disciplines Creative Collisions Commons (C3 Space) Research Testing Space Digital Modeling and Fabrication Space Educational Spaces Collaborative Research Hub If we assume the new space is to be wholly contained in its own building, then we can allocate the spaces in a ratio similar to Rinker Hall. Placing these into the previously established categories gives us these figures: Studio ----------6,400sf Commons -----6,000sf Classrooms ---5,000sf Hub / Lab------5,400sf Making ---------5,400sf Office -----------1,700sf The remainder can be allocated to service and circulation Concurrent to the programming allocation for the Collaboratory, I compared our space goals with several similar additions to peer institutions. In the early planning for the DCP addition, Professor Lisa Huang compiled 10 projects from the past 10 years that can serve as precedent (Fig 69). Expanding on her research, we can compare our goals apples to apples with buildings completed by UM Taubman, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Cornell, University of Toronto, Kent State, University of Melbourne, MIT, Penn State, and University of Ohio. We are not in a position to catch up with most of our peers. Many of the additions are three or more times larger than what our budget will allow (Fig 70). To get the best value for what we can raise, we cannot approach this addition as a traditional new building. The only feasible option is to see what space we can reclaim as part of the renovation to the existing building – without endangering its character.
72
Fig 69: Precedent Projects
73
Fig 70: Precedent / Addition Programing Survey
74
Fig 71: SoA Studio Renovation Proposals
75
Fig 72A: Breezeway Renovation Plan
Fig 72B: Breezeway Renovation Section
76
Fig 73: Historical / Projected College Space Needs
77 As part of an initiative to improve our spaces, I created imagery of what studio renovations could look like (Fig 71). Finishes throughout the building need repair and the studios in Fine Arts C need total renovation. These studies were done with the goal of improving space, and illustrate basic renovation goals. During discussions with the college, it became clear that a driving reason to cover the atrium was to make it useable as a formal event hall. My MRP committee and I realized that the breezeway is roughly the same size as the atrium, and larger than the newly renovated gallery (fig 72A). The space is currently unusable, as the floor is sloped to the south. Leveling the floor would render an already covered area useable for lectures, critiques, and events (Fig 72B). More, it would barely alter the section of the building. Were this completed, it would set the college up to have an air-conditioned Gallery, a covered breezeway space, and the uncovered atrium within steps of one another. The potential for maximizing our event / critique space with only minor change was a breakthrough in how I was thinking about the addition. Knowing how much space we can afford; the next question is: What do we need? The Architecture Building is 40 years old, but despite maintenance issues has no effective “expiration” date. If we renovate now, we can expect to easily occupy it for 40 more years. The longer we inhabit it, the more we lower embodied energy in the concrete. Looking back at what we have historically used can tell us what we need to get to 2060. Fig 73 illustrates the past space needs of the college, and my projection of what we will need by 2040 – the likely “half-life” of the renovation, and 2060, the likely next major update. Although we have moved around, the space needs and academic goals of the college have tended to cumulate, not shift. We need more variety of spaces, and we need those spaces to be increasingly flexible. Immersive VR, lab and fabrication space, digital critique space, and distance learning will all be strongly needed in the curriculum soon. Traditional classrooms, computer labs, sloped lecture halls, and private offices are simultaneously losing importance. As our teaching becomes more fluid, more technologically integrated, these fixed spaces will fade away.
78
2017 - By Energy
2017- By Dollar
2018 - By Energy
2018 - By Dollar
2019 - By Energy
2019 - By Dollar
79
The Architecture Building was completed in 1980 for a cost of 5.8million dollars. The strategies employed to make it energy efficient include shading the south window walls, insulating within the terrace slabs, and a layer of insulation and aerated concrete above the roof deck. The window walls were operable, and the HVAC system was a dual-velocity system that could be independently set - or even shut off - in each studio. Over time, we have stripped functionality out of the HVAC system, eliminated or sealed operable windows, and damaged much of the insulation in the slabs. With all of that working against us, it is no surprise that the university spends over $18,000 monthly on our utilities (Fig 74). The power and chilled water usage are particularly high. It is our responsibility to first minimize energy loss in the building by relamping or replacing the fixtures in studios, replacing old curtain walls, increasing roof insulation, and eventually replacing the HVAC system. Changing our working habits, and sub-metering the studios is the next step. After we minimize our carbon footprint, we should consider photovoltaic (Fig 75). The roof represents 33,000 square feet of flat space - almost double that needed to offset our current energy demand.
Fig 74: Architecture Building Utility Usage Data, 2017-2019 (Left and Above)
Fig 75: Possible Photovoltaic Layout
80
81
Proposal for Additions and Alterations Having amassed information on the likely program, needed square footage, the building, and good precedent projects, it was time to make a proposal. Can you really edit a building like this? Is it possible to add space in a delicate, adaptive manner? I think so. The goal of this project is to meet the college’s needs as much within the footprint of the existing building as possible. Furthermore, edits must be done in a way that minimally disrupts the building. There is an intangible quality to the spaces in the building that must be recognized and respected. At the same time, the college is growing, and our needs are evolving. There are numerous accessibility issues in the building. With the following proposal, I seek to address these issues and goals. The first consideration is climate and site. Using the digital model and sun path data, a solar model of the building was created (Fig 77). The section through the atrium (Fig 78) demonstrates its good solar performance. Very little of the glazing in the studio wing takes direct solar gain. The atrium serves to bring light into the building and bounce it. The studios in this building are daylit on two sides – an almost unique condition on campus. On most days you will find studios bustling with activity and the overhead lights off. New additions can adapt this strategy. This building all but reaches out to its surroundings. Simple site diagrams, noting pedestrian and traffic flow, edges, and major views and axis can bring some of these relationships forward (Figs 79-80). The immediate context has changed little over the last four decades, but the college has grown. Rinker Hall sits across Inner Road to the southwest, and though part of the college, it lacks a strong connection to the building. To get from Architecture to Rinker, one must navigate a spatially interesting but unfriendly landscape stair down to Inner Road. Then one walks down a sidewalk past a line of parked cars to the crosswalk, which dumps pedestrians directly south. Students must go around a utility enclosure to get to the front door of Rinker - which is obscured by palm trees. This connection is ripe for improvement, as Inner road currently one way - will soon be converted back to a two-way road. There is a chance to reorient the crosswalk to improve the north-south pedestrian experience (Fig 61). The landscape stairs can also be replaced with a longer, sweeping ramp, improving access while gently nudging pedestrians towards Rinker. Part of this linkage might include an addition to the west wing of the building. Looking back at the older design schemes for the building (Page 59), we can see that there might have been more massing on that side. The joint between the two banks of studios is generous and creates a zone of gathering adjacent the atrium stairs. If we simply duplicate this joint to add another bank of studios, we create a collision (Fig 82). The new joint centers around the bathrooms and service block and would pinch the space. Instead, we must start the addition by adding a fourth studio to the bank of three, extending the 45 out far enough to navigate the turn (Fig 83). Further study brings out the possibility of infilling outside of that initial joint between the studio banks, perhaps with a shop, and replacing the too-steep earthwork ramp between the offices and studio with a lecture hall (Fig 84). These additions begin to bracket and graft onto the existing building without majorly altering its footprint.
82
83
Fig 77: Shadow Study
Fig 78: Sun Study
84
Fig 79: Lines of Force, View, Movement
Fig 80: Edges
Fig 81: Alternate Rinker-Arch Connections
85
Fig 82: Massing A - Pinch Point
Fig 83: Massing B - Successful Corner
Fig 84: Infill / Connection Scheme
86
Fig 85: Initial Model - Existing Building
87
With the initial strategies beginning to develop, it was time to make a model. Using Bristol, at 1/32”=1’-0” Scale, I constructed a model of the existing building (Fig 85), which was then edited and expanded to flesh out the ideas for the additions (Fig 86). The proposal at this point breaks down as follows:
New Studios, Floors 2-4 (Fig 87)---- 4,800sf
New Shop / Yard at Inner Road------ 3,600sf
New Lecture Hall (Fig 88) ------------- 4,000sf
Reclaimed Lab Space------------------ 4,000sf
New Breezeway-------------------------- 1,600sf
New Pinup Space Below Curve---------600sf
Major Renovations to all floors
Total In-Foot Print Space -------------15,000sf
Needed New Space--------------------15,000sf
Three additional studios, as a new, light volume just separated from the west wing can serve as both an endcap and adaptor to the building (Fig 87). The lecture hall / lab room was likewise validated (Fig 88). It can navigate the wedge between the office grid and the terraced studios. Replacing the earthwork, a more gently sloped, celebratory promenade glides around the lecture hall, retying the breezeway to Inner road. Something in the vein of the Carpenter Center. The roof plane lifts to become a gently raised plaza, looking towards the southern campus. Removing the earthwork ramp is a major change, and the new architecture must return what it took. The plaza replaces the sloped pathway with 4000 square feet of valuable public space.
Fig 86: Initial Model - Additions, including Shop Infill
Fig 87: Initial Model - New Studios
Conversely, I determined that nestling shop spaces in the west joint and placing construction yards along Inner Road is not feasible. The yards would be too narrow, the footings too close to the existing buildings, and fronting Inner Road with equipment and large projects would cover what will be the new face of the building. We will never again build a façade like we have on the south - best to celebrate it and leave it be.
Fig 88: Initial Model - New Lecture Hall
88
The space available for reclaiming and infilling within the building nets us half of the square footage that would have gone into the Collaboratory. Renovation to the office wing can further increase efficiency of the existing space. It is clear, based on the program needs of the college and the new buildings of our peer institutions that the other 15,000 square feet should be given over to fabrication and making space. The apparent place for the shop is the west side of the architecture lawn. The east side of the lawn is a conservation area, and the space along stadium road to the north is better reserved for a narrower building. In speaking with Mr. Grabiel, the project architect, it is clear that adding a new wing would be tricky – the building did not lose a piece when redesigned, it shrunk. The building is a complete whole and will not readily accept new parts. The geometries of the terraces, and most striking, the 4th floor curve will not take well to duplications.
Fig 89: Shop Site - Edges
From Mr. Grabiel: “I would never complete that circle. We talked about that forever – we did not want the form to overwhelm the rest of the building or the pond. I would put a new building as close to the Music Building as possible.” This makes it clear that any new space on this end of the lawn needs to be radically different, yet also deferential to, the existing building. Using the new studios as a hinge point, we can begin to parse out the forces and geometries of the site. Starting with the edges (Fig 89), we begin to see the shape of the buildable area. Lines of force and adjacencies can be extended through the site to begin to knit a matrix of alignment for new spaces (Fig 90). Finally, Circulation through this area must be preserved, as it is important for DCP students, Music Students, and the larger campus flow (Fig 91).
Fig 90: Shop Site - Lines of Force
The resulting area is close to 18,000 square feet. Mapping numerous parti onto the site (Fig 92), it becomes clear that this part of the proposal can take many forms. The best versions take about 12-15,000 square feet of area. It seems this must be a low volume, deferring to the view corridor from the curve to Century Tower, and most of all, it cannot seek to replicate existing geometries, only to yield to them. By not following the curve, the mass differentiates itself and does not create friction with the iconic north façade of Architecture.
Fig 91: Shop Site - Circulation
89
Fig 92: Shop Site Parti
90
One of the defining characteristics of the Architecture Building is its didacticism. Being of poured concrete, with structure and mechanical systems exposed, the building is a teaching tool. This was not accidental – when constructed, the HVAC and electrical systems were exposed and painted in bright, differentiating colors. Formwork marks are celebrated, and the floor slab thickness is telegraphed all around by clever brick detailing and concrete reveals. Building-as-teaching-tool is a value that can be incorporated into the new space. In 1975, the logic was about mechanical systems, plenum spaces, and shading techniques. Today, it is important that we also show how we are conserving energy, where our material comes from, and how we are dealing with carbon. This, along with our need to conserve resources led me to Cross Laminated or Glu-laminated timber. CLT, if sourced responsibly, can have a negative carbon footprint, and it lends itself to beautiful assemblies with exposed structural logic. Wood is very strong, takes well to insulation, and will last indefinitely if detailed correctly and maintained. The challenges of building on a dense campus and into the joints of an existing building can be lessened by prefabricating units for assembly on site. Finally, wood construction provides ample opportunity to differentiate the new construction from the existing. It is critical that we do not attempt to duplicate detailing from the 1980 structure. The campus has numerous examples of new buildings and parking garages that borrow too much from their historic neighbors – resulting in a cheapening of the historic qualities. A dialogue between what was done then and what we do now is critical to preserve the character of our building. With the addition of a lecture hall on the ground floor, and the reclaimed labs along inner road established, we can turn our attention to the office wing. The ground floor is currently used as a mix of faculty offices, IT equipment, study spaces, and labs. The floor can be made more efficient by consolidating the college labs and centers along three of the sides and relocating the gallery to this level (Fig 93). Faculty offices can be relocated further up in the building. The existing computer lab rooms on inner road are reclaimed as more isolated lab space, for sensitive equipment, and the walls are restored to their 1980 location – reducing heat gain into the rooms. This move locates all large, enclosed gathering spaces on the same level, pairing them with the research centers. The Inner Road face of the building becomes the de facto public engagement zone of the college. It is not unreasonable to expect that a center will host a seminar, with a tour of their space, a talk in the new lecture hall, and a reception in the gallery. The flexibility of the flat-floored hall and the proximity to the gallery also allows for a wide variety of other space needs to occur. A large reception/ fundraiser in both spaces, DCP Career day and interviews, the annual pinup of student work, and guest lecture/gallery exhibitions are all feasible events that come to mind. This proximity allows a level of flexibility in research and public engagement that we have not enjoyed before.
91
Fig 93: Existing / Proposed Ground Floor Plan
92
Much of the space on the atrium level is open air and oriented towards the architecture lawn and Gator Pond. Most additional space ties into the atrium (Fig 95). Moving from east to west, the first change includes total renovation of the office wing interiors. The Private offices are too large for current UF standards, and many are shared. Replacing hard offices with open office and private breakout rooms will densify this wing while bringing light deeper into the floorplate. This mirrors the shift in practice to larger collaborative spaces. The new breezeway flows out onto a raised plaza, a sort of park that can be used both by students and the college for events. The former Gallery is restored as a studio, and Interior walls between all studios are removed, bringing us more in line with peer institutions. The planters below the curve are infilled and raised to the level of the adjacent walkway, creating covered critique space. The classrooms are combined and daylit along the north wall (Fig 94). A new bank of three stacked studios is added to the west. On floors 3 and 4 a bridge connects them to the adjacent studios. They are wrapped in sunshades. Finally, the service core is reworked, combining the restrooms into one gender inclusive fixture bank. There is also space here for a freight elevator, new staircase, and plaster/concrete stations on each floor. The new shop links off the new stair tower. In this version, a walkway separates the conditioned fab lab and open-air shop. This geometry is a continuation of the west studios and adjacent Steinbrenner Band Hall. The atrium is left alone.
Fig 94: Enlarged Studio Addition Plan / Section
93
Fig 95: Existing / Proposed Second Floor Plan
94
Fig 96: Existing Atrium
Fig 97: Proposed Atrium
95
Fig 98: Existing Ramp
Fig 99: Proposed Lecture Hall
96
Fig 100: Final Model
Fig 101: New Ramp / Studio Addition
Fig 102: Slot at New Studio
97
Fig 103: Final Model
Fig 104: New Studio
Fig 105: New Studio
98
Fig 106: Final Model
Fig 107: Final Model
99
Fig 108: Final Model
Fig 109: High Bay Shop
Fig 110: Shop Entrance
Fig 111: Lecture Hall
Fig 112: Lecture Hall
100
Fig 115: Lecture Hall
Fig 113: New Studio
Fig 116: New Studio
Fig 114: Existing Studio
Fig 117: Breezeway
Fig 118: Section at Breezeway
101
Fig 119: Existing Section at Atrium
Fig 120: Proposed Section at Atrium
102
Figures 96/97 and 119/120 shows the limited change to the atrium. The scale figures in this rendering were taken from a photograph of the space, showing its variety of usage. This space is sacred to the students and serves us quite well. The only alteration this proposal seeks is the replacement of the HVAC system. Figure 113 shows the potential quality of the three new studios. The wood finishes and slight vaulting of the ceiling plane will distinguish it from the existing studios, while still capturing their proportions and light quality. The model photographs (Figs 100105) and section (Fig 94) show how the massing of the studios steps and changes as you move upwards. The joint between the service core and western studios is perhaps the most complex in the project. At the moment, this area is a negative reveal between the concrete studios and brick sheathed core. The gap frames a view of Century Tower. Each part in this process necessarily takes something from the existing building. It is important that each thing removed is carefully considered, readapted, and replaced. To that end, when the framed view is removed, it is replaced with a lookout point between the new studios and new stair (Fig 116), restoring the view of Century Tower. Two exploded axonometrics serve to detail this complex joint (Fig 123). Figure 122 shows the breath of this project, and best illustrates the low-slung character of the shop elevation. Holding a fabrication lab, high bay shop with rail crane, and heavy machinery, it nestles up against the service drive at the back of the Music Building. Again, by not attempting to copy the brutalist detailing, the tectonic construction of the shop compliments and juxtaposes the stereotomy of the curve.
103
Fig 121: Section at West Studios
Fig 122: Section at Breezeway
104
105
Fig 123: Material / Systems Assembly at New Studio / Bathroom Core
106
The last component of this project lies in the logistics. How do you empty out a 112 thousand square foot facility for the year or two that the renovation will take? Design students have a hard time working on models in lecture halls. The Architecture Building holds about 49,000 square feet of office and studio space. This would need to be replaced. I propose the following: Needed Space – 49,000sf 125A - Build the shop space first, as temporary office and studio
+ 12,000sf
125B - Squeeze students into College Space in Rinker Hall, Fine Arts C, and Catalyst
Fine Arts +3,000sf
Rinker Hall +3000sf
Catalyst +4,500sf
125C - Shift 15% of the college to distance learning
+ 7,500sf equivalent
A
125D - Install temporary classrooms on the Architecture Lawn and Fine Arts Parking lot. There is recent precedent for this +12,000sf 125E/F - as other colleges complete new greenfield buildings, work with them to borrow vacated space temporarily +10-20,000sf Total - 52-62,000sf In this manner, we can find more than 52,000 square feet to occupy (Fig 125 G) while we finish renovations and additions to the architecture building (125 H). It will not be comfortable, but may be necessary. This approach requires a great deal of logistics and coordination, and it will be different for every project. But this situation is not truly unique. Midcentury buildings often fall into disrepair ironically because they are too important to temporarily vacate. As a campus community, we need to be able to share resources and space in order to maximize the use of our buildings. In this way we can lower our energy use and contribute to a better outcome for all involved.
B
107
C
D Fig 125: Potential Displacement / Phasing Process
108
E
F
109
G
H Fig 125: Potential Displacement / Phasing Process
110
111
Conclusions This project truly began in July 2012 when I had the fortune of participating in the Design Exploration Program with Professor Martin Gundersen. I did not realize it for some time, but those three weeks had a profound impact on my educational trajectory and project approach. The last project was an addition to the Architecture Building. The Architecture Building is not only special to me, it is special to friends, peers, and mentors. Any alteration to it must be supported by deep research and solid input from the students and professors who use it. The building demands a depth to its study. Drawing, and library research was a start. Professors graciously shared research and experiences, such as Professor Walters’ college timeline. Archival research became invaluable. Sarah Coates was particularly helpful, pulling hundreds of documents for me to search through. Tracing down the records from AECOM answered many questions about the project. Mr. Grabiel provided the last research avenue. The experience of interviewing for a design project was incredibly fruitful. A constant MRP sub theme is case study and precedent. The “renovation” of Rudolph Hall at Yale serves as a warning to us; its restoration and addition a good precedent to follow. Professor Lisa Huang’s Collaboratory precedent gave me a good start in piecing together a program. At one point I thought I was going to design a new building for the college, but the process demanded more. What began as a Collaboratory proposal grew into a design/stewardship ethos. University campuses are unique ecosystems. The process from approvals through funding to construction is incredibly elaborate. University Architect Cydney McGlothlin was instrumental in revealing the process. The ability to switch hats from user to designer to client has taught me much about how buildings are made. I hope in reflection that the project is not only feasible, but that it is morally and ethically strong. Reflecting on the project, I lament the breakdown in discourse with college leadership. I found myself organizing the student response to the atrium roof. I am honored to have had such trust from faculty and students, but I had little experience in community design. I regret that I could not make friends within the college or design team, but instead had to resort to pressure tactics and public arguments to claim space for student voices. Still, I am incredibly lucky that even as I developed an interest in our building, the college began fundraising for its addition. The MRP is so well timed that it can serve as a reference for the actual project. I am grateful that my research will supplement the building file, helping inform its stewards. I hope too that the logical/ ethical considerations I propose can serve as a guide in other historic renovations. As designers, it is our responsibility to solve the needs of today and lay the foundation for future generations. Even now, as Covid-19 changes how we work, how we learn, and our relationship to space, I think we are seeing shortcomings in how we normally approach design. In the age of distance learning, do we need new lecture halls? What is public space? We must better manage our space and resources. This project presents one method for this.
112
113
References Barreneche, Raul. At Spillis Candela and Partners. New Tork: Edizioni Pres, 2001. Butt, Arnold F. NAAB School Evaluation Report. Gaineville: Department of Architecture, University of Florida, 1968. Document. DelCastillo, Nicolas. UF Architecture Building History / Analysis. Gainesville, 16 March 2020. Video Recodring. —. Water Ingress and Envelope Issues Relating Directly to the Studios and Exterior Walkways. Gainesville, 2020. PDF. Ferendino Grafton Spillis Candela, Architects Engineers Planners. Outline specifications, Architect’s Project P-7442. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1975. various pagings, looseleaf. Gale Associates. “UF-BLDG #02668 (Architecture Bldg.).” 2017. Hejduk, John. Education of An Architect. New York: Rizzoli, 1988. KMF and Brooks Scarpa. “Architecture Building Advanced SChematic Design (for Student Discussion).” 2020. Moses & Associates. “Architecture Building Addition Master Plan Building 268.” 2008. Stern, Robert A.M. Pedagogy and Place: 100 Years of Architecture Education at Yale. Yale: Yale University Press, 2016. The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Architecture Education collection, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. University Archives Series 156, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. University Archives Photograph Collection , Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. University of Florida Digital Collections, World Maps Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. News and Public Affairs , Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
114
Figures Fig 1 Male Students at Drafting Tables in Peabody Attic 1930 University Archives Photograph Collection , Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 2 - Fine Arts C, 2020 2019 University Archives Photograph Collection , Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 3 Temporary E, Housing the Department of Architecture 1960 University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 4 Entrance to Grove Hall College of Design, Construction and Planning Website Fig 5 2008
UF Architecture Building UF Facilities Website
Fig 6 UF Rinker Hall UF Facilities Website Fig 8 Construction of Fine Arts Complex University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 9 Aerial of Architecture and Fine Art Complex University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 10 Pages from College Funding Packet 1960 University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 11 Pages from College Funding Packet 1960 University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 12 Grove Hall College of Design, Construction and Planning Website Fig 14 College Master Plan from College Funding Packet 1960 University Archives Series 72, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 16 Timeline of the School of Architecture 2008 Professor Bradely Walters Fig 17 1968 Curriculum 1968 Butt, Arnold F. NAAB School Evaluation Report. Gaineville: Department of Architecture, University of Florida, 1968 Fig 18 Current Curriculum 2019 UF School of Architecture Fig 19 February 12, 1973 - Goodby Grove: ode from its students 1973 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 20 July 15, 1976 - 6 New Buildings in Design Stages 1976 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 21 October 30, 1976 - 36 Buildings Slated for Demolition 1976 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 22 July 26, 1977 - Construction Underway for 2-Unit Complex for Architecture, Fine Arts 1977 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 23 February 14, 1978 - Old UF building may be salvaged 1978 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 24 May 18, 1978 - Flint’s hazards prevent move of building School 1978 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 25 November 1, 1979 - UF refuses to accept 2 new buildings 1979 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 26 November 16, 1982 Architecture building has that sinking feeling 1982 The Alligator Archive, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 27 1950 Dan Kiley Master Plan 1950 University of Florida Digital Collections, World Maps Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 28 2020
Current UF Campus Map campusmap.ufl.edu
Fig 30 Combined Roof Plan, A10-A11 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 31 Combined 4th Floor Plan, A8-A9 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 32 Combined 2nd Floor Plan, A4-A5 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 33 4th Floor Electrical Plan E-5 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
115
Fig 34 3rd Floor HVAC Plan, AC-5 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 42 Atrium Wall Structural Elevation. S-15 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 63 Final Presentation Plans 1977 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 35 Alternate 2, Bridge to FAC. A-51 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 56 1975 Presentation - Spillis Candela 1975 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 64 Construction Photos 19771979 1977-1980 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 36 Alternate 2, Bridge to FAC. S-28 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 57 Site Considerations Slides from 1974 Presentation 1975 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 65 Finished Photos - 1980 1980 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 37 Stair 1 Detail A-13 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 38 Alternate 1, Atrium Roof. S-20 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 39 South Terrace / Balcony Section. A-33 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 40 Building Sections. A-30 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 41 Atrium Wall Elevation. A-20 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 58 Photographs of 1974 Presentation Model - Spillis Candela 1974 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 59 Initial Massing Ideas for Building 1974 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 60 1974 Presentation Plans, Each Floor 1974 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 61 1975 Revised Plans, Each Floor 1975 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 62 1977 Final Presentation Plans, Each Floor 1977 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fig 66 Newsletter Sketches, 1980 1980 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 67 UF News Photographs -1980,1988,1988 1980-88 News and Public Affairs , Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 68 Occupation Photos - Early 1980’s 1980 Records of the School of Architecture, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fig 70 Precedent Projects 2019 Professor Lisa Huang Figures not otherwise noted were created by Author, 2020