ARC70003 Hybrid Living Studio Folio PT3

Views from Units

User Experience & Circulation

The section shown identifies the main route of vertical access throughout the building. This is served by 2 scissor type stairways and 2 lifts. The pop out shows more detail about occupants and activity that may happen in the units.

User Experience Hybrid (Tower 1)

The following identifies our hybrid system of tower 1 in section. This enables a clearer identification of the different functions and how spaces and people interact with each other and their surroundings. This is one of the elements of ‘hybrid living’ that felt most prominent throughout all background research and case studies. The green and play spaces are placed throughout the building at varied levels to allow people to experience the indoor and outdoor connection differently connecting to our other ‘hybrid living’ feature of connecting the indoors with the outdoors. Tower 2 is shown in the appendix of this document.

Here we have a view from the third level of the tower 2, looking over the site. Users can be seen interacting with the ground plane and the second story paths.

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

This is a view of the void between the two tower connectors on the ground floor. This area creates a sense of enclosure a community similar to many of the communal areas in the hybrid system. As a public space people can feel safer and more connected here as well as connecting to Docklands Drive and the Harbour Frontage by glass walls.

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

This shows this view from tower 1 looking down onto the waterfront, site visitors can be seen playing on the steps and in the water pond. This is one of the greatest viewpoints to see the hybrid connection from ground to tower and residents. Parents could look upon kids playing in the public realm from home as well as a safety feature of eyes within the public space adding an element of security.

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

The unit design whilst highly function able and customizable, provides a homely feeling to residents. The unit shown here is a 3-4 bedroom unit for a family of young kids whom of which 2 kids share a bedroom to allow for a study in the 4th bedroom extending off the lounge room. This can be adapted for kids to have their own space when they grow older however the study will need to be incorporated else ware or the shared flexible workspace used more frequently.

DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Site Current

Proposed Plan MAB & DKO

Our Proposal

GFA: 13090 m2

Units: 0

Views: Harbour, Park, City Light: 100%

The site currently is empty with some construction and clearing works happening to get the site ready for development.

GFA: 186,690 m2

Units: 1113-1593

Views: Blocked by own towers

Light: 40%

The image above shows the proposal by MAB and DKO. So far only the left building has had its permit approved.

GFA: 190,744 m2

Units: 640

Views: Harbour, Park, City

Light: 80%

Our proposal focuses on family living consisting of larger apartments and more occupants which results in a lower unit number. All views are maximized and light is prioritized to all units and the public interface.

Masterplan (Future Melbourne Committee 2017)

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

Link to A0 poster

Link to Final Presentation Slides

Link to Iteration Animation

Link to Final Video

In conclusion we have compared the site to its current appearance, proposed development and our design. In comparison to the site currently we have increased the number of units, Floor area and views. When comparing our design to the masterplan by DKO we have similar floor area but have better lighting and views. A reduced number of units can be identified however the proposal by DKO focuses on getting as many units as possible not occupants. Our proposal focuses of families and 3-4 bedroom units therefore taking up more floor space per unit.

DEVELOPMENT

Hybrid Typologies

I looked at a few different hybrid typologies. Starting with a wedding cake and y block i found a few different iterations but when trying to get it into our site, it didnt fit great with the surrounding environment or did not create the environment we wished to see for this development. I then moved on to a H block, removing elements similar to the conditions and background of the wedding cake typology. This created some interesting variations that had the potential to work better for radiation into the internal spaces of the building. The third typology study took on a similar cut away method however with a perimeter block. As much as this showed potential for great indoor spaces and terraces it lacked the costly nature of the Docklands precinct. The results were interesting as I hoped that the cut away method would provide heaps more light to internal spaces, but did not really stray from the original blocky structure.

(InQueensland 2020)

(Konkol 2019)

(Wikipedia 2020)

(ABCNEWS 2020) (Wikipedia 2020)

Y Block & Wedding Cake - Changing the angle

H Block & Removing Elements - Changing Circulation & Light Filtration

Perimeter Block & Wedding Cake - Changing Light Filtration

the angle

H Block & Removing Elements - Changing Circulation & Light Filtration

Perimeter Block & Wedding Cake - Changing Light Filtration

Starting with a wedding cake and Y block I found a few different iterations but when trying to get it into our site, it did not fit great with the surrounding environment or did not create the environment we wished to see for this development. The Y typology proved difficult to get multiple different iterations as it has a very distinctive shape. Testing changing height, number of steps and angles were the only thing that came to mind when proposing a hybrid of this form. Overall the analysis shows that there is adequate lighting inside the building as well as on the ground plane which were the major factors I tried to achieve the best result for.

Moving on to a H block, removing elements similar to the conditions and background of the wedding cake typology. This created some interesting variations that had the potential to work better for radiation into the internal spaces of the building. The results didn’t show as I had hoped as I expected to see higher results where the cutouts were formed. Even after cutting large chunks and removing and adding terraces, there was still not the distinctive change i was looking for. Attempting some smaller block I separated them into 2, spaced them out and moved them to see if the depth was the issue. It resolved light to some areas creating another face to the building where light could reach each unit providing a health benefit to human and plant life.

The third typology study took on a similar cut away method however with a perimeter block. As much as this showed potential for great indoor spaces and terraces it lacked the costly nature of the Docklands precinct. The results were interesting as I hoped that the cut away method would provide heaps more light to internal spaces, but did not really stray from the original blocky structure. As much as creating this model was fun and interesting, making sure to count the steps for similar iterations and process, it did take a very long time to achieve results that were not useful in the development of our design.

H Block & Removing Elements - Development

Matrix of Iterations

Winter Radiation Analysis

The QR Code links to a drive with an animation sequence of the iteration process of the different typology studies.

Development of the second typology was created as it had the most potential for the site location as well as the factors of light and views we were aiming towards. The new variations aimed to achieve the problem of light to internal spaces, whilst harnessing the views to scenery and keeping the density as close as possible to the original concept. In the end I settled on this variation which provides great lighting to all spaces as well as achieving a greater view of scenery rather than looking into the adjacent unit. The analysis proves this concept has the greatest potential to become part of the Docklands precinct.

Typology Study

Nicole Wedding Cake & Y Block

Kaitlyn Slab & H Block Salam Y Block & H Block

PROS

• Terraces and open spaces.

• Increased Light In and on building.

• Ground Space for amenities and activities.

PROS

• Opens up ground plane for interaction under the building mass

• Allow views from many directions

• Allows for spaces to easily be public/ private

PROS

• A pavilion to connect the two parts of the building in the lower levels.

• Allow great public space

• Easy access.

• Good view

CONS

• Takes up large block

• Difficult to get light into common space and hallways (Double Loaded Corridors).

CONS

• Doesn’t suit a lot of block types

• Can create segmentation between functions

CONS

• Multi-use building (Offices and Hypermarket) not Mixed use.

• Two entrance only for each building part.

Model: Kaitlyn McNaughton Model: Salam Sakbani

Initial Development

Nicole: Maximize Light Facade Kaitlyn: Maximize Daylight Hours on Ground Plane

Salam: Maximize Views to Scenery

Building receives between 2-7kWh/m2 a day. This sits well for the site in Australian conditions.

Ground plane receives between 2-7 hours of daylight exposure each day. Three hours minimum is required in public spaces.

Each part of the building at least has one view access to the harbor, the parks, or the public space in the middle.

Pros/Cons

• Pull back balconies

• Towers separate functions

• Building feet

Pros/Cons

• Full use of site

• Interesting public realm

• Different height towers

Pros/Cons

• Access to green space

• Rotation allows for balconies

• Good view of harbour

Model: Kaitlyn McNaughton

Model: Salam Sakbani

Tower Layout & Orientation

Cons

• Not amazing harbour views

• Very blocky

• East west facing

Pros

• Easy to fit in site

Cons

• Views on one side

• Light on one side

• Communal space shadowed

Pros

• Compromise views for no light

• Easy fit onto site

Cons

• Minimal communal space

• Don’t fit with blocks

Pros

• Angle adds interest and better views

Cons

• Angle don’t align with block

• East west facing

Pros

• Line up with block on one side

• Maximized communal space

Cons

• Take up full block

• Don’t align with blocks

• Will look into other towers

Pros

• Interesting shape

• Compromise views vs light

The QR code links to an animation exploring different methods of configuration for multiple towers on site.

Tower Location & Orientation

TEST 1

BLOCKS PARALLEL

TEST 2

BLOCKS OFFSET

TEST 3

BLOCKS ANGLED

TEST 4

BLOCKS ANGLED

TEST 5 BLOCKS Z SHAPE

Tower Location & Orientation Analysis

TEST 1

BLOCKS PARALLEL

TEST 2

BLOCKS OFFSET

TEST 3

BLOCKS ANGLED

TEST 4

BLOCKS ANGLED

TEST 5 BLOCKS Z SHAPE

Circulation: Connector Location

Top Connector

Mid Connector

Low Connector

PROS

-Good Hybrid Layout

-Good circulation Flow

-Almost no wind vortex of high wind tunnels in public spaces

-Some shading but still adequate lighting in winter

CONS

-High up if change to leased spaces

-High wind currents up high

PROS

-Uniform circulation of ground.

-Good hybrid layout

CONS

-Little sun in winter months on ground

-No Shared ground for both towers

-Some downdraft wind effects at ground level

-Low units shaded by connector

PROS

-Foyer for private resident

-Low wind in communal area from some directions

-All units get similar sun amount in winter

CONS

-Public needs to go around

-Looses hybrid layout, semi-private functions at base

-No sun on ground in winter months

-Wind currents strong through buildings

The top connector was chosen as it creates the best hybrid model as well as inflicts as little on ground level in terms of obstruction, wind and sun hours. More analysis of wind will be completed to show the effect from different directions.

The connector will be made larger to accommodate double height in some areas as well as room for affordable residences. This connector space aims to house many semi-private functions creating a link between the 2 towers. Another reason for the high connector is that many other building typologies in Docklands are podium towers. Creating a different look will be appealing and create a unique piece of architecture in Docklands.

47three. Aims & Guidelines

BRIEF

To create a family oriented hybrid development in Docklands with a focus on Covid safe design whilst allowing natural lighting to all spaces.

INTEGRATION INTO URBAN FABRIC

• Integrated by extending the waterfront promenade and creating a lively space towards the end of the street.

• Uses similar materials to the surrounding urban fabric. Glass and Steel constructions, but also uses unique materials to create a different atmosphere.

• Similar typology to the surrounding environment consisting of low rise townhouses and high rise residential towers, however ours uses a step back approach making the ground space welcoming.

STREET SCAPE

SKIN

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

PROBLEM STATEMENT

“Hybrid system optimized for family living using flexible design for co-living and work requirements of a post COVID world.”

STUDIO - HYBRID LIVING

• Co-Living and working

• Family

• Sustainable- Performance Analysis tools

• Fluid transitions between spaces

• Combined functions

• Materiality

• Flexibility

VISION & SCALE

Family Living

Macro- Micro Scale

Covid Safe Design

Micro Scale

Natural Lighting

Meso Scale

Visual: Kaitlyn McNaughton

STUDIO - HYBRID LIVING

What do families need and want in high rise living in the CBD?

What is currently available for family living in the CBD?

Do adults and kids have the same needs?

What are they differences?

Can Family live in the CBD?

How can we make these spaces post COVID safe?

Parents

WANTS NEEDS DESIGN ACTION

• Space to get rid of kids for a moment

• Communal outdoor space in building

• Minimal Noise

• All weather spaces

• Gym

• Cafes/retail

• Safe opening balcony windows and doors

• Laundry facilities

• Child friendly spaces

• Safety/ Security

• Space to meet other families

• Space to work at home without interruptions

• Groceries

• Open Spaces throughout the building.

• Leisure Activities for common use.

• Work/ Living Concept.

• Safe design for kids. Focus on materiality.

Kids

• Outside space

• Pool

• Playground

• Play/meeting space

• Space to learn at home

• Age specific areas

• See other kids

• Leisure Activities in common spaces. Visitor

• Cafes

• Toilets

• Inclusive space

• Space to sit

• Shelter from elements

• Reason to visit

• Interactive ground plane.

• Sheltered Space.

• Iconic Feature.

• Street Level Interface

RESEARCH METHODS

Performance Analysis

Sunlight hours, radiation, wind study, UTCI,

Pedestrian movements, views.

Case Studies

Skin design from unit configuration

Colour and effect on people

Interactive ground Spaces

Covid Safe design/ Post Covid

Unit Guidelines and specifications

Unit Co-living and work

Site Observations

Typology, Conditions, Location, Existing

Infrastructure, Proposed Development

Floor Plan Layout

Plan 1 Plan 2

Tower 2

Tower 1

Tower 2

Tower 1

Floor Plan Layout Detail

Plan 1 Tower 1

Plan 2 Tower 1

User Experience Hybrid (Tower 2)

Residential Services

Green/ Play Space

Supermarket

Cafe

Car Park

Public Car Park to the North also enables drop off or residents in a safe place off Docklands Drive for increased safety.

Private Car Park In the East entry and exit off Wattle Road (side Street) for added safety and less traffic.

23 spaces in the North car park (public)

472 spaces in the east car park (private)

Views from Units- Mid Day 1pm

Visuals: Kaitlyn McNaughton

Performance Analysis: Radiation

Performance Analysis: Sun Hour / Shadows

Performance Analysis: Universal Thermal Comfort Index