Program & Pedagogy: A New School of Architecture; Architecture Thesis

Program & Pedagogy

A New School of Architecture

Chris Norcross

Master of Architecture Thesis

School of Architecture, Art, & Historic Preservation

Roger Williams University

Program & Pedagogy

A New School of Architecture

Chris Norcross

Master of Architecture School of Architecture, Art, & Historic Preservation Roger Williams University

3

Program & Pedagogy

A New School of Architecture

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Architecture degree:

Author, Chris Norcross

Date:

Advisor, Julian Bonder

Date:

Dean, Stephen White, AIA

Date:

5

Acknowledgments Stephen White

Leonard Yui, AIA, LEED AP

Gregory Larramie

Nathan Fash, AIA

Hasan-Uddin Khan

Olga Mesa, LEED AP

Julian Bonder

Roberto Viola Ochoa

Andrew Cohen, AIA

Ginette Castro

Eleftherios Pavlides, Ph.D.

Blair G Shanklin

Anne Proctor, Ph.D.

John O’Keefe

Dean and Professor of Architecture Associate Dean

Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Architecture Professor of Architecture Professor of Architecture Professor of Architecture

Associate Professor of Art and Architectural History

Associate Professor of Architecture Assistant Professor of Architecture Assistant Professor of Architecture

Assistant Professor of Architecture Adjunct Professor of Architecture Adjunct Professor of Architecture Digital Education and Labs Specialist

I would like to thank all of my professors at Roger Williams, who taught me so much throughout my education. I also want to thank my friends and family who have given me all the advice, encouragement, and support that I needed along the way.

7

Contents Acknowledgments 7 Contents 9 Preface 10 Problem Statement

12

Project Statement

14

Site 16 Regulatory Environment

20

Precedents 24 Preliminary Ideas

30

Initial Process

32

First Review

36

A Different Studio

38

Refined Process

40

Two Concepts

44

Mid Review

50

Further Process

54

Gate Review

72

Final Process

76

Final Review

88

Conclusion 104 Final Design

106

Sources 126 Appendix 128

9

Preface For me, the vast majority of 2019 took place in the School of Architecture at Roger Williams University. I was taking three consecutive studio courses during the spring, summer, and winter semesters. During this time I had developed a strong habit to work solely in studio and to avoid working at my apartment. I found this separation that I created between working space and living space to be important for my productivity and benefiting the quality of my work. Working in the architecture building meant that there was always someone nearby that could give me feedback on my projects and I had access to all of the amenities that the school had to offer.

During all my time in studio, I noticed that many grad students spent very little time working in studio, working in their apartments instead. When asked why these students preferred working in apartments rather than in studio, they gave reasons of being more comfortable and at ease in their apartments. This comfort came at the cost of these students designing in a bubble.

One of my earliest aspirations for my thesis was to create an architecture building where students were comfortable and eager to work in studio. This aspiration continued to be a driving motivation for me as the shifter to become more focused on the relationship between program and pedagogy.

At the start of my last semester at Roger Williams, I was excited to reimagine a building that I care so much about and where I have spent so much time throughout my education. I was intrigued by the idea of redesigning a building from within it and I wanted to make use of everything that the school provides; the plotters, 3D printers, CNC, woodshop, VR headsets, library, and more. At first, all these hopes for this semester were being fulfilled.

On March 10, 2020, the university decided to continue the rest of the semester online and close down campus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I felt heartbroken as my expectations for the semester were crushed, I could no longer work in the architecture building, and I had to quickly adapt to new work habits.

In the end, I found some benefits from the change in working conditions and made me wonder what a studio will look like moving forward.

10

11

Problem Statement The architecture building at Roger Williams University has undergone various changes since it’s completion in 1987, with the last change being the 2003 addition. It has been seventeen years since that addition and it is time for a new addition that addresses the current issues the building is facing.

The school’s architecture program has seen substantial growth in recent years; as a result of this growth, the building is starting to feel cramped. Each year the library’s collection has grown and needs more space; new technologies have been added to the woodshop and the model making room, but room to work and introduce new technology in the future is limited.

The studio designed in 1987 followed the notion that the class of first-year students would start large and dwindle each year as students change majors or transfer to other schools.

Today this notion of dwindling class size is flawed, far fewer students are transferring or changing majors, leading to the studio reaching its capacity for students and desks.

The 2003 addition created new studio spaces for the school’s new graduate program, by extending the building’s campus facing East facade, spaces for grad studios and more faculty offices were formed. This provided more room, but in doing so it separated the undergrad and grad students, which is not beneficial for studio culture. The separation is accentuated by the intact original East facade which limits the connections between the 1987 building and the 2003 addition to just two points.

The studio could benefit from more interconnections with other parts of the building as well.

The current connection between the faculty offices and studio is indirect; a direct connection could cultivate a design discourse between students and more faculty and surpass what is achieved in studio courses. For some students, the library is not associated with the design process despite its extensive collection of resources; a stronger relationship between the studio and library could encourage students to better integrate research into their design processes.

The library also suffers from a weak connection between its first and second floors. For someone who can not use the stairs in the library, they must go to the main library desk to ask a librarian to open a locked door on the second floor, then they must go halfway across the building to use the elevator and then go back halfway across the building to get into the second floor of the library.

The undergrad and grad studios both have the same spatial qualities throughout. In the 1987 studio, ducts and structural elements were left exposed and carefully arranged to display for students how these systems worked. In the 2003 addition, the studio also exhibits systems, but in a more densely packed format. Between the two studio spaces, there is no deviation from this technical demonstration, this is not exactly an issue, but a missed opportunity to passively illustrate more architectural qualities for students to learn from.

12

13

Project Statement Through addressing the issues that the architecture building currently faces, I will explore how design principles from the existing build can guide the design of new spaces, how the existing building can be transformed to accept new spaces, and how program and pedagogy react to one another. This project’s program can be seen as three predominant parts; the studio addition, the library expansion, and the robotics lab, with each having distinct qualities for students to learn from.

To alleviate the cramped space in the studio, it makes sense to expand the studio. While expanding the studio, I intend to bring the undergrad and grad students together to one side of the building. With this expansion, I will introduce more architectural qualities for the students to learn from, such as the influence of courtyards and natural light on space or the reuse of existing features and principals.

To establish an enriched interconnectedness throughout the building, new ways to move from space to space will be created. The relationship between the library and the studio will be strengthened by direct access to the library. Connecting both sides of the building will be explored through the transformation of the core of the building and relocating some of the faculty offices to be in closer proximity to the studio.

To improve the resources of the building, some old spaces will receive additions and some new spaces will be added. The library will benefit from further space to better accommodate its ever-increasing collection and the inclusion of an elevator will make the second floor much more accessible for all students.

A new space to be added is a robotics lab, where students can create full scale models and work with emerging technologies. Whereas the model making room and woodshop are great for working on small and medium scale projects respectively, the robotics lab will expand students’ work to large scale possibilities. With the robotics comes the capability for students to experiment with processes like 3D printed concrete, precision milled formwork, or parametric stacking of bricks to create complex forms.

14

15

Site Program History The precursor of RWU’s architecture program started in 1973 as a major in Architectural Engineering Technology as a part of the Division of Engineering Technology. By 1977, the students in the program sought an architecture based education rather than one focused on engineering technology. In response, the college’s administration urged the faculty to start developing a better program.

Under the leadership of the program’s first Dean, Raj Saksena, the five-year Bachelor of Architecture program was offered for the first time in Fall 1982 and received initial NAAB accreditation in 1985. The program fulfilled a need in the Northeast for undergraduate architecture professional degree opportunities. The Architecture Division became the School of Architecture in 1990, offering a five-year Bachelor of Architecture and four-year BS in Historic Preservation degrees.

In 1997, the School of Architecture began a strategic planning process under new leadership, with Stephen White being appointed dean. This led to the 1999 reorganization into the School of Architecture, Art and Historic Preservation (SAAHP), with expanded undergraduate professional and liberal arts programs in Architecture (Bachelor of Architecture, B.S. in Architecture), Art (B.A.), Historic Preservation (B.S.), and Art and Architectural History (B.A.).

In June 2000, NAAB granted a full term of Accreditation to the Bachelor of Architecture program, and Candidacy to the B.S. + Master of Architecture dual degree program sequence being phased in.

The Architecture program performed a Nomenclature Change in 2002 and admitted its last Bachelor of Architecture class in 2004. The establishment of the Master of Architecture transformed the School in terms of student academic opportunities and expectations, facilities, faculty composition, and development.

In 2007, SAAHP established a Teaching Firm in Residence program unique in the country, where each semester distinguished architecture firms come to teach graduate design studios, present lectures, and occasionally hire some students. In 2008, the school began evolving the curricular developments in place. A feature of these revisions was the evolution of the Comprehensive Project Design Studio led by then Adjunct Faculty Roberto Viola Ochoa, now Director of Advanced Studies.

Finally, the School is undergoing a generational change. Many of our program’s founding faculty have retired, and new faculty have joined the school over the past decade.

16

Building History In 1984, Roger Williams College launched an NEA-sponsored design competition for a new Architecture building, in 1985 the winning firm, Kite Palmer Architects, was chosen. The new Architecture building was completed in 1987 and has since strongly contributed to the design and professional engagement culture of the program.

Working again with Kite Palmer Architects (2003-2005), a two-phase expansion provided additional studio space, computer labs, a digital manufacturing lab, faculty offices, an exhibition gallery, and a lecture hall.

171

17

Site Located on the southern tip of a peninsula in Bristol, Rhode Island, Roger Williams University’s campus is spread across the hillside of Ferry Cliff, which looks eastward across Mount Hope Bay. The campus is wedge-shaped and defined by two distinct boundaries: to the east is the coastline of Mount Hope Bay, and to the west is Route 114 Ferry Road.

Where the campus coast and Route 114 intersect establishes the southern tip of the campus, this point is marked by Mount Hope Bridge. The bridge connects Bristol with Portsmouth, R.I., and its two suspension towers and cables are visible from many parts of the campus, as well as at night when they are lit up. The northern boundary of the campus is not so much of a physical feature as the coast and Route 114, but it is more of a social boundary; the campus’ two northernmost elements which attract students are the tennis courts and North Campus Residence Hall, north of these two elements are only ancillary buildings, parking lots, and a parking structure.

The School of Architecture is located at the center of campus and is visible from Route 114.

East of the building is the University Library and dining commons; these three buildings enclose the campus quad. The admissions building neighbors the architecture building on the north; the recreation center and School of Law lie further north across the main campus road. South of the architecture building is the administration building, followed by a couple of academic buildings and then housing. West of the architecture building is an open lawn that is over 250 feet wide and gently sloping down from Route 114 towards the architecture building. The main entrance into the building is on the east side, facing the quad; a secondary entrance is located on the north side of the building, facing the admissions building; both entrances feature small, semi-enclosed patios. There is parking located behind both the admissions building, a small lot, and behind the administration building, a long belt of parking that stretches south behind other academic buildings.

18

192

19

Regulatory Environment The location of the site for this project is under the jurisdiction of the Bristol Zoning Board regarding the town’s regulatory ordinances and requirements. The campus is zoned as an Education Institutional zone and it is part of the Route 136 Metacom Avenue Overlay; although the architecture school is not located in the Metacom Overlay, its position on the campus is a matter of concern for the zoning board.

When the university was going through the process of creating a master plan in 2001, one of the requests from the zoning board was that the university establishes three sectors that would stipulate the height limits for buildings and govern how involved the board would be in future work on campus. Sector One; 35 foot height limit; is on the west side of the campus, it reaches from the north end of the campus down to just past the intersection before driving south onto the bridge; from this edge, the sector is defined by a 200 foot offset from Metacom Avenue on the north side of campus, on the south side the boundary is determined by the existing buildings. In the case of the architecture building the boundary of Sector One cuts right through the building, demarcating the original 1987 architecture building and the 2003 expansion. The 2003 expansion lies within Sector Three; 65 foot height limit; which is delineated by Mount Hope Bay to the east and Sector One to the west, this sector terminates at the northern edge of campus and by Sector Two in the south. Sector Two; 48 foot height limit; is the southern tip of campus and contains mostly dorms.

Another component of the master plan is the street visibility line, SVL, which is used for managing the visibility of buildings from Metacom Avenue. The location SVL is based on the boundary between Sector One and Three in the northern part of campus, in the southern part of campus, the line is then jogged eastward to encase the furthest west academic buildings between the SVL and Metacom Avenue. In relation to the current architecture building, the SVL lies 20 feet to the east.

20

213

21

Regulatory Environment Due to the architecture building being between the SVL and Metacom Avenue, any architectural interventions will require a thorough review from the town to ensure it is not going to take away from the overall appearance of the campus: For any new building or structure, and any addition to existing buildings that is located, in whole or in part, between the SVL and a street, architectural drawings shall be submitted to the technical review committee for development plan review, pursuant to the town subdivision and development review regulations and this chapter.

The development plan review shall include the location including the relationship to the public street and the impact on the view of the campus from the public street, overall design including the basic architectural style, the shape and form of the roof, the facade, the fenestration and the integration of the new structure into the campus parking and circulation system.

Any new addition onto the architecture building will be in either Sector One or Sector Three.

Sector One has more area to build, but it is limited by a 35 foot height limit and will be subjected to thorough scrutiny by the planning board for two reasons;

The institutional master plan may be amended at any time by the institution upon application to the planning board. An amendment shall be required for any of the following:

1.

Any proposed change at all between the sight visibility line (SVL) as

hereinafter defined and a street;

2.

Any proposed change at all within Sector 1 on the Roger Williams

Draft Map; This area is important for the town to maintain the scenic views of the bay from Metacom Avenue, to ensure that this view is not obstructed. If I decide to design within Sector One, a variance may be needed if the 35 foot height limit becomes an issue.

Building in Sector Three is much less stringent and could be exempt from getting approval from the planning board. The University’s master plan would only need to be amended and get the planning the boards approval for changes in Sector Three if the proposed change either increases or decreases the size of a building by 25%, if the location of a building is changed by 100 feet or more, and if the proposal is for a new building or structure. I do not foresee this project being new construction, but an expansion and the existing architecture building will not be moving. Keeping the expansion at less than 25% of the current building is possible, but it leaves little room to work with and will come at the cost of reducing or eliminating parts of the program.

Building in Sector Three is far less restrictive than in Sector One, but most of the land adjacent to the architecture building in Sector Three is the campus quad. Encroaching on the quad would have negative impacts on the campus and disrupt the flow of students on campus.

While building in Sector One will need approval from the planning board, in return, there is more space to work with, the center of the campus will be affected less, and prominent visibility from Metacom Avenue can be an interesting constraint to work with.

22

Landscape Buffer Sector 1: 35’ Max Height Sector 2: 48’ Max Height Sector 3: 65’ Max Height

View From Perimeter Road View To Mount Hope Bay Street Visibility Line

23

Precedents The ETH Zurich’s Arch_Tech_Lab was built around the concept of integrating architects with the trades and robotics. The building was is separated into two separate zones; the first floor is home to the school’s large Robotic Fabrication Laboratory, RFL. The double-height space contains a large computer-controlled gantry which covers an area of 141 feet long and 52 feet wide, attached to the gantry are four robotic arms which can be programmed to work together to complete complex tasks. Above the RFL, there is a mezzanine, followed by the second floor and another mezzanine. The spaces one these levels have a variety of programs, including professor offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, and two galleries; the programs of many of these spaces are softly assigned, allowing for the spaces to be used for transdisciplinary research.

The reasoning for the RFL being so large is to provide students with the volume to build at full scale. Using full scale materials, the school has been studying how robotic fabrication will be incorporated into the construction industry. With the start of new projects involving the robots, architecture students will usually need to collaborate with engineering students to develop tools that can be attached to the robotic arms, or work with industry professionals to tap into their knowledge.

Not only is this concept of cross-disciplinary collaboration practiced in the Arch_Tech_ Lab, but it was also essential for its construction. The roof spanning over the second floor forms a flowing timber structure due to 168 wooden trusses. Each truss is made of 23 layers of conventional lumber, to generate the specific curvature for each truss the architects worked in unison with a company which specializes in digital fabrication of timber. To assemble the trusses accurately, new tooling had to be produced for a robot to arrange the lumber; to affix the lumber, new software was developed to ensure that the nailing robot placed nails which would not hit other nails, but still provided enough strength for the truss.

244

24

245

256

257

258

259

25

Precedents While studying precedents, I came across two approaches for adding onto existing architecture schools; independent additions, and expansive additions.

Designs that used the first approach usually contain a distinct or new program that merits separation from the existing building. Two examples I studied that followed this approach are the Will Alsop’s Sharp Centre for Design at the Ontario College of Art & Design and the Arch_Tech_Lab at the ETH Zurich.

Alsop’s OCAD addition creates studio spaces that stand on stilts over the existing building which it barely disturbs. The two buildings are only connected by stairs and elevators, which strengthens the sense of independence for those working in the studio.

26

OCAD Size Comparison

The purpose of independent addition at the ETH is a result of the robotics lab program. This program requires a structural system that does not impede the robotic gantries and provides large open spaces to work in. The existing building could not support these programmatic requirements, so an independent addition was the most logical choice.

ETH Size Comparison

27

Precedents Two notable examples of expansive additions that I studied are the Daniels School of Architecture by NADAAA and the University of Minnesota’s College of Architecture & Landscape Architecture by Steven Holl.

The addition at Daniels’ is embraced by the historic existing building. The addition expands the program, while also reusing and renovating the historic building.

The existing school at the University of Minnesota was a square with a spacious square central atrium; Holl designed his addition to branch off of the existing square with two wings forming a cross that adds a library, more offices, and more studio space.

28

Daniels School of Architecture Size Comparison

University of Minnesota Size Comparison

29

Preliminary Ideas

January 28, 2020

My first investigations into this project started with two collages to determine my intentions for the project and give me some guidance later in the semester.

The first collage is creating a different atmosphere on the quad through with the architecture building. The well lit and active interior presents to the campus an insight into the liveliness of the building. The building that I used for this collage is the ETH Arch_Tech_Lab, which has many qualities that I want to achieve in this project, namely openness and versatility.

The second collage represents how I intend for the interior spaces to feel. The space is enclosed by a variety of materials from which students can learn about the materials’ properties and construction techniques. This particular space has robotic arms for the fabrication of models, this fabrication process is presented to the campus as a robotic performance.

30

31

Initial Process

February 4, 2020

I started my design process using a drone scanned model of the existing architecture building and sculpting digital massing models in virtual reality. These early ideas worked with the geometry provided by the building; through the alignment of surfaces and filling voids, I produced my first couple of concepts.

On an architectural scale, these concepts were okay, but at the human scale, they were undeveloped. Many of the gestures made with the massings were either arbitrary or just filling in voids just for the sake of doing so.

32

33

Initial Process

February 7, 2020

To move beyond the shortcomings of the first group of massing models, I chose to focus more on the rhythm of the skylights and the structural grid of the studio. I started to perforate the studio with courtyards that were placed in relation to the skylights. With this next iteration of the design I used masses to enhance the outdoor spaces at the entrances to the building; the masses that later would become the library addition and robotics lab embraced the patios at the main and side entrances respectively, forming a three-sided courtyard.

34

35

First Review

February 11, 2020

For the First Review, I focused on discussing my process up to that point and some of my ideas on where I wanted to take the project. I received a variety of feedback from the critics on my work, they noted that much of my exploration had been volumetric and they wanted to know more about the internal aspects of the design. They suggested for me to determine what activities happen in the existing architecture building as well as my proposed design and figure out what spaces are needed for the activities. One critic mentioned that I should consider the notion of attachment versus connection with my design. One important piece of advice I was given was that no part of the existing building should be seen as sacred and I should not hesitate to reinterpret any part of the existing building.

36

37

A Different Studio

February 14, 2020

After the First Review, I was fortunate enough to go to Louisiana State University for a weekend to assist with a workshop. While at LSU, I asked a student if they could give me a tour of their studio and tell me about the qualities that they liked and dislike.

The school of architecture at LSU has a typology similar to highschool, a central corridor on each floor and rooms forming a perimeter. Unlike Roger Williams’ large open studio, LSU has many small studio rooms that are separated from one another, like classrooms in a highschool.

Each studio course has a room; I was told that at the start of each semester the students are encouraged to arrange the desks as they desired. The student I spoke with liked how each studio had a space to call their own and the close-knit bonds between students that formed there. This student mentioned that they did not like the complete separation between studios and found it a bit challenging to get to know students in other studios.

I felt that the arrangement of studios into separate rooms limited the studio culture between the different studios, but formed a strong studio culture within each studio. Each room had a personality and gave the impression of the office of a small firm; I think this is due to the flexibility provided by these rooms and the school’s encouragement of students to form their own layout of the desks.

After seeing the LSU method for arranging studios and hearing about a student’s experience of working in it, I had a new appreciation for some parts of the school of architecture at Roger Williams, as well as some new ideas on how to change the studio.

38

39

Refined Process

February 18, 2020

When looking at some of my first massing models, the changes I was making left very little of the original building, so I experimented with the idea of designing an architecture school from scratch. I used the organization of the existing school as my basis for these designs; a central atrium that connects everything and a library to bookend one end of the atrium. These designs gave me an insight into how the studio interacts with the atrium and the challenges presented by some of the smaller program elements, such as the gallery, review spaces, and faculty offices.

40

41

Refined Process

February 21, 2020

One of these designs stood out in particular because of something which I was previously hesitant about using, a stacked studio. I had a negative connotation of stacked studios imposing hierarchy amongst students and depriving lower the studios of natural light. This mindset changed when I saw how stacked graduate studios in the architecture building did not create a hierarchy and the lower space had plenty of natural light. Using this new mindset, I designed a stacked studio with many skylights of various sizes and two large courtyards. On the upper level, the studio space fills the whole floor, only being interrupted by the skylights and courtyards. The lower level studio is broken into groups that are clustered around the sources of natural light. This study of a stacked studio was influential in all of the designs that followed and fundamental in my understanding of how a stacked studio functions.

42

43

Two Concepts

March 6, 2020

With my new ideas on a stacked studio, I returned to designing an addition to the existing school: I found the challenges presented by an addition to be more interesting to address and would teach me more than if I was to design a new school from scratch. Using the rhythm of skylights and structural grid to guide me, I began laying out skylights and courtyards to provide natural light. On the second level, I established a network mat studio that used the structural grid to define edges and openings to the studio below. The second floor of the existing school is divided in two with only one connection, with this concept I explored how removing offices in the heart of the building can tie the second floor together and create a new student lounge space. This idea also explored a curving roof that covers the whole building.

The shape of this roof responded to the spaces beneath it, bulging up into a dome at the studio skylights and dipping down to edges and courtyards.

44

Existing Structural Grid

Second Floor

First Floor

Roof Plan

45

Two Concepts

46

March 20, 2020

47

Two Concepts While discussing this project with a professor, the idea of studios that respond to the program to varying degrees; similarly to how an art museum can be heavily influenced by the art within or have very little influence from the art.

Using this studio pedagogy concept I designed up with six studios, two of them are informed by the program, two acknowledge the program, and two are formed independently from the program.

March 20, 2020

4810

Plan of École des Beaux Arts

Studio 1 acknowledges the program and is informed by the history of architectural education by adapting the floor plan of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts.

Studio 2 is informed by and replicates the research focused pedagogy of the ETH. Studio 3 acknowledges the function of the studio but is not strictly tied to it, it is almost independent of the program.

Studio 4 acknowledges the different options offered for graduate studios, so there are separate spaces for each section.

Studio 5 is for the comprehensive studio and acknowledges the rigorous nature of that studio by providing ample space for working, model making, reviewing drawings, and presenting work or lectures.

Studio 6 is for thesis studio, the form of this studio is independent of the program and the existing conditions, this independence is intended to provide the students with individual spaces that are generalized to accommodate the many differing needs of thesis students.

48

Studio 1

Studio 4

Studio 2

Studio 5

Studio 3

Studio 6

49

Mid Review

March 24, 2020

For the Mid Review, I refined the design of the studio pedagogy concept and worked out ideas in plan, but for the most part design of the concept was unchanged.

The critics commented that the idea of studios that are tailored to different pedagogical models was interesting, but could face issues. The most notable of these issues being that the spaces are constrained to a studio-based curriculum, if the curriculum were to shift away from studios, adapting such specialized spaces for a new curriculum would be a challenge.

50

Second Floor

First Floor

51

Mid Review

March 24, 2020

For the Mid Review, I cleaned up the stacked studio concept by removing the curving roof to focus more on the studio and the robotics lab.

Some of the comments that this concept received from the critics include that it provided lots of flexibility which could be useful if there were to be a change in the curriculum or how studio is taught. A comparison between the two concepts was made by one critic; they noted how both concepts were mat designs that differed in terms of opacity, with the studio pedagogy concept being a solid mat and the stacked studio concept being a porous mat.

52

Second Floor

First Floor

Roof Plan

53

Further Process

April 3, 2020

Following the mid crit, I decided to combine the studio pedagogy and stacked studio concepts into one; taking the main studio space with the skylights and courtyards from the stacked concept and the thesis studio space from the pedagogy concept. I reshaped the thesis studio to have one large central courtyard, surrounded by pyramidal forms. At first, I generated these pyramids through a Grasshopper script, which resulted in the pyramids all being the same height. Having experienced how harsh direct sunlight can be during studio hours, I decided to use the height of the pyramids to shade the thesis studio. I created another Grasshopper script that used an evolutionary solver to change the pyramids’ heights to maximize the shaded area on the glazing between the studio and courtyard.

54

Less Shading

More Shading

Second Floor

First Floor

55

Further Process

April 7, 2020

My personal experience with courtyards is fairly limited, so I decided to invest some time in developing the experience within the studio courtyards through materiality. I first tried out a green wall system for ivy to grow on, this was intended to bring nature into studio for the students to enjoy. Next I used worn timber boards, this material can teach students about the aging process of timber and remind them to consider how a building and its materials will age. I then tested travertine stone and reclaimed bricks, I thought that these could be of educational value for students as they demonstrate the variety and possibilities of materials.

Finally, I tried a tiled pattern used by Carlo Scarpa in Castelvecchio, this historical reference would physically bring architectural history into the studio and encourage students to use history more in their design projects. Ultimately I chose to use the green wall because of how beneficial nature in studio could be.

Ivy Green Wall

56

Worn Timber

Travertine Stone

Reclaimed Brick

Scarpa Tiling

57

Further Process

April 10, 2020

The Western face of the building has lots of public visibility from Metacom Avenue, so I needed to put time and effort into making this side of the building give the impression of an architecture school. The previous iteration was quite massive and looked a bit like a corporate building; looking to move past this corporate appearance I came up with six new fenestration options and reworked the roof. The previous iteration’s roof had parapet walls that hid the roof and left the facade lacking depth. By projecting the roof outwards, I was able to give more depth to the facade and shade the windows.

In this stage of the design, I started to form the massing of the material library and create a cohesive connection between the existing library and the new addition, as well as forming a connection between the library and the thesis studio.

At this stage, I stopped using the pyramidal roof on the thesis studio, stretched out the form to be less rectilinear, and split the studio between two floors. Changing the roof took away the individuality that I originally intended for the studio and dragged down the rest of the project with it, the strangeness from the previous iteration accentuated the typicality of other parts of the project.

58

59

Further Process

April 14, 2020

Of the six fenestration options I previously came up with, I was not satisfied with any of them, some were too bland and others reminded me of bars over a prison window, which is a connotation I did not want to be associated with this building. I came up with the qualities the windows needed: lots of opportunities for views and daylight, avoid repetitive horizontal and vertical lines, and bring the size of the wall to a human scale.

My first step to generate these new windows was to work at the level of a singular structural bay. I divided the bay evenly along its height into six rectangles. I reduced the height of the bottom rectangle to a sixth of its original height while maintaining the position of its bottom edge. With the second rectangle from the bottom, I reduced its height to two-sixths of its original height while maintaining the position of its bottom edge. This process was repeated with the third rectangle reduced by three-sixths, the fourth by four-sixths, the fifth

60

by five-sixths, and the sixth by six-sixths.

The last step after adjusting the heights of the rectangles is to divide them evenly along their lengths into four rectangles with a six inch gap between them.

The resulting windows from this procedure create a gradient from low opacity to high opacity up the height of the bay and meet my criteria for the windows. To add a bit more variety to the facade I adjusted the procedure with every other bay to be divided into seven rectangles instead of six and did not reduce the height of the bottom rectangle.

61

Further Process

April 14, 2020

The next portion of this project that I wanted to concentrate on was the structure supporting the upper studio. I started this step with a few design intentions for this structure: the structure should be supported by columns and load-bearing walls that correspond to the locations of the original columns and walls and the structure should be an expressive and educational part of the space, not hidden behind sheets of gypsum. I originally designed the upper studio using units made up of two cells from the structural grid, so checked to make sure that all of the units had enough support points and made changes where necessary. No two units were the same due to the varied spacing of the structural grid and differences in supports, so each unit would be different. The structure that I chose to use is a concrete hybrid of catenary vaulting and waffle slabs, the precedent for this design came from published research and prototypes

by Block Research Group and Experimental Building Technologies at the ETH Zurich.

The undersides of the units were arched to form catenary vaults and cantilevers to reduce mass at the points farthest from support points. I used a Grasshopper script to define a grid of points on each unit, these grids were deformed by being pulled towards the closest support point. At each grid point, a round irregular shape is drawn following the deformation of the point grid. The round shapes are then extruded to form coffers in the vaulting and the space between them then acts as structural ribs.

62

Upper Studio Area

Load Distribution

Reflected Slab Plan

63

Further Process

April 14, 2020

For this iteration, I wanted to bring back the individuality and strangeness that the thesis studio had in earlier versions. The new footprint I used in the preceding design was a step in the right direction for establishing the thesis studio’s individuality from the main studio space.

To strengthen the individuality further, I detached the studio from the rest of the building by shifting it Southwest, and the gap formed by this shift was enclosed with glass.

I designed a new roof for the studio that reintroduced the pyramidal forms that were generated through a Grasshopper script. The script began by placing nine arbitrary points within the studio’s footprint, these points were used to form Voronoi cells. These cells were extruded into pyramids whose heights and colors were determined by the point’s X and Y coordinates; lower coordinates resulting in a taller pyramid, the X coordinate making a pyramid more or less green and the Y coordinate doing the same with red.

One pyramid was removed to create a courtyard and an adjacent cell was left open on the second floor to form a vertical connection between both levels. The structure supporting the second floor reflects the geometry of the Voronoi cells and uses the same colors as the pyramids.

To further improve this space, the next steps for me to take were working on windows and refining how the roof meets the walls.

64

65

Further Process

April 15, 2020

The next changes I made involved designing windows for the thesis studio and adding more windows to the main studio. The roof over the main studio is quite large and imposing, to lighten it and distinguish it from the walls defining the studio, I introduced a perimeter of clerestory windows. Much like how Le Corbusier made the roof of Ronchamp float, I rested the roof on thirty inch tall columns located at intersections on the structural grid.

The windows that I came up with for the thesis studio were derived from a lattice overlay on the outer surfaces. On each surface, four of the diamond voids in the lattice became the window openings while the other voids just showed the wall surfaces.

Some of the issues I had with this design was that the lattice and diamond windows were too disruptive, the introduction of more diagonal lines diminished the angular qualities of the pyramids and the diamond windows felt out of place on both the interior and exterior.

66

67

Further Process

April 17, 2020

I had one main intention when I started working on the robotics lab; for the moving robotic arms to be veiled from view outside and get passersby curious about the work going on inside.

I started with a glass box with columns, the robotic arms, and the gantry. I created a set of six inch tall louvers with a six inch gap between them on the exterior. This was a good start, but the view into the space was not yet creating the tantalizing sense of curiosity that I wanted.

I used louvers on the interior and I inverted the pattern of the louvers, which obscured the interior effectively.

Inside the shop, I placed a second floor balcony which serves both as an observation deck and provides access to the robotic arms for maintenance.

68

69

Further Process

April 21, 2020

Leading into the Gate Review, I put a fair amount of time into improving and preparing my drawings and visuals. The only part of the project that saw any significant change at this time was the thesis studio. I removed the lattice overlay and diamond windows, deciding that no windows, for the time being, would be better than the critics distracted by something I knew was going to change later. The footprint of the thesis studio was stretched to the West and the roof was made with one less pyramid. Inside the thesis studio, I opted not to have an opening in the second floor because it would have taken up too much space and the courtyard was already creating a visual connection between the two floors.

While adjusting the thesis studio, I aligned the bottom edge of the roof with the bottom edge of the main studio clerestory windows and a band of louver-free glass on the robotics lab facade. This gesture created a datum that spans across the West facade and gives these three unique forms a common feature.

70

Roof Plan

Second Floor

First Floor

71

Gate Review

April 24, 2020

There were no major changes made to the design for the Gate Review, I worked mostly on drawings that could tell the story of the project and my design intentions.

Some of the drawings that were the most beneficial for this review were a series of diagrams that condensed the stacked studio design process into a couple of steps. With the success of these process diagrams, I made sure to make similar diagrams of other parts of the project for the Final Review.

72

Existing Grid

Studio Expansion

Defining Courtyards

Adjusting Perimeter

Defining Skylights

Second Floor Studio Network

Roof Plan

Second Floor

First Floor

73

Gate Review

April 24, 2020

The comments I received from the Gate Review were helpful for my next steps in this project.

There were questions about the materiality and construction of the thesis studio that I needed to answer. There were concerns about the connectivity between the two levels of the main studio as well as the thesis studio. The glass buffer separating the thesis studio was too loud.

Lastly, the robotics lab louvers needed to be revisited.

74

75

Final Process

April 25, 2020

The first concern from the Gate Review that I addressed was the robotics shop louvers.

Before the review, I had rotated the louvers above the datum to be vertical, but this did not satisfy neither me nor the critics, so I came up with a bunch of alternatives.

First I tried rotating the louvers to have their edges facing outwards instead of their faces, this increased visibility into the shop but was almost the same as what I previously had. The next thing I tried was rotating each louver incrementally to all be aligned with the center point of the shop, this created a clear view into the center of the shop from all angles but obscured the periphery views into the shop. I tried two versions like this; one had vertical louvers, the other had slanted louvers; both were interesting alone, but did not work with the rest of the project. The design that I chose is a series of horizontal louvers that incrementally rotate ninety degrees, this worked well with the other louvers and added some variety to the facade.

Initial Design

First Iteration

76

Second Iteration

Third Iteration

Final Iteration

77

Final Process

April 28, 2020

The next concerns I addressed were the materiality and construction method of the thesis studio. After researching precedents that had similar forms and qualities, I settled on concrete as the material to use. In this first pass at the assembly and enclosure, I had a double structure with inner walls supporting the second floor and outer walls supporting the roof. The purpose of having the double structure was to allow for a continuous layer of insulation inside the structure while maintaining a monolithic external appearance. The Interior finish used inside the studio was thin glass fiber reinforced concrete panels, which can be pigmented to match the colors of the roof pyramids. To achieve the color of the pyramids I was exploring a few options; such as dyeing the structural concrete, terrazzo finishes, and pigmented GFRC panels.

I later refined this assembly to not require a double structure while maintaining the monolithic exterior structure.

78

Slab & Foundation

Inner Structural Wall

Rigid Insulation

Outer Structural Wall

Floor Structure

Outer Structural Wall

Roof Structure

Rigid Insulation

Interior Finishes

Skylights

79

Final Process

May 1, 2020

The final change to the footprint of the thesis studio was dragging the Southwest corner South to align with the edge of the library. The footprint change called for new roof pyramids; I adjusted my Grasshopper script to output ten Voronoi cells instead of eight, which resulted in nine pyramids and the courtyard. The skylights atop the pyramids were redesigned to be flat, which reduced their complexity.

To better connect the second floor with the rest of the building, I added walkways to the main studio and the library. To accommodate these walkways the glass buffer was redesigned from scratch to be taller and less distracting than the previous versions.

Returning to windows for the studio, I briefly tried some rectangular openings that aligned with the middle of the Voronoi cells. I disliked these windows so much that I had to get to work right away on the windows that this building deserved.

80

81

Final Process

May 2, 2020

Before proceeding into a redesign of the thesis windows I took a step back to look at precedents and consider the needs of the space more intensely. I looked to Le Corbusier and Ronchamp again to examine the tapered windows that softly light the space. I noticed that using tapered windows could be adjusted to make the interior space more or less private.

With this idea of the windows guided by the level of privacy within, I got to work laying out the three programs housed in the thesis studio; studio spaces, review spaces, and faculty offices. The studio spaces are the most public, the offices are the most private, and the review spaces must have windows high enough to not impede pinning up drawings.

82

Standing at convergence of window tapers

Standing behind window convergence point

83

Final Process

May 2, 2020

To form the windows I started by dividing the outer walls into smaller surfaces that were delineated by their adjoining programs. I then categorized these surfaces by program and created a Grasshopper script that populated the surfaces with points proportionally to their area. I added variety to the surfaces depending on which program they corresponded to; the office surfaces stayed the same, studio surfaces had the points pulled towards the center of the surface by a factor of a fifth of each points’ distance from the center, and the review space surfaces disregarded any points more than two feet from the top of the surface. The script then found the distance from the nearest point for every point, this distance was divided by three to give the radius of a circle around each point, and a square was circumscribed around each circle to create the window openings.

To generate the taper of each window, the shape of the window openings were extruded and tapered to a point at the center point of their corresponding surfaces. The center points were moved inward, perpendicular to their surfaces, by a certain distance depending on the program. The windows for offices tapered to a center point five feet from the wall to maximize privacy, windows for the studio spaces tapered to a center point thirty feet from the wall to emphasize the public characteristics of the studio, and windows for review spaces tapered to a center point ten feet from the wall for a privacy level in between the offices and the studio.

84

Roof Plan

Second Floor

First Floor

85

Final Process

May 5, 2020

In the week before the Final Review, I spent most of my time updating drawings, setting up renderings, and putting together my boards and presentation. The most notable addition that I made to the project at this time was the placement of furniture in the studio and library.

This arrangement of desks contains just as many as the existing building and adds more variation to the studio. In the existing architecture school, the desks are densely composed by aisles and partitions; this new arrangement has the desks congregated around the skylights and courtyards on the lower floor. Meanwhile, on the upper floor, the desks overlook the studio below to keep older students in touch with where their architectural education began.

Spread throughout both floors of the studio are supplemental tables that students can freely use for making models or drawing too large for their desks or gathering to work on group assignments.

With the organization of the studio desks worked out, the last things I had to do before the Final Review was layout the desks in the thesis studio, finish modeling the bookshelves and tables for the library, and work on all the content for my boards and presentation.

86

First Floor

Second Floor

87

Final Review

May 12, 2020

Having done the most that I could during an unprecedented semester and feeling proud of the project, it was time to present it at the Final Review. I introduced my project with the questions that fueled much of my investigations; how can spaces react to the program of a studio, and how do they impact pedagogy? My presentation then walked through the history of the architecture building at Roger Williams University, followed by my research of precedents. I then described my process from my initial massing models and how I got to the two concepts I had at the Mid Review. With a series of diagrams, I illustrated how the forms of the studio, robotics lab, library addition, and thesis studio were generated. After elaborating on the qualities of the project in plan and section, I toured the critics through the building with renderings of all the spaces.

88

Extend Grid

Make Spacing Regular

Perpendicular Grid Lines

Perimeter Columns On Grid

Existing Grid

Studio Expansion

Defining Courtyards

Adjusting Perimeter

Defining Skylights

Second Floor Studio Network

89

Final Review

May 12, 2020

Following my presentation, the critics and I began discussing the project. There was a common desire amongst the critics to teach in my proposed architecture building, with one critic saying that the changes from this project would be beneficial for the culture of the school. Many of the comments about the project were centered around the distinct architectural languages in the project, specifically the robotics lab, main studio, and thesis studio.

One critic noted that my approach respected and recognized the existing school’s synthesis of styles, which demonstrated my ability to design with different architectural languages. One critic mentioned that the robotics lab and thesis studio acted well as bookends for the building, but the main studio between them was not as fully developed and had a relatively light impact on the existing building.

90

Define Area of Addition

Connect Addition to Existing Library

Define Addition’s Roof

Unite Addition & Existing With One Roof

Define Footprint

Separate from Main Studio

Stretch Footprint

Divide Into Voronoi Cells

Determine Green & Red Values

Add Green & Red Values to Voronoi Cells

91

Final Review

May 12, 2020

Another critic suggested that the discourse between the robotics lab and thesis studio could have been explored further and incorporated even more ideologies and heterogeneity. A second critic responded to this idea and proposed the idea that this project could be understood as a procedure for adding new volumes onto an existing volume. This critic noted that my methodology for determining heights and usage of the existing structural grid could become instructions for how to transform the existing volume with the addition of new volumes.

Some of the other comments about my project were that the building does not address the campus or provide any new outdoor public spaces for the campus to enjoy, which was not one of my primary focuses, but important nonetheless. Another comment was that separating the thesis studio from the main studio would divide the student body, I can see the reasoning for this concern, but I find that my project is resolving a larger version of this problem in the current

architecture building where the student body is split, with the graduate and undergraduate studios on the East and West sides of the building respectively.

The ideas and topics I explored with my thesis project led to some interesting discussions about architecture and education with the critics. There was a discourse about the relationship between pedagogy and space within studios and architecture schools. There was talk about the autonomy of volumes and their architectural languages. And there were questions asked about the design of architecture schools; should they be without specificity and identity, should they be a neutral ground that quickly adapts to changing pedagogy and technology?

92

F

E

D

C

B

A

Roof Plan

Second Floor

First Floor

93

Final Review

Section A

94

May 12, 2020

95

Final Review

Section B

Section C

96

May 12, 2020

97

Final Review

Section D

Section E

98

May 12, 2020

99

Final Review

Section F

100

May 12, 2020

101

Final Review

102

May 12, 2020

103

Conclusion During our first online studio meeting, I was uncertain about how this project could ever be accomplished without all of the school’s facilities and resources that I had become so accustomed to. My professor, Julian Bonder, reassured the class that we may have to adjust our mindsets and hopes for our projects, but we can not lower our expectations. He reminded us that the most important thing that we have as architects is our minds, and we need to find a way to translate our ideas into tangible content for others to understand.

I had hoped of designing with the school’s woodshop and fabrication tools to create physical representations of my ideas. This hope transformed into creating a thorough digital model of my design, from which I used renderings, sections, and plans to convey my ideas.

As a result of having a studio online, I started to document my project more thoroughly.

During a studio class in a typical semester, my professor and I will review my work by looking at it either printed on paper or my computer screen; printouts easily got lost and mixed up, and digital files were changed and saved over. For online studio classes, paper printouts were not an option, and viewing a digital model had its own difficulties, to effectively share my progress I needed to email my professor a pdf of my progress. Putting together a pdf for class twice a week forced me to think differently about how I shared my work; instead of showing a digital model and moving through it, I had to put more thought into selecting specific views to render. All of the work compiled into these pdf’s has given me detailed documentation of the process work and progression of this project.

The change from working solely in studio to working at home and attending class online has offered me more insight into architectural education and it also challenges my ideas about working in studio. The detailed documentation of my work that resulted from online class is beneficial for reflecting on my design process, but the drawbacks of not being in studio can not be ignored. The separation from colleagues did cause some students to design in a bubble, isolated from external feedback. However, some students took it upon themselves to organize video conference calls with friends and classmates to discuss their work and get feedback.

No longer having access to all the tools and technology that the school has to offer does limit how students can express their ideas, but it also means that students can put more time into other aspects of their projects.

For all the downsides of having an online studio, the benefits can not be disregarded, and these benefits have made me question the validity of my ideas about the importance of working in studio. Besides my own project, I am without evidence that indicates that whether working in studio or online is better for students and results in a higher quality of work.

Working in studio has two advantages that working online does not, the architecture library, and studio culture. The vast amount of knowledge that students have access to in the library has no free online alternative. The freedom to walk through the studio, see other student’s work, and meet new friends can not be matched by an online studio.

All things considered, I am proud of how this project came together in the end. I enjoyed designing each element of the project from the louvers and gantry of the robotics lab to the many iterations and Grasshopper scripts of the thesis studio.

104

105

Final Design

106

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

A

Roof Plan

107

Final Design

First Floor

108

Second Floor

109

Final Design

Section A

110

111

Final Design

Section B

Section C

112

113

Final Design

Section D

Section E

Section F

114

115

Final Design

Thesis Studio, Detailed Southern Elevation

116

A

A

1

5

10

20

117

Final Design

Thesis Studio, Detailed Plan

118

A

A

1

5

10

20

119

Final Design Z Channel for Fastening GFRC Panels to Main Structure 2’ O.C.

Thesis Studio, Detailed Section A

120

1

5

10

20

Monolithic Concrete Structural Shell Rigid Insulation 3/4� Colored GFRC Panel

Annodized Aluminum Window Jamb Aluminum Color to Match Color of GFRC Panels

Insulated S.O.G. Continuous Insulation Under Slab & Inside Foundation Wall Foundation Wall Use Typ. R.I. Frost Depth for Footing Depth Gravel Drainage Bed

121

Final Design

Thesis Studio, Rendered Western Elevation

122

1

5

10

20

123

Final Design

Thesis Studio, Rendered Southern Elevation

1

124

5

10

20

125

Sources Images 1 2 3 4

Page 17 Page 19 Page 21 Page 24

5 6

Page 24 Page 25

7 8 9 10

Page 25 Page 25 Page 25 Page 48

126

https://docs.rwu.edu/camp_buildings/8/ Google Earth https://www.bristolri.us/DocumentCenter/View/1093/Bristol-Zoning-Map https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/media-information/backgroundinformation/research-on-construction.html https://ita.arch.ethz.ch/chairs/architecture-and-digital-fabrication.html https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/media-information/backgroundinformation/research-on-construction.html https://projets.batidoc.ch/archteclab-eth-honggerberg https://rob-technologies.com/timber-construction https://rob-technologies.com/timber-construction https://tmblr.co/Z8Kftx2Z_tfCi

127