PROCESS
Prison as an Interface: Between the Public and the Punished - A New, Urban Prison Typology
Oskar David Mannov Olesen Thesis Project Autumn 2018 Urbanism & Societal Change Tutor: Deane Simpson The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Design and Conservation
February: 10, 12, 14, 16
May: 07, 10, 14, 17
August: 07, 10, 14, 17
November: 10, 12, 14, 16
“For a form so limiting and punishing for those trapped within, it provides outsiders an object for contemplation and question, provoking one to consider what life is like inside for those on the inside� (May, Kyle et. el. (2014) Prisons. Book, CLOG.) 18.09 Shadow diagram for the four seasons.
Floors: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 19
19.09 Diagram showing number of floors of the surrounding buildings
The m2 suggested in the programme is placed on the site, and at first sight they seem to not fully fit the site. If the programmatic size of the prison is kept, perhaps a more generous or lower scale project could be developed. 19.09 Placing the main programs as on the site. Photograph of 1:500 model and foam blocks
25% 75%
56 detainees 2 floors
Rural prison. The low and wide character of the building spreads out nicely on the site, and the classic ‘circular layout’ of the cell-wings, divides the site into natural pockets of outdoor space alongside the barrier. The density of the building is too low for the required number of detainees. 20.09 Placing the residential wing of Storstrøm Fængsel on the site
12,5%
87,5% 125 detainees 5 floors
Suburban prison. The residential unit seems fit in terms of number of detainees and density of the building. The administration and communal spaces are not included in the unit, and would appropriatly be placed facing the street. Along the River Medlock, a more private open space could be sheltered by the unit. 20.09 Placing the residential wing of Justizzentrum Leoben on the site
4% 96%
648 detainees 27 floors
Urban prison. The very high density of the building frees a large amount of space from the site, opening up the possibility for the interface area to continue under the railway arches, and enabling a very generous urban plaza. This establishes gradients in the level of how public the interface would be, and a more clear division of functions. Despite the high number of detainees, the building size would probably be suitable for the amount required for this project, since a more generous internal space would be developed to accommodate a rehabilitative atmosphere with private areas. 20.09 Placing the Metropolitan Correctional Center Chicago on the site
A B
A
B
The terrain is much more varied than I first thought. The lowest point are on the north-western tip of my site, by the river. 25.09 Transfer the terrain into contours
Interface area (red) is moved to the northern part of the site, and bridges to Withward Street estblish flow through the urban space. Security (blue) is maintained by securing inflow and outflow of the interface. Primary communal functions (green) for the detainees are moved to higher floors or existing buildings on Charles Street. Residential nuclear (yellow) are located as dense blocks stacked upwards. Always facing the interface. 03.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #1: Interface as ground floor
Interface area (red) is on Charles Street which is made into a pedestrian street. The character of the interface is a busy street with a variety of different offers, and is physically and figuratively divided from the prison by the railway viaducts. Security and management (blue) is present on the ground floor, securing inflow and outflow. Primary communal functions (green) for the detainees are in existing buildings on Charles Street. As a quiet backdrop, a large outdoor space is kept for the detainees -the yard. Residential nucleus (yellow) are located as dense blocks stacked upwards, slightly hidden away from the public view behind the railway viaduct. 03.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #2: Interface as a strip along Charles Street
Communal spaces (green) merge fluently with interface threshold programs, creating a natural urban barrier around the interface (red). Security is maintained on ground floor. Entrance and exit through “arcades� between existing buildings from and on Charles Street. A symbolic over-watch tower keeps the low rise facility under watch. Residential units (yellow) are moved to higher floors on Charles Street, having the urban busy life as backdrop to their personal spaces within their rooms. 03.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #3: Prison as perimeter around Interface
Eating/bar (red), Commercial/retial (blue) and Armenity (green). The street is about to be transformed into an even busier street when Circle Square is finished. The transformation of the arae is completly out of scale with the sourrounding as we can see on the board. The interface of the prison could be an urban space in contrast to the large scale high-end development across the street. 05.10 Analysis of Charles Street, elevation and plan of current programs and buildings.
Gate & Reception
HMP Berwyn
MCC Chicago
Storstrøm FÌngsel
Justizzentrum Leoben
Visiting
Wall
Outdoor
Communal
Eating
Cell & Residential
Pictures of exterior and interior of four prisons are collected and categorised: Gate & Reception, Visiting, Wall, Outdoor, Communal, Eating, Cell & Residential. The prisons are HMP Berwyn, MCC Chicago, Storstrøm FÌngsel and Justizzentrum Leoben. Contradictions and similarities are noticed. Each prison have a clear aesthetic and functional homogeneity in the furniture and spatial solutions chosen by the designers. They always respond to the punitive regime and philosophy of the region they come from. How would my prison be equipped as to respond to the philosophy of an urban prison? 05.10 Collecting the aesthetics of prisons
By lifting the residential functions of the prison from the ground floor, a more clear division between the detainees and the general public can be made. This will potentially allow a more fluid and autonomous life in the different sections. Splitting the functions up vertically is especially practical in a more dense urban environment, and allows a great deal of control without the need to erect the traditional prison wall. 08.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #4: Interface as a landscape with vertical withdrawn
Visualisation depicting the open public space under the canopy as envisioned in Sketch Model #4. The general public would flow undisturbed on the street level under the prison with various interface functions taking place, perhaps in direct connection with the upper residential level which would be visualy open/transparent in certain places. A formal security post (blue) would create a sense of safety and overlook open spcae through a forest of slender coloumns. 09.10 Early visualisation of interface under Sketch model #4
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference: Forum of Cultures Barcelona by Herzog & de Meuron
Reference: Alstom Warehouses, higher school of fine arts, Nantes. By Franklin Azzi
Reference: Kanagawa Institute of Technology Workshop by Junya Ishigami
Reference: Bordeaux Stadium by Herzog & de Meuron
Reference: Seattle Tide
Section of Canopy model
Sketch model #2
Sketch model #4
nopy
rside og ca
ion of unde
Visualisat
Brainstorm on nature of interface Diagram of Canopy model
Fabulation of tectonics
Quote
Paradoxes
10.10 Multiple tracks brainstorm on Interface
Branching into three categories: Contrast to exisitng urban context -especially Circle Square. Functions normally associated with the prison. And functions of a justice center in the city, such as Restorative Justice. 10.10 Brainstorm on Interface
11.10 Further fabulation on different tectonics to Skethc model #4
The canopy can work as a ypographic solution to be implemented in the ground floor of the prison. 12.10 Sketch
A more typographic proposal is developed with emphasis on connectivity across the typographic difference of the site. This is the reversed of the canopy solution in Sketch Model #4 as the residential section is located in a podium below the urban interface. The proposal is also a merge with Sketch Model #3. The general public can now cross this space and interact with prison functions in the perimeter of the site, but the security measures of verticality is also brought along. 12.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #5: Interface on podium. Railway arches as perimeter.
The opening to the basement level of Sketch Model #5 is explored in a sectional sketch. The three existing buildings facing Charles Street are wrapped in a skin collecting them in a coherent presence from the street. The void inside is made peaceful with lots of daylight and green. A division then happens under the railway viaducts where a basement pathway can link detainees to visiting rooms and big conference rooms for Restorative Justice. This new “community center� could explore a new way to interact with the more formal functions of the traditional prison. 13.10 Sectional sketch of Skin wrapped around functions on Charles Street
Further expansion on the basement/podium used in Sketch Model #5. A more intimate urban space is created by reducing the space and not having the residential building as a perimeter along the river. A green yard is made as a more private outdoor space as a backdrop. 13.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #6: Interface on strip along plaza-
Further expansion on Sketch Model #5 and #6. All connecting bridges to the other side of River Medlock is now gone. Instead a more intimate arcade is made focusing of the backside of the arches where the connection to the community centre is. 15.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #7: Interface as space between mirrored arches.
An open indoor space with mirrored arches forming garages to open and close during the day. The interface nature is now being explored as an non-formal and flee market character. The semi-private spaces under the railway arches have a visual contact with the urban space. 17.10 Early visualisation of space made in Sketch Model #7
The two natures of the interface us now more radically separated. The community/justice centre and the workshop/garage sale. Formal vs non-formal. The latter is made into a hall with a similar glazing as the former. This hall connects with Charles Street, but expands the existing York Street deep into the prison, and touches many functions along the way, creating a larger interface surface. The Eastern part of the railway arches behind the old pub, is made into a gate/security/administration department. This now divides the interface into three different characters with a gradient of formality. 19.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #8: Interface as a hall with Justice Center.
Exploration of a void that works as an informal space. General public, prison officers and detainees are interacting an creating a, seemingly, non-heriachical atmosphere. An illusion of freedom isn’t the goal. The purpose is to loosen the confrontation between the punished and the public by setting up a series of positive activities that benefit the community. With times a mutual understanding and empathy will emerge as a consequence of this confrontation/interaction. All of these will take place in an open, safe and exceptional urban space. 20.10 Early visualisation of interface hall in Sketch model #8
Expansion on the York street interface. Exploring the slope that would emerge as Charles Street is connected to the higher grounds of Withwort Street. The residential block is now divided into smaller units with a more sensitive placement in relation to the security category of the detainees. Common functions are now moved to basement along security.
23.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #9: Interface along York Street
Expansion on Sketch Model #9. The space along the railway arches is now made into a greenhouse fro urban gardening. 23.10 Sketches on York Street slope as interface
Expanding the idea of a multitude of functions all connected by the basement level and with the street level gliding in on bridges creating many different characters of interfaces. Problems with security and architectural coherency seems present, and the idea of the general public “looking down� on the detainees seems somewhat problematic as a symbolic gesture. 24.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #10: Interface as bridge amongst orthogonal huts.
25.10 1:1,500 model of the concept from sketch model #9
Canopy Canopy 2 Sketch model #4
Sketch model #x
Sket ches on ca nopy
Peremiter Sketch model #5
Sketch model #7
Sketch model #8
Visualisat ion of spac e under viaduct
Seperated Sketch model #3
Visualisat ion space
of
informal
Brainstorm on nature of interface and functions Bridge
Diagram of functions
Diagram of daily routines of inmates
Quote
Reference: LycĂŠe International Nelson Mandela
Models, references, diagrams, quotes and brainstorms are gradually collected and pinned up. 25.10 Pin up on board
The problems located in Sketch Model #10 and #9 was addressed in a new proposal that also merged with the idea of the canopy from Sketch Model #4. The skin developed to the community centre was now extended to the whole building. As an envelope, this skin contains all the functions, and instead of struggling in the pursuit of programmatic uniformity, the new typology embraces the multitude of different programs that is the nature of a prison. The skin is meant to adapt accordingly to the contextual differences on site, both inside and outside. All functions are centered around a inner atrium/courtyardf here called “the green�. 26.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #11 Interface on York Street. Square shaped canopy..
Expansion on Sketch Model #11. By using a curved perimeter skin, the shape is allowed to follow the irregular size of the site. This skin oversteps the interface slope on York Street and creates a divisions of indoor and outdoor, potentially inviting the public inside the prison. The green atrium is maintained and a rooftop outdoor common space is erected on top of the railway, facing the street with a strong presence of the detainees to Charles Street. 27.10 1:1,000 Sketch Model #12 Ciurcular peremiter interface by York Street. Inside/outside.
This proposal takes a step back from Sketch Model #11 and #12 and investigates the possibility of uniting the prison functions on a single ground plane, thus making the appearance of the prison less monumental and less extravagant. The guide lines are now laid out to follow, not Charles Street, but the railway angle. Due to investigations of the sun on site, the urban farming is moved to the northern tip and the atrium is now not a green house anymore. The residential units are united in a strip along the eastern side, blocking the sun at a minimum. 29.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #13 Perimiter with greenhouse. Interface as York Street.
Return to the ideas explored in Sketch model #11. Here the separation from street level is expanded by moving all the functions above ground floor inside the cube and covering the basement functions, thus focusing the interface to the area under the curtain of the skin. The residential units are divided to three, one for each security category. Outdoor common spaces are now exclusively found on top of the building, with indoor common spaces being located under the street. The uniformity of the cube creates a strong monumental presence in the city, that needs further evaluation. The spaces created under the “veil� on the interfacing ground floor are now tested out in plan and section. 30.10 1:1,000 Sketch model #14 Interface along three sides of cube. Urban farming and outdoor on top.
xx
02.11 3D model of #14
The skin plays with the notion of ambiguity and complexity at a closer look: From afar the cube seems heavy and strong, and when moving closer the multitude and complexity of the programs show itself. This is the first test with human scale figures in the model, and the spaces are quite simply too big. 02.11 Different views of the skin.
River Medlock
01.11 1:500 Plan, Basement
Technical
Multi Hall
Staff/ Fire exit
Communal Area Staff
Communal Area Staff
Outdoor Yard/ Security Zone
Communal Area Staff
Educational Hub
Visiting Area Visiting Area
Lower Ground Floor 01.11 1:500 Plan, Lower Ground Floor
Staff Canteen
Staff
Staff
Trash collection Conference Room Conference Room Conference Room Gate
Reception
York Street
Withworth Street
01.11 1:500 Plan, Upper Ground Floor
Plaza
Princess Street Interface Area Reception/Security
Interface Area
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
9th Floor 01.11 1:500 Plan, 9th Floor
Residential Unit
Residential Unit
Residential Unit
Urban Farming
Residential Unit
Residential Unit
Urban Farming
Common Outdoor
Gym
01.11 1:200 Section A
01.11 1:200 Section B
Process board is made up-to-date with latest models and drawings. Now the last design phase has begun and a more detailed level of the building should now be explored. The programmatic details are fleshed out, and the different parts are made more concrete in terms of the exact function it has. 05.11 Board
The elevated world of the railway arches are explored as the primary “lifters� of the residential units instead of columns. 12.11 Arches studies
The load-bearing construction can be in the skin itself. This can be done by creating a scaffolding of 200mm thick steel trusses. With engineer Kurt a solution is drafted taking tectonic aspects into account. The construction will be steel and the slabs will be concrete. 15.11 Construction studies with engineer Kurt
By moving the load-bearing construction from columns to the skin itself, and interesting zone can occur in the scaffolding. This balcony is the intermediating step between freedom and confinement, and is giving the detainee a chance to step “out of the prison� when being private. Attention should be on not making the balconies look like small cages from the exterior. 20.11 1:50 tectonic study in model
The scaffolding tectonic is tried out in a scale closer to that of a building. The construction will continue past the cellular units op and make spaces on top of the roof. These spaces could be greenhouses, or other common spaces, 21.11 1:200 tectonic study in model
22.11 Organisational and flow oriented sketch
PLaying with the different levels of the courtyard in plan. 23.11 Plan sketch in 1:500
By reducing the body of the building to tubes (closed from the sides and open in the ends) language becomes one of directions. The stair and elevator cores stand as the only vertical directions, directing the flow between ground floor and upper levels. The interface/workshop spaces on the ground floor oints from the courtyard and out. The same goes for the residential units with cells on the upper floors. The detainees stand in the space between the city/context and the belly of the prison. The managerial bulding connects the two entrances. 24.11 1:500 Study model of tubes with direction
The tubular parts are being reused in this study. By re-arranging them around the vertical core they create spaces between them. The concept of a void is especially interesting in the context of a prison. A place of “free space� that exist in relation to solids around it, a void can be felt as sanctuary in an over designed institution. Besides the void on street level, the big void between the managerial and highest residential unit is interesting since it is big and exist above street level. This can be used as an indoor communal space. 25.11 1:500 Study model of voids
The concepts of direction and void is tested out in 1:500 drawings.The skin is marked as an orange line. Basement and ground floor. 25.11 Sketching in 1:500
Voids area inhabited by drawing. The life unforlidng in the courtyard and voids are being imagined. The orange line represents the skin. The scaffolding construction appears in between conrete tubes. 26.11 Sketch of section in 1:500
The different volumes of the entire scheme is placed. This model containes many of the qualities that I wanted to begin with. The model works as a summery of the project, containting all the sketchmodels (direction, construction, void) and the contextual placement on the site from previous versions. 27.11 Sketch model 1:500
The 1:500 model is being modeled in 3D. The architecture is hard and bare, but is giving way to green and inhabitation. A building that containes life, but dosent dictates it. 29.11 View of exterior
Without adding any life, the building stands as a rough template for future engagement. 29.11 Perspective section of building.
Top: View of therapy rooms, here used as church. Attempts should be made to not make the space seem to formal. Bottom: View of communal space, with greenhouse and living room in one space. 30.11 View of communal spaces
The two spaces both exist in the void between the skin and the residential functions. 30.11 Views of workshops and gym.
03.12 Sun diagram and section diagram