VOL: ONE PAIGE CHAMBERS
SCI-Arc
PORTFOLIO
2011
Episodes 4-11
Manipulating Terrain: Pre-Cast Concrete AS 3100
12-23
UR Farm Studio 1GA
24-29
Monticello CS 2100
30-33
Hybrid Tool-Toy VS 4100
34-37
Making + Meaning Summer 2010
38-49
NYC Graphic Novel Library Studio 1GB
50-53
Tempering The Environment: Vegas AS 3121
54-59
Booleaned Cookie/Whale VS 4101
60-61
What Is Architecture CS 2101
01
Manipulating Terrain: Pre-Cast Concrete AS 3100 This project is about creating a mobile and inhabitable plaza using pre-cast concrete members formed by a minimal number of molds. These smooth yet varied pieces placed in a rectangular pattern form the micro-topography. We were able to manipulate the form by making small adjustments to the loft and orientation, creating four different outcomes. The varying heights were determined from the everyday actions of laying, sitting, and standing in social situations. This resulted in 9”, 20”, and 31” heights all with 6’ lengths. The iterative construction process began with a foam form with piano wire for additonal support. This form was then filled with aggregated concrete. After 24 hour drying time the pieces were excavated to produce a test model. From this model we then produced the first iteration of the full scale mold. We used a smooth plywood with milled grooves to guide the PVC forms. The final mold was a slight variation of this second iteration. It consisted of CNC milled MDF with heat formed PVC strips attached with construction staples. The texture of the PVC ensured an even and smooth finish to the concrete pieces. The molds were reinforced with 3/8 inch reinforcing bar in a logintudinal direction and evenly spaced lateral bars.
4
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 5
2
3
4
1 Full Scale Final Form 2 Scaled Test Model Forms 3 Preliminary Modeled Form 4 Assembled Test Model 1
6
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 7
10’ - 6”
18’ - 0” 2’ - 3”
6’ - 0”
8’ - 3”
10”
9”
6’ - 0”
9”
6’ - 0”
6”
1
2
5
1 Construction Drawings 2 Test Foam Mold 3 Test Mold Excavation 4 Test Mold Drying 5 Fully Excavated Test Form 3
8
4
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 9
2
3
4
5
1 PVC/MDF Full Scale Mold w/o Rebar 2 CNC Milled MDF Pieces 3 Heat Forming PVC 4 Fully Assembled Final Mold 5 Pouring Concrete Into Molds
1
10
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 11
02
UR Farm Studio 1GA This project is a proposal for an urban farm and restaurant located on an infill site in downtown Los Angeles, CA. The site is located atop a small plinth with flat landscape. The project seeks the attitude of the adjacent comparison of an urban farm and park. The idea that the agricultural experience did not have to directly resemble a rural farm but more similarly to what is known as the urban park was a basis of this design. The diagram presents the idea of interlocking, shifting, and rotating masses that create maximum outdoor terraces. Atop these terraces the visitor is able to experience the restaurant and farm seamlessly by intertwining programs. The first level consists of floor to ceiling planted fungiculture trunks. This ensures the fungi will be located within a shaded area of the farm. The second floor can be accessed via the elevator or stairs. On this floor, the resturant, indoor/outdoor seating, and first level of agriculture can be found. The restaurant is fully encased in glazing on the north facade overlooking the agriculture. To the south the visitor has the ability to gain views into the apiculture conservatory through a small portion of glazing. The rooftop terrace, where majority of the agriculature is located is planted just above the restaurant. Throughout the agriculture a winding path is located to provide a more intimate park setting. From this point, one can view the entire apiculture conservatory and harvesting area that cantilevers over the restarurant. The intertwining of programs allows the visitor to engage in all aspects of the building continuously.
12
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 13
Apiculture
Agriculture Restaurant
Fungiculture
1
1 Traverse Section 2 Site Panorama 2
14
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 15
3
2
1
4
1 Iterative Design Models 2 Exploded Program Axon 3 Site Plan 4 Longitudinal Section 16
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 17
Fungiculture Agriculture
Restaurant
1
2
1 Ground Floor Plan 2 First Floor Plan 18
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 19
Apiculture
Agriculture
1
2
1 Second Floor Plan 2 Third Floor Plan 20
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 21
2
3
1 View of North Elevation 2 View of Top 3 View of Front Elevation 1
22
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 23
03
Monticello CS 2100 Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was a firm believer in the Roman Revival along with being a strong worshipper of the Palladian way of life. He not only was a majority creator of the Declaration of Independence, the Third President of the United States, and a trained lawyer but Marian Moffett describes him best as the “personification of the renaissance ideal of the educated man” in her text Buildings Across Time1. He grew up in Albemarle County, Virginia at his family’s estate, Shadwell, located at the foot of his father’s hillside tucked into the Blue Ridge Mountains. Jefferson’s first passion was this mountain that came to be known as “Monticello” when he inherited it at age 14 after his father’s death. Although Jefferson was trained as a lawyer he was a self- taught architect that followed the rules of Greek and Roman architecture incorporating fenestration and interior light where possible. At age 26, in 1767, he began designing and building Monticello atop the inherited 987-foot high mountain. It took Jefferson nearly 40 years to complete Monticello and he treated it as his laboratory. Marc Leepson described it as his “essay of architecture” in Saving Monticello2. Jefferson said it best “architecture is my delight, and putting up, and pulling down, one of my favourite amusement” per the publication In Measured Drawings3. After the creation of Monticello, Jefferson was commissioned to design many outstanding buildings, including the University of Virginia, which opened in 1825. He continued to remodel Monticello until his death at the age of 83, July 4, 1826. 1
Marian Moffett, Buildings Across Time (Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 2004) 427. 2 Marc Leepson, Saving Monticello (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001) 147. 3 Thomas J Memorial Foundation, Monticello in Measured Drawings (Washington DC: Archetype Press, 1998) 50. 24
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 25
Ground was broken at Monticello, located just on the outskirts of Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1770. Most plantations of this era consisted of one main house with a cluster of smaller quarters in close and quaint proximity. The operations of a plantation are usually noisome and unattractive and need to be located close to the main house. But considering these parameters James Marston Fitch points out in his publication of Selected Writings on Architecture, Preservation, and the Built Environment that while studying Monticello we “begin to understand how much ingenuity it took to live well and beautifully in eighteenth-century Virginia and how accurately it reflects the architect’s philosophy of life and living”4. Jefferson wanted to make all aspects of plantation life more comfortable, convenient, and beautiful by making all aspects of working life undetectable from the main house. Jefferson’s original design was based on a Palladian Villa, Villa Pisani, with a two-story portico and a cruciform plan with a central double height block. The two-story portico was designed with Doric columns at the base and Ionic Columns at top. Jefferson chose to ignore the Palladian standard of increased width between columns at the entrance by equally spacing the columns along the front façade. Due to the lack of stairs in plans prior to 1770 it is understood that his original plan lacked a second accessible floor. Around 1771 a new design was introduced, adding octagonal extensions along three sides and pilasters replaced the columns. Some viewed this revised plan as simply an expansion and mirror of the existing design5. Although in plan view this appears to be true but if one takes a closer and more in depth look it is apparent the orientation of the rooms begins to shift between public and private. The original plan included very well thought out and assigned rooms such as Jefferson’s cabinet, dining room, tearoom and parlor. Each room served a distinct purpose for this era. The new expansion began to more distinctly define the lines between public and private. The dining room and tearoom can be accessed via the hall and parlor, which are the central block of public space, while Jefferson’s private bedroom is strictly accessed through a door in the far corner of the hall. It seems as though the expansion served merely the purpose of entertaining. The idea that this new space is to be considered openly public is reiterated by leaving the three rooms of the house open to be viewed by strangers daily. Jefferson wanted to encourage visitors to his home 26
to admire his design, work, and creativity. The new addition was also focused towards the front of the home away from the service quarters directed in the back. This supports the idea that the expansion was the effect of a more ‘social’ Jefferson. For the first few years of construction this design model was maintained until he went abroad to France in the late 1780’s and discovered the workings and design of the Parisian architecture. His design began to include a massive u-shaped form, a very conventional Palladian feature, which incorporated two ten foot wide covered walkways connecting the two external service wings. The wings were built into the hillside below lawn grade to conceal the workings of the plantation in the cook’s room, smokehouse, carriage house, icehouse, and stables. These additions revised the original plan of two stories and thirteen rooms to three stories and forty-three rooms. Malone states in his forward for Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello “he was not merely creating an architectural or intellectual monument; he was a deeply domestic being, making a home.”6 It is hard to avoid the idea that Jefferson’s original plan for a smaller and quainter home was established during his marriage to Martha. It was only two years after she passed away in that Jefferson returned from France with the desire to expand. In particular, it was Paris that transformed his ideals as a ‘gentleman architect into a chief proponent of the neoclassical movement in America’ as Katz asserts in his text French America7 . Although France is a clear and concrete inspiration for these changes, there is also the thought that Jefferson’s future plans
Original sketch of front facade by Thomas Jefferson. Image from Thomas J. Memorial Foundation. Monticello in Measured Drawings. Washington DC: Archetype Press, 1998. Pg 10
Photograph of Hotel de Salm’s façade. Image from Katz, Ron. French America. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2004. Pg 203.
for this building had now switched from ‘home to house’. He was now designing a space for his future political and social career as opposed to his family. These underlying thoughts were possibly a catalyst for Monticello’s expansion, expressed by Frederick D Nicols in his Guidebook of Monticello.8 \ The first large revision after his return from France took place in 1793 with the removal of the two story front porch and replaced it with a single story columned portico with a domed structure atop. Jefferson referenced his temporary home in Paris, Hotel de Salm, for inspiration. The bold statement this new portico placed upon the lawn was offset by the verticality of the dome atop. In the text of In Measured Drawings it was stated that the “only thing that changed was the circular form replaced by the octagon by all proportions of the dome, 1/3 of circle and rise and projection of the three steps at its base were preserved.”9 Jefferson was forced to slightly alter the structure of the base because of the parlor below, an irregular octagon with two sides that are slightly longer was the final solution. This dome was the first roof structure of its kind in America. It is unclear why Jefferson chose to put so much focus on the exterior of this dome yet almost completely hide its appearance on the interior. Considering the dome was separated from the parlor below, creating a lower first floor ceiling height, poses many questions. Mainly, why Jefferson would chose to go against Palladio’s Villa Ro-
tunda’s main entrance. One argument is the compromised structure of the dome and its outward thrust it inflicted upon the portico and parlor below10 . The actual structure of the dome was inspired by Halles aux Bleds in Paris where short members were used to create a substructure similar to that of a honeycomb. Jefferson chose to extend this exterior space all the way out to the two wings that flanked the back lawn. Although the plan for these wings was finalized around 1772 the construction was not completed until 1801. These wings were connected via a raised walkway that led from the basement level of the main house, which could be accessed via the small staircases located on both ends of the residence to the service quarters located below lawn grade. The floor was level with the cellar and the flat roofs were level with the first floor of the dwelling. The all weather functionality of these covered walkways allowed access from the main house to the service quarters year round, which according to Charles Granquist in Thomas Jeffer 4 James Marston Fitch, Selected Writings on Architecture, Preservation, and the Built Environment (New York: Norton and Company, 2006) 112. 5 William Howard Adams, Jefferson’s Monticello (New York: Abbeville Press, 1983) 62. 6 Dumas Malone, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello (Virginia: Thomasson-Grant, 1983) 9. 7 Ron Katz, French America (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2004) 205. 8 Frederick D Nichols, Monticello A Guidebook (Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1982) 14. 9 Thomas J Memorial Foundation 25. 10 Adams 99.
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 27
Photo of West Lawn and West Facade. Image from Bemiss, Margaret. Historic Virginia Gardens. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Pg 114
son’s Monticello showed his more practical side. 11 Norman Richards notes in his book Monticello this reiterated Jefferson’s idea of maintaining a functioning 5,000-acre plantation without the disruption of work life. 12 Jefferson also strategically placed the kitchen under the southeast terrace to not only prevent fire damage to the main house but also force the cooking smells away from the property with the help of the oncoming winds. The asymmetrical interior of Monticello is in complete contrast to the symmetrical exterior. There are moments that there is no mention of the interior workings from the exterior of the building. According to Adams in Jefferson’s Monticello ‘[he] was not satisfied with the dull, commonplace, rectangular rooms of most colonial Virginia houses, he settled on the unusual polygonal interiors and projections that give a sophistication to the interrelationship of rooms not even to be found in the revered Palladio.’ 13 It is unlikely that Jefferson did this as a direct disagreement with Palladio yet more with regards to his disliking of the traditional American architecture and standards. A few examples that are mentioned in In Measured Drawings are the closet above Jefferson’s alcove, the mezzanine room over the study, and the two-floor piazza.14 This asymmetrical floor plan and double height ceilings was very similar to the French parti that he loved so much. Jefferson claims that according to the French the “height of 16 or 18 feet generally, and the whole of it given to rooms of entertain28
ment: but in the areas where there are bedrooms they have two tiers of them from 8 to 10 feet high each, with a small private staircase. By these means great staircases are avoided, which are expensive and occupy a space which would make a good room in every story” noted by Charles Granquist in Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.15 As you walk through the main entrance, which is oriented east, the library, greenhouse/south piazza, southeast terrace, study, and Jefferson’s bedroom are located on the left. Directly straight ahead through a strategically lined path to define the central axis is the parlor. To the right are the dining room, tearoom, northwest terrace, north piazza, octagonal room, and square room. The entrance hall, which functioned as a museum, was not demarcated by a grand staircase but the circulation was relocated to the far extents of the building per Jefferson’s desire discussed earlier. These smaller stairwells, 24” wide, were large enough to allow for the bed alcoves and entrances into the bedrooms and functioned separately, one for family and guests and the other for service. This prevented the main trajectory of the house landing in the middle of the heart of the living room. The main entrance was connected via lateral hallways that spanned the space and were divided unequally do to an elliptical arch. The front entrance hall and parlor were considered the main receiving areas for guests decorated with entablatures inspired by the Temple of the Jupiter the Thunderer, including urns and
marching griffins, and a beach and cherry parquet floor carefully designed by Jefferson. Although few books were available to Jefferson establishing the ancient orders, he was able to maintain his copy of Palladio’s Quattro Libri dell’ Architettua. According to Nichols this book served as Jefferson’s reference in designing Monticello’s unique orders. 16 Jefferson selected exact cornices and friezes to be used throughout Monticello, each referencing an entablature from an ancient Temple or Roman building. Roman orders were the overall decorative scheme including Palladio’s Tuscan order in the cabinets and secondary rooms which have lower ceilings, Palladio’s Doric in the dining room, Albano’s Doric in the tea room, Roman Baths of the Diocletian in the north piazza and Palladio’s Corinthian for the parlor. The proportions of these orders were all kept per classical rules. “The colliding of moldings, all of which, when judged independently, are recognized to be in proper proportion” was concluded in the text of In Measured Drawings.17 Although he mostly obeyed the historical rules, he chose to break them every so often, for example glazing sliced through Doric piers completely defying the idea of a solid structure. The colliding of all these orders appears to represent a misunderstanding or over interpretation of the ancient world. It seems as though Jefferson might have been slightly unsure of what direction he wanted to evoke. Yet the feel of Monticello is completely the opposite. Jefferson
took the idea of mismatching the orders to encourage the ‘richness and interest of the rooms and makes the house as delightful as any in America’ according to Nichols.18 The fact that each room is unique translates into a well thought out theme. Malone in his forward for Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello points out the interesting fact that Jefferson chose to abide by strict ancient rules yet ‘manifested his modernity by filling his mansion with convenient devices and flooding it with light’ 19. His very modern spirit was expressed by the use of oversized windows, skylights, and French doors. He chose to flood the first level with light, which was a new move for his era. This contrast of the old and new embraces Jefferson’s respect for the history of architecture yet makes a stand towards the future.
11 Charles Granquist, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello (Virginia: Thomasson-Grant, 1983) 12. 12 Norman Richards, Monticello (Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995) 26. 13 Adams 84 14 Thomas J Memorial Foundation 42. 15 Granquist 109. 16 Nichols 20. 17 Thomas J Memorial Foundation 42. 18 Nichols 22. 19 Nichols 22.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, William H. Jefferson’s Monticello. New York: Abbeville Press, 1983. Bemiss, Margaret. Historic Virginia Gardens. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Betts, Edwin and Hazlehurst Bolton Perkins. Thomas Jefferson’s Flower Garden of Monticello. Virginia: The Dietz Press, 1941. Fitch, James Marston. Selected Writings on Architecture, Preservation, and the Built Environment. New York: Norton and Company, 2006 Katz, Ron. French America. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2004. Lautman, Robert. Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. 1997. Leepson, Marc. Saving Monticello. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001. Malone, Dumas. Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. Virginia: Thomasson-Grant, Inc, 1983. Moffet, Marian. Buildings Across Time . Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 2004. “Monticello.” February 2003. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. October 21, 2010. http://www.monticello.org/ “Museo Nazionale Villa Pisani.” February 2009. Beniculturali. December 15, 2010. www.villapisani.beniculturali.it Nichols, Frederick and James Bear Jr. Monticello A Guidebook. Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1982. Reef, Catherine. Monticello. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991. Richards, Norman. Monticello. Chicago: Children’s Press, 1995 Stein, Susan R. The Worlds of Thomas Jefferson at Monticello. New York: Harry Abrams, Inc, 1993. Thomas J. Memorial Foundation. Monticello in Measured Drawings. Washington DC: Archetype Press, 1998. West, Patricia. Domesticating History. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1999.
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 29
04
Hybrid Tool-Toy VS 4100 An unlikely match; multi-tool and toy. By pairing the two items a new hybrid is formed and represented in 2D and 3D drawings. This project was meant to disregard what the eye sees and interpret what the item represents by taking it out of its original context. It first began by interpreting and describing an object by observing its geometry. These forms were trasnscribed into a 2D drawing that was meant to diagram the object. This diagram was then used as a foundation for the section cuts and elevation drawings of the literal form. The exploratioin of representing an object through 2D drawing is then challenged by the introduction of a foreign object, the ‘toy’. This toy was used to encourage the idea of a 3D form. To resist the standard way of modeling, we were presented with the idea of creating a hybrid drawing not only physically by mixing the tool and toy but also combing 2D and 3D drawings simultaneously. This resulted in a drawing that was extremely dynamic but also very informative.
30
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 31
R1
+2
0 +3 -1 +2
0
-3 +1 R2
2
R4
0
+2
CL
-2 0
-3
-3 R1 R2
+2 0
R3 R5 R6
R1 R5 R4
R3
CL
3
1 Hybrid Drawing 2 Original Drawing of ‘Interpreted’ Tool 3 Detail of ‘Actual’ Multi-Tool 1
32
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 33
05
Making + Meaning Summer 2010 The exploration of the principles of architecture are expedited in this program. It begins with a blind drawing which is then pushed through transformations concluding with an inhabitable structure called ‘body armature’ made strictly from corrugated cardboard and binding tape. Through the many itterations a discovery is made about space, form, and experience. This process represents the idea that architecture can be transformed inexplicably and created through rational and controled movements.
34
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 35
2
4
1
36
3
5
6
1 Sequential Photos of 8-Block Form 2 Inhabited Body Armature 3 Foam to Plaster Process 4 Hybrid Stick/Paper Models 5 Paper Models 6 Stick Models SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 37
06
Graphic Novel Library Studio 1GB This project is a proposal for a graphic novel library located in lower Manhattan, NY. The vibrant program is reinforced by an excavated site on the diagonal which creates bermed edges with a facated cage-like structure placed atop. Exploring the invisible diagonal infrastructure counteracting the cartesian grid describes the foundation and organization of the form. The bermed edges provide a solid base and opportunities for dynamic lines of site as well as unique spatial experiences. At moments along the facade the visitor has the ability to take on a voyeuristic attitude similar to that of a graphic novel reader, and gain glimpses into the buidling. The berms are also used to form the urban landscape that invites one in and around the buidling. Within the building the main entrance is formed by a dramatic tunnel that drastically opens up at the center. Along this tunnel there are small slits to allow for short glimpses of the interior. The floorplates above have varying heights to provide an energetic atmosphere. The floorplates only constant is the central void that forms the massive atrium. Through this atrium the visitors have the ability to observe the everychanging interiority as well as the virgorously active Manhattan lifestyle. The facade of this building is a facated glazed structure that is highly reflective and prismatic. It is consistently aggitated along all facades. The dislocation of the enclosure and occupied space is modeled after The Whitney. It exagerates the overall experience one may gain from not only the exterior but also the interior of this building.
38
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 39
4
1 7
6 2
5
3
40
1 1/16� Model in Site 2 Diagonal Infrastructure Diagram 3 Cartesian Grid Diagram 4 Site Panorama 5 Massing Diagram 6 Circulation Diagram 7 Exterior Images from Interior of Building SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 Render of Aerial View 2 Cartesian/Diagonal Study Model 3 1/8” Mid-Term Model 4 1/16” Study Model 5 1/8” Final Model 6 Figure Ground Diagram 7 Noli Diagram 42
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 43
1 Lobby/Reception 2 Administration 3 Support 4 Archives 5 Library
4
A
2
1
B
3 1
44
1 Section Drawings 2 Second Floor Plan 3 Mezzanine SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 45
5 2
5 1 3
1 1 3
1
1 First Floor Plan 2 Ground Floor Plan 3 Basement 2
46
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 47
3
1 Rendered Vignettes 2 Exploded Axon 3 Sectional Perspective 1
48
2
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 49
07
Tempering The Environment: Las Vegas AS 3121 With the modern demands and popularity of energy efficiency, green products, and renewables on the rise we have explored the intergration of these practices into a Las Vegas hotel/conference center. By choosing Las Vegas as our site we were able to take full advantage of its best resource, the sun. This provided the endless opportunities for solar capture via solar tubes, solar masses, and inversly the priceless commodity of shade created via a broad tower. Water conservation was also greatly explored by the introduction of gray water recycling from the highly productive hotel rooms. This infrastructure opened up many avenues for water efficiency. It was concluded that simple implementations of passive design strategies greatly decreases a buldings waste products and increases its efficiency.
50
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 51
Water Source To Dispersment Laundry Dish Washing Shower Gray Water From Hotel Rooms
Precipitation
Evacuated Solar Tubes
Storm Water Runoff Catchment
To Irrigation Solar Ivy Shading Overflow To City Service
Pre-Treatment 2
Thermal Mass Stratification
Earth Tubes
1
3
1 Environmental Section Diagram 2 Water Resource Diagram 3 Weather Diagram 52
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 53
08
Booleaned Cookie/Whale VS 4101 This project was the exploration of representing an artifact in a 3D environment. The object moved along a subtle progression from being represented in a 2D manner, to 3D composite, concluding with a physical model. It began with the assembly of a fortune cookie and whale individually. The models were then integrated into one another by the process of boolean. This process began to produce unique and unrecognizable forms. These forms were represented by a distribution map modeled from the encyclopedia. The next step in the project was directed more towards the 3D form in varying composites. The composites were created by the use of computer generated materials. Lastly, it was translated into a physical model milled from high density foam. This figure was then wrapped in a latex jacket used to produce diverse degress of paint assemblies and patterns.
54
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 55
H.V.2.1
H.V.3.1
SURFACES: 19 EDGES: 45 CONTROL POINTS: 600
SURFACES: 6 EDGES: 12 CONTROL POINTS: 635
H.V.1.1 SURFACES: 18 EDGES: 48 CONTROL POINTS: 628
H.V.4.1 SURFACES: 7 EDGES: 15 CONTROL POINTS: 600
H.V.1.2 SURFACES: 28 EDGES: 78 CONTROL POINTS: 859
H.V.1 SURFACES: 34 EDGES: 96 CONTROL POINTS: 876
H.V.1.3 SURFACES: 24 EDGES: 60 CONTROL POINTS: 645
H.V.2 SURFACES: 27 EDGES: 81 CONTROL POINTS: 831
H.V.3 SURFACES: 20 EDGES: 58 CONTROL POINTS: 876
H.V.2.2 SURFACES: 19 EDGES: 63 CONTROL POINTS: 831
2
H.V.2.3 SURFACES: 11 EDGES: 27 CONTROL POINTS: 600
H.V.4 SURFACES: 19 EDGES: 61 CONTROL POINTS: 841
H.V.3.2 H.V.3.3
SURFACES: 14 EDGES: 48 CONTROL POINTS: 866
SURFACES: 12 EDGES: 22 CONTROL POINTS: 645
H.V.4.2
H.V.4.3 SURFACES: 15 EDGES: 51 CONTROL POINTS: 831
SURFACES: 11 EDGES: 25 CONTROL POINTS: 610
1 3
1 Encyclopedia of Modeling 2 Rendered Composites 3 Rendered 3D Rhino Models 56
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 57
3
4
2
6
1
58
5
1 CNC/Gesso Process Images 2 Latex Pattern 3 Cut Latex Jacket 4 Test Model 5 Paint Test 6 Final Model SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 59
09
What Is Architecture CS 2101 Where is the line between ‘art’ and ‘architecture’? What makes an artist an ‘architect’? Why is it so important that the two are independently defined? These are questions that I have struggled with not only within my own opinions but also through other people’s visions. After surrounding myself by critics, academia, and connoisseurs I have realized that architecture is a more in depth look of the diagrammatic reasoning’s behind a work of art. Whether this idea is logical or not, is up to the author and the audience. I have soon come to realize that it is more about looking past the physical façade and putting aside the infatuations with the object and taking a deeper look at how the object came to be. The idea that an architectural jury can contradict itself constantly is because each project, even identical ones, can represent and stem from two different beginnings. It is often said that there is no such thing as ‘new architecture, simply learning from the past mistakes.’ This means that even though we may sit down as fresh architects vary rarely will our ideas be truly ‘fresh.’ I believe it to be a very important aspect of the culture to study and learn from works past. I strive for in my future as an architect to accept and embrace this practice and use it is a strong foundation. By accepting this idea, I can also conclude that there are no right or wrong answers within the discipline. And without a set standard of rules I now have the ability to develop my own opinion of what architecture should be, experiential. It is not about what the eye sees but more about inspiring, questioning, and challenging the other senses that man has available to them. Combing these two thoughts I now look forward to setting my own standard without ignoring lessons I have learned from the past. It is about accepting what the discipline of architecture can teach me and how it can guide and form my future within the culture.
60
SCI-Arc Paige Chambers 61