kristiana bĂœrgi.
KRISTIANA BURGI
367 W. 6th Avenue, Apt. 2 Columbus, OH 43201 burgi.kristiana@gmail.com 949.525.7670
EDUCATION
The Ohio State University
December 2016
EXPERIENCE
The Ohio State University
May 2016-December 2016
Technical Services Group Intern, Columbus OH Worked closely with the Environmental Health & Safety department in developing Asbestos Building Survey Reports, drawing material and sample location diagrams of asbestos containing materials, and quantifying materials to develop cost estimates for abatement projects. Served as project manager in creation and implementation of the Asbestos Database for the university. Additionally, collaborated with the technical services group team on excel data spreadsheets of construction project updates, developed fiscal year reports, and utilized microsoft visio to create mechanical diagrams.
May 2015-December 2016
Malott Consulting, LLC
August 2015-June 2016
United Furniture & Seating
December 2015-February 2016
City and Regional Planning, BSCRP Â Honors Research Distinction, The Knowlton School of Architecture Minor in Public Health
Planning Assistant, Columbus OH Audited university spaces, updated the space inventory database, and performed space assignments for departmental changes. Created visual aids and presentations for space planning department, and assisted in the University Five Year Framework Plan.
Freelance Consultant, Columbus OH Worked as a consultant in creation of Asbestos Building Survey Reports and Asbestos Project Designs. Created sample location and material location diagrams of asbestos containing materials, quantified asbestos containing materials, and gathered appendices for Asbestos Reports.
Freelance Consultant, Columbus OH Utilized AutoCAD to develop drawings from rough sketches of furniture designs, created plans, sections and perspectives of furniture products, and applied revisions per red line drawings.
SKILLS ORGANIZATIONS
AutoCad, Rhino, Microsoft Office Suite, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, Visio, Space Information & Management System (SIMS), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). DanceSport, August 2015-present Arnold DanceSport Classic OSU DanceSport Classic Ohio Star Ball Pelotonia, 2015-2016 Participated on Team CTCL for two years and helped the team raise over $100,000 in the first year. Partners in Health Engage, September 2014- May 2015 Organized and hosted World AIDS Day. Created graphics for pamphlets, flyers and social media. American Institute of Architecture Students, September 2012- August 2015 Aided in planning and organizing firm tours for students.
Table of Contents ________ Interior Architecture
5
OPEN CURVES PAVILLION ACCORDIAN CAR MODEL STRUCTURAL MOVEMENT RESCOPING INTERIOR SPACE
City and Regional Planning
27
DO OLDER PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN MIXED-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS?
Interior Architecture Woodbury University, Los Angeles CA
Four elements creating a pavillion. The overhead membrane on the ground floor displays the theme of designs from a cage lamp.
8
Kristiana Burgi
OPEN CURVES PAVILLION
COMMUNICATNG THE PROCESS second year design communications professor gregory van grunsven
By communicating the process of design, concepts are understood and ideas are formed. Open curves pavillion derived from one small cage lamp. Picking apart pieces from the creation of a cage lamp, parts of it were the base for each of four structural elements forming the pavillion. These structural elements include vertical circulation, overhead membrane, pylon and an enclosure.
9
Creative Work
10
Kristiana Burgi
The step by step process of each structural element forming the pavillion, all deriving from parts of a cage lamp.
11
Creative Work
Perspective of entering the second floor from the stairs. The enclosure created large, open curves, allowing for the pavillion to feel open yet have a distinct interior space. The pylon holds up the enclosure in the middle of the second floor acting as a centerpiece.
12
Kristiana Burgi
Floor plans displaying the sun setting on the west side of the structure. The elements create angled shadows reflecting the shapes formed, which sets a dramatic backdrop for the pavillion.
13
Creative Work
Abstract creation of a toy car model kit.
14
Kristiana Burgi
ACCORDIAN CAR MODEL ANALYZING SECTIONS
second year design communications professor gregory van grunsven
Building an abstract model from a toy car model kit, horizontal, longitudinal, and transverse sections were created and analyzed to understand the relationship of section cuts.
15
Creative Work
Section cuts taken from the abstract toy car model. 16
Kristiana Burgi
Looking at horizontal, longitudinal and transverse sections in three dimensional view. Analyzing each view separately and together.
Sections combiined to create three dimensional computer model replicating the built model.
17
Creative Work
18
Kristiana Burgi
Computerized sections were taken apart and formed an accordian model connecting all empty space between the section cuts. The final outcome reveals the accordian type of model with alternating curves and opposing angles.
19
Creative Work
20
Kristiana Burgi
STRUCTURAL MOVEMENT TRACING THE MOTION
first year design communications professor gregory van grunsven
In analyzing movement, stills from a video were taken of a sea turtle swimming in the ocean. Representation of this movement created a tectonic element, which transformed into a cohesive structure.
Tracing the movement of the sea turtle swimming, resulting in a flowing and continuous structure.
21
Creative Work
22
Kristiana Burgi
Side view of the structure reveals small complexities.
The built structure grounded into a standing form.
Bird’s eye view showing the connection points to the surface and hovering arc created from the animals movement swimming up to the surface and back under the water.
23
Creative Work
Proposed study rooms suspended over the main space in the building. The light transparent walls of the rooms allow for ample lighting and connectivity to the surrounding studios.
24
Kristiana Burgi
RESCOPING INTERIOR SPACE WORKING WITHIN EXISTING CONDITIONS first year studio professor annie chu
Transforming an interior studio building, the idea was to not interrupt any existing space but to integrate a new working space within. Study rooms were designed to hang above the center of the interior structure due to open the open floor plan, allowing for a new interior space to be created within the buildiing.
Interactions within the space. The study rooms and walkway connect studio and classroom space on both sides of the second floor of the building, while creating a private personal study space.
25
Creative Work
The rooms would connect to overhead structural beams, appearing as though they are floating above the lower level. Small steps would lead to each private room from the walkway connecting the spaces, creating a separate and distinct space within the building.
26
Kristiana Burgi
An iteration of what the rooms could look like, playing with different possible shapes and themes for the new space.
The study spaces in relation to the existing floor plan of the second floor. By integrating the new interior space in the center of the second floor, connecting across the open floor plan of the lower level, the rooms feel connected and part of the existing space.
27
Creative Work
City and Regional Planning The Ohio State University, Columbus OH
30
Kristiana Burgi
DO OLDER PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN MIXED-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS? UNDERGRADUATE THESIS honors research distinction advisor rachel g. kleit
Current research shows that residential segregation based on income in American cities is growing; mixed-income housing may be a solution. However, mixed-income housing residents often face negative stereotypes, and public housing itself carries a negative stigma. Little to no research has examined this perceived stigma concerning mixed-income housing by non-subsidized residents, and whether or not age affects this stigma. This study analyzes potential predictors of willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. The hypothesis is older people are less likely to be willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood than younger people. Additionally, the research question explores if there are other possible predictors such as home ownership or education that may affect willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood.
31
Creative Work
Participants An online survey of 385 respondents in the State of Ohio provided data to answer these questions. Participants for this study were residents of Ohio for at least five (5) consecutive years and of ages 18 to 70. The population was confined to the state of Ohio due to existing research suggesting location in the United States as a potential predictor of the success of affordable housing. For example, Khadduri & Martin (1997) find that coastal cities have more issues with affordability in the rental market, making it more attractive to implement mixed-income housing. Specifically, mixed-income housing is more likely to succeed on the Pacific Coast or East Coast than the Midwest due to rental housing markets of few rental vacancy rates and moderately priced units declining. Additionally, the randomized sample of 385 consists of only the respondents living in non-mixed-income neighborhoods. Any respondents who were currently living in a mixed-income neighborhood were sent to the end of the survey and were not included in the findings. The research questions focus on the individual’s willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. Therefore, anyone currently living in a mixed-income neighborhood was not included to avoid biased responses. Recruitment Participants were obtained through ResearchMatch, a volunteer registry that allows for researchers to find participants anonymously. Anyone with access to a computer may join ResearchMatch and decide to participate in online surveys or studies. Participants that met the eligibility requirements for the study received a recruitment email restating eligibility requirements along with a brief description of the research. Respondents can then accept or deny participating in the online survey. If they choose to accept, the online survey is then distributed to their e-mail via a link for them to follow. Research Design The link to the online survey questionnaire was administered through Qualtrics, a user-friendly platform for online surveys. Overall, the survey took 5-10 minutes for participants to complete and contained questions regarding the participant’s current neighborhood, if they would be willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood, and demographics. All data was then collected anonymously through Qualtrics, and extracted for review. Data was then cleaned in excel for any errors, missing data, or mistakes found. Once the data was ready for analysis, the file was imported into SPSS, a program used for statistical analysis. All tests performed and all results shown were carried out in SPSS.
32
Kristiana Burgi
Examples of survey platform. Survey had the option to be taken both on a computer or iphone.
33
Creative Work
Results
A majority of participants were willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods with eighty-five percent (85%) of participants willing.
To better understand the participants’ decisions, the survey asked participants to explain why or why not they would be willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. In open-ended responses, The two most common reasons participants were willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood included:
1. To seek diversity in their community 2. The ability to have more housing or renting cost options
The top two reasons the small percentage of participants were not willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood included:
1. Increased crime, affecting the safety of the community. 2. Property value might decrease.
The last survey question asked participants what they considered to be part of their “neighborhood area” from the options shown above. Eighty-three percent (83%) of participants defined “neighborhood area” as “My street and any adjacent streets.” This suggests that when people talk about their willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood they do not mean right next door to their residence, but infer a larger area.
34
Kristiana Burgi
Predictors of Willingness Age
Marital Status
Supporting the hypothesis, it was found that older participants were less willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods than younger participants. This data suggests individuals over age 45 are less willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods than individuals under the age of 44. Participants ages 35 to 44 showed no difference in willingness when compared to participants who were 18 to 35. However, participants 45 and older were less willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods when compared to participants 18 to 35.
Unmarried participants were more willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood than participants who were married. A t-test was performed to analyze marital status and willingness. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of unmarried people were willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood compared to eighty-one percent (81%) of currently married people. The graph below displays the willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood based on marital status. T-test of independent proportions indicates that unmarried participants are more willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood (t=-2.172, df= 383, p= 0.03).
Current Neighborhood Income Level
Home Ownership
A chi-square test was performed to analyze income level of current neighborhood as a predictor of willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. Ninety-four percent (94%) of people living in low and middle income neighborhoods and eighty-four percent (84%) of people living in middle and upper income neighborhoods were willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood compared to seventy-nine percent (79%) of people living in middle income neighborhoods. The graph below displays the willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood based on current neighborhood income level. Chi-square test of independence indicates participants in middle income neighborhoods were the least willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood compared to participants living in low to middle income neighborhoods or middle to upper income neighborhoods (x2 (3, N=385)= 11.359, p= 0.03).
An independent t-test was conducted to determine if home ownership was a predictor for willingness to living in a mixedincome neighborhood. Ninety-four percent (94%) of people who have home ownership were willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood compared to eighty-one percent (81%) of people who do not have home ownership. The graph below displays the willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood based on home ownership. T-test of independent proportions indicates that participants who own property were more willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood than participants who rent or do not own property (t=3.176, df= 383, p= 0.02).
35
Creative Work
Limitations • Participants were found through ResearchMatch. Since this is a volunteer based registry, this population may not be completely reflective of the population of the State of Ohio. • Due to a small sample of participants not willing to live in a mixed-income neighborhood, differences among most demographics were unlikely to be significant. • Over half of the participants had zip codes within urban areas, which contain more mixed-income housing than rural or suburban areas due to density.
36
Kristiana Burgi
Mixed-income housing can be successful tool in creating diverse neighborhoods. American suburbs have become segregated, resulting in a stigmatization of low-income housing residents. This stigma could result from residualization, racial segregation, or homophily, affecting an individual’s willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. Housing literature discusses how this stigma of low-income residents has hindered development of mixed-income housing. However, there is no literature analyzing if age or other potential predictors, besides income and race, affect and individuals willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. The focus of this study was to determine if age and other potential predictors affect an individual’s willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. Analysis found that participants over the age of 45 were less willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods than participants under the age of 35. Additionally, other predictors of willingness were discovered in the analysis of this study. These include marital status, current neighborhood income level and home ownership. The following findings were discovered; unmarried participants were more willing than married participants to live in mixed-income neighborhoods, participants living in lower income and middle to upper income neighborhoods were more willing than participants living in middle income neighborhoods, and home owners were more willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods than participants who do not own. In light of the data consisting of a large percentage of participants willing to live in mixed-income neighborhoods, this suggests that mixed-income housing is overall acceptable. The results found in this study can assist in understanding predictors of willingness to live in a mixed-income neighborhood. Further research should analyze why age, marital status, current neighborhood income level and home ownership affect an individuals willingness to live in mixed-income neighborhoods so that more successful mixed-income housing can be built to serve as a positive example and solution to residential segregation.
37
Creative Work
Work Performed
________
Interior Architecture Woodbury University, 2012-2013
City and Regional Planning The Ohio State University, 2015-2016