9 Feet; 9 Floors; 9 Blocks by Ryan Fagre

9 FEET; 9 FLOORS; 9 BLOCKS Integrating Scale into Parametric Planning

9 Feet; 9 Floors; 9 Blocks Integrating Scale into Parametric Planning by Ryan Fagre

Thesis document submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture at Portland State University Portland, Oregon June 2011

iii

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL OF FINE AND PERFORMING ARTS The undersigned hereby certify that the Masters thesis of Ryan Fagre has been approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture

Thesis Committee: Chair: Aaron Whelton Assistant Professor of Design in the Department of Architecture

Date

Corey Griffin Assistant Professor of Design in the Department of Architecture

Date

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has been involved in the development of this thesis as well as my architectural education up to this point. Additionally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continued support and presence in my life. I would like to express additional gratitude to my thesis committee, Aaron Whelton and Corey Griffin, for their time, effort, and feedback throughout this thesis investigation. Without their persistent demand to keep reaching further and dreaming bigger this thesis would not have developed to this level of rigorous investigation. I would also like to thank the external feedback received throughout this investigation. This group includes Sergio Palleroni for providing insightful feedback at my mid-term review, Elliot Meier at Allied Works for offering helpful suggestions at the very beginning of the investigation, Dan Belcher at LMN Architects for providing intelligent insight into the possibilities of parametric design, the entire PSU faculty for pushing me to defend the notion of parametric design, and my fellow thesis colleagues for their constant exchange of ideas and opinions. I would also like to thank Andrei Gheorghe for introducing me to all of the possibilities offered by parametric design, Andy Payne for hosting a Grasshopper workshop at PSU, and all of the developers behind Grasshopper and the plug-ins created for it including GECO and Weaverbird.

vii

Abstract This thesis is formulated on the observation that architecture is becoming an increasingly complex design problem to the point that it can not be effectively resolved through conventional methods. Emerging parametric modeling software offers architects a more fluid approach to the design process by allowing complex relationships to be formulated at the very conception of a design project. As the process allows for more rapid iterations and precise analysis of design decisions, it implies a more efficient path to an optimized and integrated building. This thesis will set out to define an appropriate parametric design approach based on a rigorous investigation of current theories, followed by an application of this approach to explore the potential of the parametric design process to be applied at all scales in conceptual design.

Table of Contents

3.3.12 Yehia Madkour 3.3.13 Patrik Schumacher 3.4 Parametric Design Principles 3.4.1 Design Principle 1: Design is Pre-Rationalized 3.4.2 Design Principle 2: Design and Analysis have a Symbiotic Relationship 3.4.3 Design Principle 3: Design is Rapidly Explored through Variables 3.4.4 Design Principle 4: Design is Wholly Integrated

1.0 Introduction �� 2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Purpose of Thesis Thesis Question(s) Thesis Resolve Historical Precedents for Investigation Complexities of the Design Process 1.5.1 Parameter Sets 1.5.2 Scales

4.0 2.0

3.0

4.1 4.2 4.3

Design Process Theories �� 8 2.1 2.2

Current Design Process 2.1.1 The Beginning 2.1.2 The Approach 2.1.3 What is Effective? 2.1.4 What is Ineffective? Parametric Design Process 2.2.1 The Beginning 2.2.2 The Catalyst for Development 2.2.3 The Current State

5.0

Parametric Design 3.1.1 Definition 3.1.2 Application in other professions 3.1.3 Potential Application in Architecture Parametric Design Theories 3.2.1 Design Rationale 3.2.2 Design Parameters 3.2.3 Design Intention 3.2.4 Design Execution Parametric Design Theorists 3.3.1 Christopher Alexander 3.3.2 Nicolas Grimshaw 3.3.3 Frank Gehry 3.3.4 Greg Lynn 3.3.5 MVRDV 3.3.6 Foster and Partners 3.3.7 Zaha Hadid 3.3.8 Neil Leach 3.3.9 Kostas Terzidis 3.3.10 UN Studio 3.3.11 David Jason Gerber

6.0

Parameter Selection Criteria Parameter Sets 5.2.1 Environmental Parameters 5.2.2 Contextual Parameters 5.2.3 Programmatic Parameters Rationalize Parameters Across Scales Parameter Analysis 5.4.1 Relationships between Modules 5.4.2 Relationships within Modules 5.4.3 Relationships within Iterations

Design Goals �� 48 6.1 6.2 6.3

7.0

Site Selection Criteria Potential Sites 4.2.1 Lloyd Center Site 4.2.2 Lovejoy Fountain Site Lovejoy Fountain Overview 4.3.1 Analysis of Master Plan 4.3.2 Analysis of Current Condition

Parameter Selection �� 40 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Parametric Principles �� 14 3.1 3.2 3.3

Site Selection �� 32

Design Goals for Scenario One Design Goals for Scenario Two Design Goals for Scenario Three

Design Resolution �� 54 7.1

Design Scenario One 7.1.1 Design Introduction 7.1.2 Diagramming the Design Process 7.1.3 Parametric Design Process 7.1.4 Perspectives at Three Scales

7.2 7.3

Design Scenario Two 7.2.1 Design Introduction 7.2.2 Diagramming the Design Process 7.2.3 Parametric Design Process 7.2.4 Perspectives at Three Scales Design Scenario Three 7.3.1 Design Introduction 7.3.2 Diagramming the Design Process 7.3.3 Parametric Design Process 7.3.4 Perspectives at Three Scales

8.0 Conclusion �� 76 8.1 Reflection 8.2 Projection 8.3 Conclusion

9.0 Bibliography �� 80

xiii

List of Figures figure 1: alexander’s initial dagram of the design process.................... 5 From Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 82 figure 2: kettle diagram..................................................................................................... 5 From Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 62 figure 3: diagram of a top down design process...........................................12 From Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 94 figure 4: diagram of a bottom up design process..........................................12 From Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 94 figure 5: aspects considered in the design process......................................18 From Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 2 figure 6: grimshaw’s international terminal...................................................19 (http://www.greatbuildings.com) figure 7: gehry’s guggenheim museum.....................................................................19 (http://www.aeios.tumblr.com) figure 8: Lynn’s embryological house prototype.......................................... 20 (http://www.moma.com) figure 9: mvrdv’s metacity datatown..................................................................... 20 (http://www.mlcstudio.co.uk) figure 10: foster and partners swiss re building........................................... 21 (http://www.eikongraphia.com) figure 11: wind diagram................................................................................................... 21 (http://www.jetsongreen.com)

figure 17: design principle 1......................................................................................27 figure 18: design principle 2......................................................................................28 figure 19: design principle 3......................................................................................29 figure 20: design principle 4......................................................................................30 figure 21: locating potential sites.................................................................... 34 figure 22: lloyd center aerial................................................................................ 34 figure 23: lovejoy fountain aerial...................................................................... 34 figures 24-30: lovejoy fountain site analysis diagrams.................. 35-38 figure 31: parameter matrix......................................................................................43 figure 32: relationships between modules....................................................44 figure 33: relationships within modules........................................................ 45 figure 34: relationships within iterations.................................................... 46 figure 35-37: design process through modules................................... 50-52 figures 38-47: design scenario one images...............................................56-61 figures 48-57: design scenario two images.............................................. 62-67 figures 58-67: design scenario three images............................................68-73

figure 12: hadid’s one-north masterplan........................................................... 22 (http://www.zaha-hadid.com) figure 13: un studio’s design models diagram.................................................23 From Bos and van Berkel, Design Models, 22-23 figure 14: un studio’s mercedes benz museum................................................... 23 (http://www.eikongraphia.com) figure 15: cover image OF emergent programmatic form-ation..........24 From Madkour, Emergent Programmatic Form-ation, Cover Image figure 16: parametric theory comparison matrix......................................... 26

1.0 Introduction

1.1

Purpose of Thesis

The perpetually expanding set of requirements that need to be considered in the design process is rapidly becoming too complex for architects to coalesce through conventional design methods. The list of variables and constraints that dictate design decisions regarding environmental, contextual, and programmatic parameters has expanded to an insurmountable level of complexity, particularly as architects are asked to consider these conditions at the urban scale, the building scale, and the individual scale. This thesis posits that emerging parametric modeling software has the ability to organize and balance these complex relationships throughout the phase of conceptual design. This would give the architect freedom to explore the design solution in a fluid process, where constraints and variables are managed parametrically and the model is simultaneously updated with design decisions and analysis. As the process allows for more rapid iterations and analysis of design decisions, it implies a more efficient path to an optimized and integrated built environment. 1.2

Thesis Question(s)

The primary question that this thesis asks is: How can architects use parametric design software to integrate complex relationships across different scales in the conceptual design process? Before this question can be addressed, a much broader set of secondary

questions must be answered. Sections 2.0 - 5.5 will investigate the following secondary thesis questions: What are the historical precedents for the parametric design process? How has this process been differentiated from a conventional design approach? What are the current theories regarding parametric design? Who are the current theorists and/or practitioners involved in parametric design research and application? Is there a unified theory of the parametric design process? What type of project would best explore the scope of a parametric design process? What type of parameters would best explore the scope of a parametric design process? 1.3

Thesis Resolve

Sections 6.0 - 7.3 are dedicated to the resolve of the primary thesis question through a comprehensive design problem. The ultimate goal of this design problem is to investigate the potential application of a parametric design process to rapidly explore complex relationships in the conceptual design process. While the specific design project is merely the medium to explore this process, certain project types afford a particularly thorough investigation. The design problem will be determined 4

solely on its potential to explore the pre-determined sets of parameters across different scales. Finding the appropriate design project will allow the most thorough investigation of exploring the primary thesis question. 1.4 Historical Precedents for Investigation

figure 1: Alexander’s initial diagram of the design process

figure 2: kettle diagram

The acknowledgement that the modern design problem is too complex for architects to effectively organize is not a radical or novel suggestion. This issue was being addressed as early as the 1960’s by Christopher Alexander (1964), who recognized that the modern design problem was “reaching insoluble levels of complexity” (3). Given the primitive nature of computational processes at the time of Alexander’s dissertation, he devised an analog method of organizing complex relationships to inform the design process. This method took the form of a crude but powerful diagram that suggested how different parameters might interact and build on one another to inform the design (Figure 1). To demonstrate how this diagram could work within the design process, Alexander used the relatively simple example of the parameters necessary to design a kettle (Figure 2). The simplicity of the diagram beautifully illustrates the way that design decisions are made based on progressively larger subsets of parameters. This example represents one of the earliest documented suggestions of a parametric design process, which will be further defined in Section 3.1. Over the years, a small but flourishing group of design theorists and practitioners have been advancing and maturing the radical ideas presented

by Alexander. Included in this group are well known practitioners such as Greg Lynn, Norman Foster, and Zaha Hadid, as well as prominent theorists such as Patrik Schumacher, Neil Leach, and James Steele. There has also been a vigorous group of students and professors eager to explore the possibilities afforded by this process. Section 3.3 will offer an in depth analysis of a number of these practitioners and theorists. 1.5 Complexities of the Design Process One of the primary assumptions that this thesis investigation holds is that architects are required to rationalize an ever expanding list of design parameters to effectively carry-out the conceptual design process. While this position is supported by a number of prominent theorists (Alexander, Gerber, Schumacher), this brief section aims to propitiate any doubts by calling out several of the broader components that inform design. These components, similar to Alexander’s “function” and “economics” in the kettle example, will then be analyzed at different scales to sift out the potential parameters within. A more in-depth investigation of how these components and parameters are used in the design process will be fulfilled in Section 5.5. 1.5.1

Parameter Sets

The design process is informed by a wide range of individual parameters. To simplify the organization of these parameters, they are often grouped together according to which larger aspect of the design they inform. As

an example, parameters such as beam width and column height might be placed into the structural set, while parameters such as window height and % of glazing might be placed into the environmental set. The following provides several examples of these larger parameter sets and potential parameters within:

cast on open space, shadows cast on adjacent buildings, stormwater management system Environmental/Building Scale - % of glazing, vertical fin depths, r-value of envelope Environmental/Individual Scale - daylight levels (lux), solar gain, passive cooling

Structural Parameters - beam width, beam length, allowable live load Environmental Parameters - window height, amount of daylight, vertical fin depths Programmatic Parameters - % of retail, location of public space, width of bedroom Contextual Parameters - existing transit flows, potential view corridors, maximum building heights Material Parameters - roughness of material, type of material, construction method of material Ambient Parameters - color of space, light quality, acoustic quality 1.5.2 Scales Each of the parameter sets must also be explored through different scales. The environmental parameters used to inform the urban environment are much different than those used to inform the comfort level of an individual. The built environment is designed at a near infinite number of scales, however three are identified in this thesis to explore this concept: The urban scale, the building scale, and the individual scale. The following example of environmental parameters explores how the parameters shift according to the scale of design. Environmental/Urban Scale - shadows 6

2.0

Design Process

There is a hesitance among architects, particularly within the older generation, to embrace the power that computational methods offer in the design process. The rationale for their hesitance ranges from a simple disagreement in the stylistic outcomes (“Ralph Rapson Rules”) to the more dramatic belief held by Robert A.M. Stern and Philip Johnson that a “machine” can never create something beautiful (Fonda 10). Certainly, there are many more architects that hold an opinion somewhere in between. While the opinions of this group of architects should be respected and held in highregard, the status-quo should also be continuously challenged. Significant paradigm shifts are only possible when the current ideas are thoroughly understood, critiqued, and evolved. This section will analyze the evolution of the current design process and critique its effectiveness of generating good design solutions. The focus will then shift to an analysis of a new design process first explored by Christopher Alexander.

2.1 Current Design Process Prior to the last significant evolution in the design process, the majority of architecture was being designed by simply copying ideas from the past (Sola-Morales 126). This method of design was being disseminated at some of the most prestigious institutions, including the École des Beaux-Arts in France. It was not until the early 19th century that the beginning of the current evolution began. 2.1.1

The Beginning

In 1802, a French architect by the name of Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand posited a new pedagogical method of design in his book Précis des Leçons. In a striking departure from the design trends of the time, Durand asserts that “architectural education should not be based on the study of particular buildings or styles” (Madrazo 12). Instead, Durand argues that architecture should follow a logical set of principles based on the needs of the specific building. This method would allow the design process to be more open and creative than the status-quo of the time. In the subsequent years since Durand’s Précis des Leçons, the style of architecture shifted from Beaux-Arts into Modernism. David Jason Gerber credits J.N.L. Durand for establishing the Modernist approach to design (56). Although Durand never explicitly laid out the principles of the Modernist style, it is clear that his theory was adapted and further refined in the early Modernist texts by Otto Wagner, Walter Gropius, and Hermann Muthesius (Schumacher 87).

2.1.2

The Approach

Durand’s approach to the design process has been categorized as a “grammar” or rule based method (Mitchell 148). Schumacher believes that the method was “perhaps the first to introduce a diagrammatic process within architecture” (349). The physical manifestation of Durand’s approach begins by using gridded paper to draw basic elements such as walls and columns. These elements are drawn to form standard building components such as rooms or porches. Durand proposes that these elements be drawn with standard geometries such as a square or triangle, which could then be subsequently broken apart and altered based on the specific needs of each space. This oversimplified process of design inherently rejects the need to comply to traditional forms. Instead, the plans and sections develop based on particular needs. The elevations are then informed by the plan and the section (Durand 196). The cognitive process behind this physical manifestation offers insight into the true forces driving the design process. Durand believes that the design process is informed by two principles: convenance and économie. Convenance is translated to mean the logic of construction, while économie means the operational accomodation of symmetry, regularity, and simplicity (SolaMorales 127). These two principles suggest that Durand believes in a design process that begins with pre-conceived criteria to inform the design. This broad set of criteria can inform the design by being simplified into a diagram that suggests an associative design process. As in, the diagram can suggest 10

relationships between the criteria that can be easily manipulated to explore different design solutions. 2.1.3

What is Effective?

The introduction of the diagram to help inform the design has proven to be incredibly successful. The diagram has allowed architects to organize the relationships between complex building requirements in a simple and rational manner. Some architects use simple bubble diagrams to organize program, while other architects use the diagram to inform the physical manifestation of the building itself. Regardless of the diagram itself, the design approach engendered a new thought process behind the way architects design buildings. Simply put, without Durandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interventions and the freedom they allow in the design process, the Modernist movement may have never occurred. While some of the ideas and stylistic choices explored by Modernism are intensely debated, the discourse of architecture has undoubtedly advanced a great deal as a result. 2.1.4

What is Ineffective?

While many of the ideas presented by Durandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s process have proven to be effective - or at least valuable - there is at least one significant flaw. This flaw is that the attributes given to each design criterion, or parameter, can only be independently adjusted. For example, changing the placement of a wall will undoubtedly require a number of other significant design adjustments such as column spacing, window heights, movement through the space, etc. Due 11

to the nature of this process, each of these adjustments require a manual adjustment. In defense of Durandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s process, such a design process could not proposed due to the limits of pure human cognition. Likewise, the technology of the time was not advanced enough to process the intense computations required in such a parametrically linked design process. 2.2 Parametric Design Process The design process proposed by Durand has been shown to rely on the explicit interactions between pre-determined design criteria, or design parameters. While this process offers freedom in the design process, it has also been criticized due to the autonomous nature of these relationships. The relatively new ability to digitally model relationships between these parameters offers the potential to develop a truly parametric design process. 2.2.1

The Beginning

The model for a truly parametric design process is first proposed by Christopher Alexander in his radical dissertation Notes on the Synthesis of Form. While the computational technology of his time was still incapable of supporting such a process, he diagrams how this new method is a departure from the method embraced by Modernism. Without explicitly mentioning Durand, the first diagram illustrates how the current design process is inherently a top-down approach (Figure 3). By this, he means that the design process begins

with a simple diagram that encompasses all aspects of the design, with each subsequent step further delineating specific components in the design. This process does not enable parametric dependencies between parts. The design process that Alexander proposes is illustrated in (Figure 4). This diagram clearly suggests a bottom up approach to the design process. This implies that a change in any parameter will ripple upwards and affect the design at every subsequent stage. By allowing parameters to be easily adjusted at any stage of the design process, the design can be explored through endless variations with ease. While the framework for a parametric design process had been developed, it took over a quarter century before the technology became available to handle these complex computations. 2.2.2

The Catalyst for Development

The recent exponential growth of architectural discourse regarding the topic of parametric design has a strong correlation with the technological advancements of society. The dawn of the information age in the early 1990’s has given architects the computational power to organize complex information and relationships in ways that Alexander could only speculate. The digital tools used to assist in the design and representation process have progressively gotten more sophisticated since the early 90’s, from the initial 2-D drafting programs such as AutoCAD to the advanced 3-D modeling programs such as Rhino and Maya. Likewise, digital tools that analyze specific aspects of the built environment

have also become more sophisticated, from simple structural analysis tools such as SAP2000 to complex building performance analysis tools such as Ecotect and eQUEST. While all of the previous programs have added significant value to the profession, they still do not afford the capabilities of a truly parametric design process. One of the first parametric modeling programs, CATIA, was geared towards the aerospace, automotive, and shipbuilding design industries. Frank Gehry was perhaps the first architect to take advantage of CATIA’s parametric modeling capabilities to calculate the complex structural geometries of his designs. The highly abstract buildings that Gehry was able to successfully create led to a wave of interest in this type of software. Eventually, the leading architectural software developers took notice and sought out to create more specialized parametric modeling tools for architectural design. Bentley’s Generative Components was released in 2003, followed by Rhino’s Grasshopper in 2007. Grasshopper has proven to be a particularly advanced parametric tool as it is freely updated by members of the design community. Many of these updates have enabled Grasshopper to interact with varying third-party software such as Ecotect and Excel, further progressing the capabilities of parametric design. 2.3.3

figure 3: diagram of a top down design process

The Current State

Despite all of the advancements in technology, the parametric design process still lacks a unified theory. This is not to say that no one has tried to develop a singular theory. One of the main goals of David Jason

figure 4: diagram of a bottom up design process

Gerber’s dissertation (2007) is to suggest a unified theory of parametric design. Similarly, Patrik Schumacher is adamant to not only define the parametric theory, but also to declare “parametricism” as the next successor to Modernism (“Parametric Manifesto”). Due to the lack of clarity regarding a unified parametric design theory, this thesis is not satisfied with simply embracing the ideas of one individual. Section 3.0 will sift through the wide range of parametric theorists with the goal of extracting several common principles.

3.0

Parametric Principles

The conventional design approach of manually weighing building requirements with design decisions is no longer a viable method to rationalize increasingly complex design problems. Section 2.0 highlighted the significant shortcomings of this method of design and began to look at the parametric design process as a new approach to design. The parametric design process suggests the use of computational power, either manually or digitally, as a means to organize complex relationships between parameters to inform the design. Within this method of organizing information, there is a wide variance of different thoughts regarding the appropriate design rationale, design parameters, design intention, and design execution. This section will begin by analyzing the traditional definition of parametric design, followed by an exhaustive investigation that attempts to align an array of parametric design principles with a wide scope of parametric design theorists. The final objective of this section is to define the appropriate role of parametric design in the architectural profession by extracting the most common principles and articulating their roles in the design process. 14

3.1

Parametric Design

3.1.1

Definition

A broad definition of parametric design is fairly consistent amongst the leading theorists on the subject. David Jason Gerber writes that parametric design “concerns itself with generating design sets that exist within the boundaries of pre-set parametric values” (4). In a similar tone, Patrik Schumacher suggests that the parametric design process allows the architect to adjust relationships between different parameters as a method of finding the appropriate form (353). Given the consistent nature of these definitions, a common definition can be posited as the following: parametric design - a process of formfinding driven by the ability to adjust the values and relationships between a pre-set list of parameters. 3.1.2 Application in Other Professions The concept of using a parametric design process to develop and visualize ideas rapidly is not a radical technique. The field of engineering has utilized the potential of computational technologies for decades to optimize the form and function of various building components and systems. Rather than testing different component designs and analyzing all of the outputs to determine the best solution, engineers provide the input in forms of numerical constraints and variables to compute the best solution. Another common example of this practice is the sizing of structural members for a building. When a structural engineer needs to

find the most efficient structural sizing for a particular building, they are not necessarily required to physically draw up or model different iterations until the best one is found. Instead, they use a series of equations involving parameters in the form of constraints (material properties, plasticity) and variables (span length, loading) that will help them generate the desired output.

parameter - a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation (Oxford Dictionary)

3.1.3 Potential Application in Architecture The prospect of utilizing a parametric design process to engender design solutions begins with Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form written in 1964. Alexander acknowledges that the growing complexities of architectural design have led to the architect positioning themselves as more of an “artist” due to his/her inability to cope with and organize the complicated information (11). Thus, he argues, the real work of a building design has to be done by the “less gifted” engineers. Forty years later another Doctor of Design candidate from Harvard’s GSD, David Jason Gerber, echoes the sentiments of Alexander in arguing that “Architects have always worked in a relational and associative manner, organizing and navigating project dependencies and independencies within the complex formulation of a design problem (3)...the design professional can no longer simply solve the design problem within a given set of operations and relationships: the complexity of the architectural problem now requires invention of the rules themselves” (53). In the professional realm, firms are beginning to use parametric design 16

techniques in varying capacities. MVRDV’s theoretical film “Metacity Datatown” highlights the possibility to input seemingly infinite variables based on pure data to generate forms and relationships that would be too complex to compute conventionally. Frank Gehry takes advantage of the possibility to calculate complex structural capabilities - as evidenced in the Guggenheim Museum - that would also be nearly impossible to do through conventional means. Norman Foster has used parametric software in multiple projects to coalesce the processes of building design and engineering to optimize the relationships between building systems and forms. Greg Lynn’s Embryological House tests the possibility of masscustomization for a building based on the input of user defined parameters such as the amount of square footage desired, the number of bathrooms/ bedrooms, etc. In the “Parametric Manifesto”, it is clear that Patrik Schumacher is not satisfied with simply exploring the potential of algorithms and parameters being used in the design process, but rather calling for a new architectural style called “Parametricism” which he claims is the successor to Modernism. 3.2

Parametric Design Theories

While there tends to be a common definition of parametric design (Section 3.1.1), architecture is clearly lacking a universal theory for how to best use parametric design (Section 3.1.3). This issue is highlighted by Gerber’s assertion that “there is no model or general theory of parametric design for architectural practice” (11). This section will attempt to break down the array of different theories into specific aspects of 17

the design process. 3.2.1

Design Rationale

The rationale for the parametric design process is broken down into two distinct categories: Pre-Rationalized - Design is driven by pre-set real world constraints and variables, with parametric design used to assist in organizing the information and relationships Post-Rationalized - Design is driven by an architect’s intuition, with parametric design used to rationalize complex geometries 3.2.2

Design Parameters

The method of using design parameters within the parametric design process is broken down into three distinct categories: Associative Parametric - Designs can be analyzed by an output of data and created with an input of data using complex computer software Pre-Parametric - An analog version of associative parametric; this method was used prior to the development of complex computer software and is now largely obsolete Pseudo-Parametric - Data flows unidirectionally between conceptual design and complex analysis 3.2.3

Design Intention

The ultimate intent or purpose for using a parametric design process is broken

down into three distinct categories:

3.3

Design Exploration - Parametric design software is used to explore the design through the relationships of constraints and variables

The following is an exhaustive investigation that attempts to find a unified set of principles by comparing a wide scope of parametric design theorists with the comprehensive list of parametric design theories outlined in Section 3.2. The particular theories each designer adheres to is found by analyzing a defining piece of work by the individual or group. These selected works range theoretical design projects, built design projects, and written works.

Design Optimization - Parametric design software is used to optimize certain aspects of a design such as daylighting, structure, thermal gain, etc. Design Fabrication - Parametric design software is used to digitally fabricate complex building components and models using third party hardware such as a CNC machine, laser-cutter, or 3-D printer 3.2.4

Design Execution

The final form and/or execution as a result of using the parametric design process is broken down into three distinct categories: No Pure Difference - The parametric design process is used to ultimately create a design with fully-integrated systems and functions No Rigid Forms - The parametric design process is used to ultimately allow architecture to emerge that no longer conforms to orthogonal geometries No Repetition - The parametric design process is used to ultimately create an architecture that no longer relies on a simplified and formal language; each space and building can be customized based on specific relationships and forces

3.3.1

Parametric Design Theorists

Christopher Alexander

figure 5: aspects considered in the design process

Alexander’s written dissertation Notes on the Synthesis of Form, completed in 1964, will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. Christopher Alexander is perhaps the first theorist to suggest that architectural form could be generated by organizing the comprehensive relationships between different design parameters. His impression on the current field of parametric design research is undeniable, as Schumacher writes “In the wake of Alexander’s intervention, a whole movement of design process thinking ensued” (45). Alexander adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - Alexander believes that physical form cannot be achieved until there is programmatic clarity in the designer’s mind (15). Pre-Parametric - Alexander’s seminal work was produced before computational processes were created to assist the process he outlines. 18

Therefore, his methodology is preparametric. Design Exploration - He believes that this process must allow the possibility to “generate a wide range of possible alternative solutions” (74). Design Optimization - While Alexander never explicitly states that this process should be used to optimize design decisions, he does suggest its potential use by including performance in his initial diagram that posits important design parameters (Figure 5).

limited in capacity when compared to today’s digital tools. Design Exploration - The parametric model of the International Terminal was set up to ease the process of exploring different designs in relation to programmatic, environmental, and structural requirements (Szalapaj). Design Fabrication - The parametric model for the International Terminal was also carefully detailed. This allowed for the dimensions of each truss and component to be easily calculated for fabrication. 3.3.3

3.3.2 figure 6: grimshaw’s Internation terminal

Grimshaw’s built design project the International Terminal (Figure 6), completed in 1993 in London, England is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. Nicolas Grimshaw is credited with one of the first actual implementations of CAD parametric techniques (Szalapaj). In the design of the International Terminal, a single arch was parametrically modeled so that each subsequent arch could be adjusted based on their programmatic and structural requirements. Grimshaw adheres to the following parametric design theories:

figure 7: gehry’s guggenheim museum

Frank Gehry

Nicholas Grimshaw

Pre-Rationalized - The form of the building was determined by adjusting the parametric relationships between the structural form and the program (Szalapaj). Pre-Parametric - Although this design was achieved with digital parametric tools, they were relatively primitive and

Gehry’s built design project the Guggenheim Museum (Figure 7), completed in 1997 in Bilbao, Spain, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. This seminal work is one of the most dramatic early examples of “masscustomization” within the parametric field (Mitchell 152). Frank Gehry’s most recent work is admittedly a departure from his initial foray into parametric design, however this investigation is comparing the parametric theories used in the design process of the Guggenheim Museum. Gehry adheres to the following parametric design theories: Post-Rationalized - Frank Gehry’s design process illustrates an extreme of the post-rationalized parametric design process. Essentially, Gehry designs in a highly gestural analog model and rationalizes the complex geometry with a parametric model

(Gerber 93). Pre-Parametric - Similar to Grimshaw, the digital tools were relatively primitive and limited in capacity when compared to today’s digital tools. Design Fabrication - Branko Kolarevic notes that the Guggenheim was one of the most dramatic examples of the use of a digitally driven production process (“Digital Morphogenesis” 5). No Pure Difference - The design of the structure is inherently related to the layout of the programmatic functions within the building. While this is not the best example of this theory, it is a significant departure from an earlier Gehry project, the Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in which the sculptural form acts merely as a facade and has little effect on the form of interior spaces. No Rigid Forms - The use of parametric software in the design process allowed for the fluidity of this design that would have been nearly impossible to successfully complete with purely analog methods. 3.3.4

Greg Lynn

Lynn’s theoretical design project the Embryological House (Figure 8), researched from 1997-2001, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. Greg Lynn is one of the first architects to begin to explore an associative parametric design process. The Embryological House is a great example of this process as it used both pure data and intuitive decisions to inform the design process. Lynn adheres to the following

parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - The Embryological House relies on an extensive list of preset parameters that can be adjusted to generate form. Associative Parametric - According to Kolarevic, Lynn utilizes “forward and inverse kinematics, dynamics (force fields) and particle emission” (3) to help generate the form. Pre-Parametric - Lynn uses animation software as a way to generate parametric form (Kolarevic, “Digital Morphogenesis” 2). Design Exploration - The parametric model for the Embryological House was designed to explore a near infinite number of design iterations based on varying conditions. Design Optimization - Several of the parameters used to drive the form of the Embryological House were based on optimizing environmental and structural conditions. Design Fabrication - Although not many full scale iterations were built, Lynn produced many smaller physical models with digital fabrication tools to explore the design process. No Pure Difference - In an interview with Mark Dery titled “Soft House: Home Grown”, Lynn states that he wanted the project to take a “biological approach, where there would be no discreet components...a change in any component would inflect every other component” (par. 3).

figure 8: lynn’s embryological house prototype

3.3.5 MVRDV MVRDV’s theoretical design project Metacity Datatown (Figure 9), completed in 1999, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find their positions on the various parametric

figure 9: Mvrdv’s metacity datatown

design theories. MVRDV’s Metacity Datatown project is an extreme example of how pure data can be used to drive design. Although this project is entirely hypothetical, it raises imperative questions about the role of pure data in the design process. MVRDV challenges the conventional approach to architecture by suggesting that the use of raw data is perhaps the best way to bring architecture forward to a real reflection of the needs of society (Lootsma 35). MVRDV adheres to the following parametric design theories:

figure 10: foster and partner’s swiss re building

Pre-Rationalized - Metacity Datatown “is based only upon data. It is a city that wants to be described by information” (Maas 58). This inherently implies that the design is pre-rationalized. Associative Parametric - Metacity Datatown translates the contemporary city into pure data, which in turn creates a datascape of the city (Lootsma 33). Pre-Parametric - In the development of Metacity Datatown, MVRDV utilized software with limited parametric design capabilities. Design Exploration - Although Metacity Datatown is informed by raw data, MVRDV also notes that data is “flexible, malleable and open to interpretation” (Lootsma 37). This implies that a design can still be explored through pure data. 3.3.6

Foster and Partners

Foster and Partners’ built design project the Swiss Re Building (Figure 10), completed in 2003 in London, England, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find their positions on the various parametric design theories. figure 11: wind diagram

Foster and Partners’ work represents a more traditional or modernist architecture stylistically that embodies parametric principles. They have set an example for the profession in how to use parametric modeling efficiently throughout the conceptual design process and into the design production phase. Foster and Partners adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - Foster and Partners design process is so pre-rationalized that it has been criticized of not allowing enough design exploration (Gerber 101). Associative Parametric - In the Swiss Re Building, data from the analysis of wind forces is used to help drive the building form (Figure 11). Design Exploration - The Swiss Re Building went through a multitude of different iterations by adjusting parametric values and relationships. Design Optimization - The geometry of the Swiss Re Building is rationalized based on internal and external inputs that includes structural and environmental optimization (Gerber 100). Design Fabrication - Small scale models of the Swiss Re were explored through a multitude of 3-D prints. No Pure Difference - The Swiss Re building attempts to merge environmental, structural, programmatic, and aesthetic criteria into a seamless design. 3.3.7

Zaha Hadid

Hadid’s theoretical design project OneNorth Master Plan (Figure 12), winner of a Singapore Competition in 2002, is

the seminal work that will be analyzed to find her positions on the various parametric design theories.

design theories.

The work of Zaha Hadid has always relied heavily on abstraction and countless iterations. The One-North Master Plan however, was the first to introduce a pseudo-parametric method of designing which allowed for rapid exploration of design iterations.

Neil Leach has been integral to the progression of parametric design discourse by editing several anthologies. Leach’s Digital Tectonics looks at using digital technologies to facilitate the growing synergy between architects and engineers. Digital Cities discusses how these issues could translate to the urban scale.

Hadid adheres to the following parametric design theories:

Leach adheres to the following parametric design theories:

Pre-Rationalized - All of the parameters were pre-determined in the One-North Master Plan Pseudo Parametric - Data flowed unidirectionally to explore the design of the One-North Master Plan Design Exploration - The scheme was continuously explored by adjusting the parametric values and relationships No Pure Difference - It is clear that the scheme strives for pure integration as design partner Patrik Schumacher states that the plan aims for “the total integration of the evolving built environment” (“Parametricism”, 17). No Rigid Forms - Schumacher also desires for the look and form to have a “seamless fluidity, akin to natural systems” (16). No Repetition - The values and relationships given to the parameters within the design ensures that there is no repetition possible.

Pre-Rationalized - Leach acknowledges that architecture is shifting towards a bottom-up logic of form-finding (“Digital Morphogenesis”, 34) which implies a pre-rationalized design process. Associative Parametric - An associative parametric process is the only one capable of achieving the complex relationships between data and design that Leach describes. Design Exploration - Leach states that the computer offers a “more rigorous means of searching out possible options” (36). Design Optimization - Leach advocates for architecture to be “‘informed’ by performative considerations” (34). Design Fabrication - Leach sees the potential for digital fabrication to allow the architect to directly design the structure rather than placing those responsibilities on the structural engineer (34). No Pure Difference - Leach does not necessarily advocate for an integration of all components of a design; however he does show great interest in the designers that integrate structural systems with the program itself such as Kristina Shea and FOA (35).

3.3.8

Neil Leach

Leach’s written works Digital Tectonics and Digital Cities, completed in 2004 and 2009 respectively, are the seminal works that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric

figure 12: Hadid’s one-north masterplan

3.3.9

Kostas Terzidis

Terzidis’ written work Algorithmic Architecture, completed in 2006, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories.

figure 13: Un studio’s design models diagram

Terzidis is an associate professor of design at Harvard and served on the thesis committee of notable parametric theorist David Jason Gerber. Terzidis’ seminal book, Algorithmic Architecture, explores the possibility for algorithms to generate radical new designs. Although this idea is not original, Tezidis’ book is perhaps the most thorough investigation of various methods and examples regarding the use of algorithms within architecture. Terzidis adheres to the following parametric design theories:

figure 14: Un studio’s mercedes benz museum

Pre-Rationalized - Terzidis understands that the complexities of architecture are not necessarily solvable. He believes that the use of algorithms can help to organize and articulate the given complex information (38). Associative Parametric - It is clear that Terzidis promotes a full integration of digital tools to help drive the design process, rather than simply respond to the manually driven design decisions (39). Pre-Parametric - Terzidis believes that algorithms have always been used extensively within architecture (39). Design Exploration - Terzidis suggests that “algorithms can be used to solve, organize, or explore problems” (38). Design Optimization - While he never explicitly states the use of algorithms towards design optimization, this idea is implied by his suggestions that algorithms can be created with aspects

of structure. Design Fabrication - Several of the examples given are clearly produced through means of digital fabrication, and would be nearly impossible to create through ordinary means. No Rigid Forms - Terzidis seems to believe that digital tools offer the ability to create forms that no longer have to adhere to orthogonal geometries. 3.3.10 UN Studio UN Studio’s written work Design Models, completed in 2006, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find their positions on the various parametric design theories. UN Studio has similar theoretical positions as MVRDV in their use of real data. A significant note of departure however, is UN Studio’s creation and use of different design models. They have created five design models: Inclusive Principle, Mathematical Model, V-Model, Blob-to-Box Model, and DeepPlanning Principle (Figure 13). In their book Design Models, they assert that design models are necessary as they can transfer a set of principles from one design to the next. UN Studio also notes that design models can contribute to acquiring control of digital design processes, such as parametric design (10). UN Studio adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - UN Studio uses pre-set design models that help them organize a list of parameters with a set of principles to facilitate the design process. Associative Parametric - UN Studio

believes in the power of an associative parametric process. They state that their design models enable “a cyclical procession and evaluation of new input, helping you to evolve and edit your design” (19). Pre-Parametric - UN Studio’s use of real data to inform design began in 1995 when they were asked to provide a vision for Rotterdam in 2045 (314). Design Exploration - The design models are meant to allow freedom of design exploration within the bounds of established design principles. No Pure Difference - UN Studio’s belief in the potential for a fully integrated design is highlighted in the MercedesBenz Museum (Figure 14). In this project “a synthesis of structural and programmatic organizations” (184) are evident in the design.

exist within the boundaries of pre-set parametric values” (4). Associative Parametric - Throughout his dissertation it becomes clear that Gerber believes an associative parametric process is the only true parametric process. His goal is to investigate the capabilities of this method and its role in the design process (4). Design Exploration - The dissertation claims that parametric design is capable of exploring the architectural design (6). Design Optimization - The dissertation also asserts the possibility for design to be optimized. No Pure Difference - The last key principle that Gerber believes is essential to parametric design is its capability to create a fully integrated design.

figure 15: cover image of emergent programmatic form-ation

3.3.12 Yehia Madkour 3.3.11 David Jason Gerber Gerber’s written work Parametric Practices: Models for Design Exploration in Architecture, completed in 2007, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. David Jason Gerber has offered perhaps the most thorough document to date that attempts to define parametric design and its potential uses in architecture. His dissertation speculates on a unified theory of parametric design through a thorough investigation of parametric theorists. Gerber adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - Gerber asserts that parametric design “chiefly concerns itself with generating design sets that

Madkour’s written work Emergent Programmatic Form-ation (Figure 15), completed in 2008, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. This work from Madkour began as an architectural thesis project and expanded into a complete book. Within this thesis, Madkour explores the potential for parametric software to be used throughout the conceptual design process of a housing complex in Vancouver. He thoroughly examines how the process could design individual unit layouts as well as the entire envelope and geometry of the building. Madkour adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - In the design process, 24

he clearly has rationalized all potential parameters that are needed to develop each unit. Associative Parametric - The process is associative parametric because the parameters used are informed by census data. The design can then be adjusted to re-inform the data (22). Design Exploration - By setting up the parameters to be easily adjustable, Madkour is able to explore many different design options for different living scenarios. Design Optimization - Several of the parameters are designed to optimize aspects such as day-lighting, views, and heat gain. No Pure Difference - Madkour writes that “designers are able to manipulate relationships of form, program, and structure to generate an appropriate form that satisfies all of the needs of the building (21). 3.3.13 Patrik Schumacher Schumacher’s written work The Autopoiesis of Architecture, completed in 2011, is the seminal work that will be analyzed to find his positions on the various parametric design theories. Patrik Schumacher advocates that a new style of architecture is emerging as a result of parametric design. He calls this style Parametricism and believes it has already succeeded Modernism as the next wave of architectural innovation (“Parametricism” 15). He has authored a parametric manifesto, and his latest work, The Autopoiesis of Architecture, attempts to delineate this new style of architecture and how it follows a natural progression of styles within architectural history.

Schumacher adheres to the following parametric design theories: Pre-Rationalized - Schumacher rationalizes that all design begins with a diagram of potential parameters and relationships and that the parametric process makes this information easier to organize (“Autopoiesis”, 348). Associative Parametric - He argues that parametricism offers the potential for design to be created with “associative logics” (401) which carries a similar definition to associative parametric. Design Exploration - Schumacher believes that the parametric design process will enhance the process of design exploration. Design Optimization - Schumacher does not explicitly advocate for design optimization within the parametric process, but it is implied as he suggests that parameters related to envelope and structure could be used. Design Fabrication - The forms that Schumacher advocates for require a significant amount of digital fabrication to be realized. No Pure Difference, No Rigid Forms, No Repetition - In a lecture given to the students at SCI-Arc, Schumacher explicitly states the need for parametricism to embrace these three principles

3.4

Parametric Design Principles

The investigation of parametric theorists compared with parametric principles from Section 3.3 is manifested in a comparative matrix (Figure 16). This comparative matrix also measures how strongly each theorist agrees with each principle. By taking on the visual form of a matrix, four design principles emerge as the most commonly shared principles amongst the eclectic group. This section will briefly re-iterate the meaning behind these principles. A diagram has also been created to help illustrate each principles.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN MODELS VS. PARAMETRIC DESIGN THEORISTS to engender a cohesive set of parametric design principles

Strongly Agree 1964 Notes on the Synthesis of Form

1993 International Terminal at London’s Waterloo Station

1994-1997 Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain

1997-2001 Embryological House

1999 Meta City Data Town

2001-2003 Swiss Re Building (The Gherkin) in London, England

2002 One-North Master Plan; Winner of Singapore Competition

2004; 2009 Digital Tectonics; Digital Cities

2006 Algorithmic Architecture

2001-2006 The MercedesBenz Museum in Stuttgart, Germany

2007 Parametric Practices: Models for Design Exploration in Architecture

2008 Emergent Programmatic Form-ation

2011 The Autoposis of Architecture

Agree Christopher Alexander

Theorist

architectural form could be generated from algebraic expressions derived from previous architecture, site, and program.

Practitioner

Nicolas Grimshaw

Practitioner

Frank Gehry

Practitioner

DESIGN RATIONALE

Real world constraints and variables drive the initial conceptual design of a building

Architects intution drives the conceptual design of a building

DESIGN INTENTION

DESIGN PARAMETERS

PrePostAssociative PrePseudoRationalized Rationalized Parametric Parametric Parametric Similar to Conceptual designs can be associative analyzed by an parametric; used output of data prior to the development of and created with an input of complex computer data software

Data flows unidirectionally between conceptual design and complex analysis

DESIGN EXECUTION

Design Design Design No Pure Exploration Optimization Fabrication Difference

No Rigid Forms

No Repetition

Constraints and variable relationships are used to explore the design in an algorithmic modeling software

The use of parametric software allows architecture to emerge that no longer conforms to orthogonal geometries

The complexities in architecture do not need to be simplified by a formal language; each space and building can be customized

Constraints and variable relationships are used to optimize the design in an algorithmic modeling software

An algorithmic modeling software is used to generate complex geometries to be digitally fabricated

Complex relationships are explored to simultaneously create a building with fully integrated systems

Design is Pre-Ra

Design begins with an u in the form of variables

The International Terminal involved pre-parametric thinking in that the form was generated from an adaptable truss that accounts for program and site complexities

Frank Gehry’s work stems from the abstraction of ideas, drawings, models into a sculptural form. The parametric component is in discovering the constructibility of these forms.

Software Developer

Greg Lynn

Theorist

MVRDV

Theorist

Greg Lynn uses new fabrication technologies and softwares combined with applied calculus to generate forms that are no longer restricted to cartesian coordinates.

Meta City Data Town adds to the parametric theory with the idea of using pure data to design a building/city. Further built and theoretical works have been based on these ideas.

Practitioner

Foster and Partners

Practitioner

Zaha Hadid

Practitioner

Neil Leach

Theorist

Kostas Terzidis

Theorist

UN Studio

Practitioner

Foster and Partners have taken advantage of Parametric software to rapidly test design solutions and to optimize building performance.

The One-North design provided Parametricism with an example of its application in urban design. Her works in recent years have heavily involved a parametric design process.

Digital Tectonics looks at using digital technologies to facilitate the growing synergy between architects and engineers. Digital Cities discusses these issues at the urban scale.

Similar ideas to Greg Lynn, Terzidis believes architectural form should be sive way using algorithms rather than sticking to orthogonal geometries.

The Mercedes-Benz Museum was

UN Studio has developed that could theoretically design any building given

David Jason Gerber

Theorist

David Jason Gerber’s Dissertation of parametric design, as well as offering a unique theory and methodology for the future of parametric design.

Yehia Madkour

Theorist

Yehia Madkour analyzes already built work - the Vancouver Point Towers and proposes how an architect could use parametric software to develop the same design.

Patrik Schumacher

Patrik Schumacher advocates that Parametricism is a new style of architecture. His book attempts to condense and propose a singular parametric theory.

Design is Rapidl

Design is rapidly explore and relationships among

Theorist Practitioner

figure 16: parametric theory comparison matrix

3.4.1

Design Principle 1: Design is Pre-Rationalized

The parametric design process asserts that the design must begin with an understanding of potential design considerations. These considerations are then mapped out to find potential relationships and values that can be adjusted within the parametric model.

figure 17: design principle 1

3.4.2 Design Principle 2: Design and Analysis have a Symbiotic Relationship A large benefit of parametric design is the ability to use real data to drive the design process. In turn, the design can be analyzed through digital and analog methods and adjusted accordingly. This method helps to engender efficient and elegant design solutions.

figure 18: design principle 2

3.4.3 Design Principle 3: Design is Rapidly Explored through Variables By setting up all of the potential parameters at the front-end of the design process, the design can be rapidly explored by manipulating the inter connectivity, weight, and relationships of the parameters. This allows for a fluid exploration of design with the implication that more rapid iterations will result in more sophisticated designs.

figure 19: design principle 3

3.4.4

Design Principle 4: Design is Wholly Integrated

By setting up the potential parameters at the front-end of the design process, all components of the design are continuously integrated with one another. Adjusting one condition will parametrically update the entire model to respond to the change, effectively simplifying the near impossible task of manually integrating all components of the design simultaneously.

figure 20: design principle 4

4.0

Site Selection

With the set of parametric design principles found in Section 3.0, the thesis can now shift its focus towards selecting an appropriate project type for exploration. This section aims to select an appropriate site based on a specific set of criteria. The selected site will then be analyzed in regards to itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s historical context and current state. This analysis is critical to inform the potential design parameters in Section 5.0.

4.1

Site Selection Criteria 4.2.1

This section will narrow the field of potential sites for this thesis investigation based on carefully developed criteria. This criteria is crafted to help select a site that is optimal for exploring the parametric design principles across different scales. Site Selection Criteria: • The selected site should be roughly a nine block grid zoned for high density development. This will allow the environmental, programmatic, and contextual relationships between the buildings to be addressed at all scales throughout the conceptual design process. • The selected site should currently be a well documented master plan designed with modernist principles. This will allow for an analysis and critique of modernist urban design principles in comparison with a more integrated parametric design strategy. • The program in the original master plan should be a range of office, housing, and retail use to allow a range of programmatic parameters to be explored throughout the new proposals. • The site must have a significant public space that is currently under used. One goal for the new proposals will be to design around the public space in a more thoughtful and integrated manner. 4.2

Potential Sites

This section will look at two potential sites for this thesis investigation. Each of these sites will be broken down to see how well they match the criteria outlined in Section 4.1.

Lloyd Center Site

The first site for analysis is located 2 blocks west of the Lloyd Center Mall in Portland, Oregon (Figure 22). The following compares it to the desired criteria: • 9 Block grid is zoned for high density development • There are Modernist buildings but no definitive master plan

figure 21: locating potential siteS

• The site lacks an integration of different programs; 100% offices • The park on the Southwest corner is the only significant public space to integrate into potential design solutions 4.2.2

Lovejoy Fountain Site

The second site for analysis is located in the South Auditorium District in downtown Portland, Oregon (Figure 23). The following compares it to the desired criteria:

figure 22: lloyd center aerial

• 9 Block grid is zoned for high density development • There are Modernist buildings with a well documented (though unfinished) master plan • There is a high integration of different programs: offices, housing, retail, education • Lovejoy Fountain is located in the center and provides a significant public space to integrate into potential design solutions figure 23: lovejoy fountain aerial

4.3

Lovejoy Fountain Overview Offices Apartment Towers

The site surrounding Lawrence Halprin’s famous Lovejoy Fountain best matches the site selection criteria. Although the original master plan was never fully completed, it will serve as the base model to be analyzed and critiqued. To help inform potential design parameters, this section will thoroughly analyze the site conditions. 4.3.1

Townhomes Retail Public Fountain/Plaza Surface Parking Retail Entrances

Analysis of Master Plan

The master plan was developed by SOM in 1961 as part of the Portland Development Commission’s first Urban Renewal Area. Shortly after the partial completion of SOM’s design, the South Auditorium project was heralded as one of the most successful urban renewal projects of its time (Vaughan 626). As the discourse of urban design progressed however, many aspects of the master plan directly contradict the new measurements of success.

GROUND FLOOR PROGRAM Scale 300:1

figure 24: ground floor program

Access To Site Access Through Site

The majority of the problems evident in SOM’s master plan are centered around its relationship to Lovejoy Fountain. The first area to critique is the location of retail on the ground floor (Figure 24). Urban design studies have been conducted that speculate that building frontage around a public space must be at least 50% retail (Whyte 344). Clearly, SOM’s plan fails to do so by bunching up all of the retail into the Southeast corner of the site. Another failed aspect of the plan is that it locks Lovejoy Fountain into the middle of the site with little visible connection to the street (Figure 25). In doing so, pedestrians have little incentive to visit the plaza, or worse, they may not even be aware of its existence. 35

Pedestrian Nodes Lovejoy Fountain Potential View to Lovejoy Fountain Actual View to Lovejoy Fountain

1 2

% of Visibility to Lovejoy Fountain at Each Node

3 11

LOVEJOY FOUNTAIN VISIBILITY Scale 300:1

figure 25: visibility to lovejoy

Another crucial aspect in the use and acceptance of public spaces is the user’s thermal comfort (Lenzholzer 358). As the level of thermal comfort has a direct link to the amount of solar radiation an individual receives, it is logical to assess the amount of sunlight directed on Lovejoy Fountain. Clare Cooper-Marcus suggests that as the temperature approaches 55°F the amount of activity that occurs outdoors increases considerably (33). Therefore, solar studies were conducted on the site between the dates where the average daily temperature in Portland exceeds 55°F (Figure 26). The results clearly indicate that the buildings in the master plan block solar access to Lovejoy Fountain, particularly during the late lunch hours.

10 AM

NOON

4 PM 2 PM 10 AM 2 PM NOON

4 PM

FEBRUARY 11th SOLAR STUDY Scale 300:1

The qualitative data collected from these three studies will help inform the selection of appropriate parameters in Section 5.0.

10 AM

NOON

4 PM 2 PM

2 PM

10 AM NOON

4 PM

NOVEMBER 22nd SOLAR STUDY Scale 300:1

figure 26: sunlight studies - feb 11th & nov 22nd

MIL

ME SRTY

MIL

ISO

9:1

6TH

LLE

ISO

ST.

SW LINCOLN ST

LINCOLN

R HAR

99W

SW GRANT

SW SW

1ST

5TH

SW KSO

CLA Y

RK E

AVE

ON T

AV E

WA Y

AVE AD WA Y

6:1

AVE

4:1

RY S

AVE

SW GRANT ST

HOOD

AVE.

AVE

I-4

HIGHWAY

6TH

SW SHE

SW CARUTHERS

RMAN ST

HIG

SW 15TH AVE

HW AY

SW CARUTHERS ST

AR TH

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Scale 300:1

figure 27: maximum floor area ratio MIL

T SW

Site Boundary MIL

AVE

ME SRTY

ST MO

ISO

AVE

125’

150’ AV E RR

6TH

ST SW

LLE

ISO

ST.

300’ RK MA

SW LINCOLN ST

HAR

SW GRANT

HOOD

AVE.

AVE

I-4

SW GRANT ST

6TH

SW SHE

HIG

HW AY

SW 15TH AVE

SW CARUTHERS

RMAN ST

MAXIMUM HEIGHT Scale 300:1

SW CARUTHERS ST

AR TH

figure 28: maximum building heights

HIGHWAY

99W

LINCOLN

SW SW

1ST

5TH

CLA Y

KSO

200’

4TH

JAC

175’

225’ HA

AVE

100’

RY S

DW AY

AVE

WA Y

5TH

AVE

75’

AVE

2:1

5TH

JAC

The only significant discovery in the analysis of the current conditions is in the traffic circulation study. Based on the current road conditions, this study looks at whether or not it would be logical to open up the site to automobile traffic. While many urban design theories support the co-existence of pedestrians and automobles to activate a space, the analysis concludes that this would not be a desirable option for this particular site. The rationale behind this conclusion is based on the lack of continued potential routes for automobiles if they were allowed to cross the site. Simply put, any potential route through the site would be too much of an inconvenience to access, effectively eliminating any potential benefits.

Site Boundary

BR O

The current conditions that may dictate some of the design parameters are mostly quantitative or based on simple observation. The four particular conditions analyzed include floor area ratio (FAR), maximum building heights, adjacent programs, and traffic circulation.

AVE

Analysis of Current Conditions

4TH

4.3.1

MIL

Site Boundary

SW GO

MIL

AVE

ME SRTY

ST MO

AVE

ISO

Hospitality

AVE

AV E

RIS

AVE

Education

SW LINCOLN ST

LINCOLN

99W

SW GRANT

SW SW

HAR B

1ST

Commercial

5TH

KSO

ST.

4TH

MA RK ET CLA Y

6TH GE

HAR

LLE

ON T

BR OA DW AY

JAC

Residential

RY S

Offices

WA Y

5TH

AVE

SW GRANT ST

HOOD

AVE.

AVE

I-4

HIGHWAY

6TH

SW SHE

RMAN ST

SW CARUTHERS

HIG

SW 15TH AVE

HW AY

SW CARUTHERS ST

AR TH

ADJACENT PROGRAM Scale 300:1

figure 29: adjacent programs MIL

Primary Routes

T SW

MIL

AVE

ME SRTY

ST MO

5TH

AVE

ISO

RY S

AVE

RIS

6TH

LLE

ST.

Potential Routes Through Site

RK MA

5TH

KSO

R HAR

Max. Length: Six Blocks

1ST

JAC

CLA Y

4TH

To Ross Island Bridge

AVE

HAR

AV E

DW AY

To Downtown

To Freeways (I-5 & I-405)

AVE

Max. Length: Three Blocks

SW GRANT

Conclusion

HOOD

AVE.

SW GRANT ST

6TH

SW SHE

Vehicle Transit Scale 300:1

HIG

HW AY

SW 15TH AVE

SW CARUTHERS

RMAN ST

SW CARUTHERS ST

AR TH

I-4

HIGHWAY

AVE

ST 99W

LINCOLN

SW SW

SW LINCOLN ST

• Three primary routes/destinations are relevant to the site • North/South street through site could only be three blocks long, not enough to get adequate use • East/West streets through site could only be six blocks long, and there are adequate alternate routes to get to each destination • New roads through site are not necessary and will not reduce stress on existing roads

405

figure 30: traffic flows

5.0

Parameter Selection

This section aims to select appropriate parameters based on a specific set of criteria. Certain parameters are also selected based on the site analysis completed in Section 4.0. The selected parameters will then be broken down into three distinct scales. The final portion of this section will analyze the relationships between these parameters and how they are used to help drive the design process.

5.1

Parameter Selection Criteria

• Identify specific parameters within environmental, programmatic, and contextual design components. These three components are identified because they are each dominant issues that can drive the conceptual design process but are best utilized concurrently with one another. • Divide each of these parameter sets into three separate scales: the individual scale (9 feet), the building scale (9 floors), and the district scale (9 blocks). This will allow each design component to be addressed and explored at all scales throughout the conceptual design process. 5.2

Parameter Sets

This section will generate a list of potential parameters within each of the larger components of design. 5.2.1

Environmental Parameters

• Solar Insolation Levels • Fin Sizes • Fin Locations • Sunshade Sizes • Sunshade Locations • Fenestration Sizes • Fenestration Locations • Fenestration Pattern • Minimum Daylight • Daylight Levels (lux) • Maximum Floor Width • Minimum Floor Width • Size of Courtyards • Shape of Courtyards • Location of Courtyards • Day of Year • Time of Day

• Minimum Temperature • % of Green Space • Shade on Public Space • % Sunlight Desired • Sunlight Location • Shade on Adjacent Buildings 5.2.2

Programmatic Parameters

• Shadows Cast • Zoning Code • Lovejoy Setback • Views from Lovejoy • Street Setback • Building Heights • Path Locations • Path Widths • Transit Flows

• Balcony Sizes • Balcony Locations • Views from Units • Unit Sizes • Unit Distribution • Minimum Unit Size • Minimum Balcony Size • Horizontal Unit Distribution • Vertical Unit Distribution • Unit Types • Unit Sizes • % Communal Space • Communal Locations • Retail Location • % Retail • % Parking • % Housing • % Office • Location of Parking • Location of Housing • Location of Office 5.2.3

Contextual Parameters

• Views from Units • Unit Location • Unit Size • Size of View Opening • Type of Fenestration • Depth of Mullions • Width of Mullions • Potential Views • View Locations • Floor to Floor Height • % of Views Desired • Floor Area Ratio 42

hat

will

• Lovejoy Fountain in center is a significant public space to integrate into potential design solutions

5.3 Rationalize Parameters Across . Scales This section will rationalize the parameters in two important ways through a clear, concise diagram (Figure 31). First, the extensive lists of parameters are broken down into three different scales. Additionally, the unit of measurement and value(s) inherent in each will be identified. This will suggest the presence of variables that can be easily shifted in the design process.

ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS

INDIVIDUAL

9 Feet

BUILDING

9 Floors

DISTRICT

9 Blocks

CONTEXTUAL PARAMETERS

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Solar Insolation Levels

Numeric

Wh/m²

Balcony Sizes

Numeric

Depth/Width (ft./ft.)

Views from Units

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

Fin Sizes

Numeric

Depth (ft.)

Balcony Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Unit Location

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Fin Locations

Coodinates

(x,y,z)

Views from Units

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

Unit Size

Numeric

Depth/Width/Height (ft./ft./ft.)

Sunshade Sizes

Numeric

Depth (ft.)

Unit Sizes

Numeric

Depth/Width/Height (ft./ft./ft.)

Size of View Opening

Numeric

Width/Height (ft./ft.)

Sunshade Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Unit Distribution

Algorithmic

Complex Computation

Type of Fenestration

Pattern

n/a

Fenestration Sizes

Numeric

Width/Height (ft./ft.)

Minimum Unit Size

Numeric

Area (ft.²)

Depth of Mullions

Numeric

Depth (ft.)

Fenestration Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Minimum Balcony Size

Numeric

Area (ft.²)

Width of Mullions

Numeric

Width (ft.)

Fenestration Pattern

Pattern

n/a

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Minimum Daylight

Numeric

lux

Horizontal Unit Dist.

Algorithmic

Complex Computation

Potential Views

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

Daylight Levels

Numeric

lux

Vertical Unit Dist.

Algorithmic

Complex Computation

View Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Maximum Floor Width

Numeric

Width (ft.)

Unit Types

Pattern

n/a

Floor to Floor Height

Numeric

Height (ft.)

Minimum Floor Width

Numeric

Width (ft.)

Unit Sizes

Numeric

Depth/Width/Height (ft./ft./ft.)

% of Views Desired

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Size of Courtyards

Numeric

Depth/Width (ft./ft.)

% Communal Space

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Floor Area Ratio

Ratio

Ratio to 1 (x:1)

Shape of Courtyards

Pattern

n/a

Communal Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Shadows Cast

Numeric

lux

Location of Courtyards

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Retail Location

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Zoning Code

Written

n/a

Parameter

Data Type

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Parameter

Data Type

Data Units

Day of Year

Domain/Numeric Range of Dates/Specific Date

% Retail

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Lovejoy Setback

Numeric

Distance (ft.)

Time of Day

Domain/Numeric Range of Time/Specific Time

% Parking

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Views from Lovejoy

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

Minimum Temperature

Numeric

Degrees (Fahrenheit)

% Housing

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Views to Lovejoy

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

% of Green Space

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

% Office

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Street Setback

Numeric

Distance (ft.)

Lovejoy Shade

Numeric

lux

Location of Retail

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Building Heights

Numeric

Height (ft.)

% Sunlight Desired

Percentage

Percentage of Total Possible (%)

Location of Parking

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Path Locations

Coordinates

(x,y,z) to (x,y,z)

Sunlight Location

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Location of Housing

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Path Widths

Numeric

Width (ft.)

Shade on Buildings

Numeric

lux

Location of Office

Coordinates

(x,y,z)

Transit Flows

Mapping

n/a

Data Units

figure 31: Parameter matrix

PROGRAMMATIC PARAMETERS

5.4

Parameter Analysis

To understand how the complex relationships of this design process interact, a series of diagrams have been created to illustrate the issue. 5.4.1

Relationships between Modules

Figure 32 illustrates the complex relationships between all of the parameters. To begin, the parameters are organized according to the scale and parametric set they belong to. This creates nine individual modules that can independently produce design variations. Each of these modules is then inter-connected with every other module. After a desired design iteration is achieved in one module, it can be exported to any other module based on which parameters are most valued in a particular design. Within the new module, the design can be adjusted with a different set of parameters, then exported again to a third module. Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of times this process can be repeated; it will only become more fluid as computational processing power increases.

figure 32: relationships between modules

5.4.2

Relationships within Modules

The iterative design process within each module is illustrated in Figure 33. Every parameter is used to inform the design, with different iterations being created by adjusting the values and relationships between all of the individual parameters.

figure 33: relationships within modules

Site Design Methodology

Ryan Fagre

PARAMETER ANALYSIS 5.4.3

Masters of Architecture Thesis Proposal Committee Members: Aaron Whelton, Corey Griffin

Relationships within Iterations

RELATIONSHIP TO STREET and ACCESS

The actual relationships and values given to each of the parameters and how they can be easily adjusted to create design iterations is illustrated in Figure 34. This set of images most clearly illustrates the power that the parametric design process affords the architect. The decisions informing each iteration can be based on simple intuition, pure data, SHADOWS CAST ON LOVEJOY or a thoughtful response to the previous iteration. SOLUTION 1

Corner Connections

West Side Connections

West and North Side Connections

North/South Pedestrian Walkway

Hybrid Connections

-Northwest and Southwest corners have widest connection paths to Lovejoy

-West side connections dominate due to proximity to PSU

-West and North side connections dominate due to high potential pedestrian use

-North to South pedestrian walkway is emphasized as the original South Auditorium District MasterPlan suggests

-Path sizes respond to potential pedestrian use; also allows cross access through site

DESCRIPTION

• Main paths at edges • Lower buildings at south • 50% view of Lovejoy at each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

LOVEJOY SETBACK

ANALYSIS Main paths at edges creates good connection to street

VIEWS FROM LOVEJOY

VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

View corridors create awkward buildings

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Main paths at edges • Building heights scattered • Views to Lovejoy specific to each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

STREET SETBACK

ANALYSIS BUILDING HEIGHTS

Maximum Building Heights

Focus on Seating Areas in Lovejoy

80% of Lovejoy With Solar Access

100% of Lovejoy With Solar Access

Date: November 22 Average High Temperature: 50°F Time: 10 am - 4 pm % Chance of Sun: 37% Solar Access: Poor Comfort Level: Poor

Date: November 22 Average High Temperature: 50°F Time: 10 am - 4 pm % Chance of Sun: 37% Solar Access: Good Comfort Level: Good

Date: November 22 Average High Temperature: 50°F Time: 10 am - 4 pm % Chance of Sun: 37% Solar Access: Fair Comfort Level: Good

Date: October 24 Average High Temperature: 60°F Time: 10 am - 4 pm % Chance of Sun: 52% Solar Access: Good Comfort Level: Good

Date: December 21 Average High Temperature: 45°F Time: 10 am - 4 pm % Chance of Sun: 30% Solar Access: Fair Thermal Comfort Level: Poor

Views to Lovejoy are more appropriately distributed Scattered building heights creates a non cohesive site

PATH LOCATIONS

VISIBILITY OF LOVEJOY FROM STREET SOLUTION 3 PATH WIDTHS

TRANSIT FLOWS

DESCRIPTION • NW corner has an entrance • Maximum building heights • Views to Lovejoy specific to each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

ANALYSIS Paths and views to Lovejoy are appropriately distributed Building heights are cohesive with adjacent buildings

Default Paths

Good Visibility

High Visibility

Mixed Visibility

Specific Visibility

-No Additional View Corridors

-50% Visibility at all Locations Along Sidewalk

-100% Visibility at all Locations Along Sidewalk

-100% Visibility at all Corner Locations

North Location 1: 60% North Location 2: 0% Northwest Location: 80% West Location 1: 80% West Location 2: 20% Southwest Location: 80% South Location: 50% East Location: 0%

District Buildings

Hard Edged Floor Plates

Soft Edged Floor Plates

Continuous Envelope

-Maximum Envelope with Visibility and Shadows to Lovejoy Factored

-14 Foor Floor to Floor Heights -No Added Curvature to Floor Plates

-14 Foor Floor to Floor Heights -Curvature Value Added to Floor Plates

-Building Envelope Lofts from Plate to Plate

-50% Visibility at Edge Locations

FLOORPLATES and ENVELOPE

Terraced Envelope -Building Envelope Terraces from Plate to Plate; allows directed views and balcony/garden space

figure 34: relationships within iterations

6.0

Design Goals

With the site and parameters selected and analyzed, there is only one final step that needs to be taken before the design process can begin. Design goals need to be established. This is a critical step regardless of the design process. In the professional realm, several initial goals are usually determined by the client and their particular desires or needs. Additionally, the architects might add several more goals to the project that the client may not have considered. Given that this is an entirely hypothetical design exercise, three sets of design goals have been developed to test the range, iterative power, and speed that this parametric process offers. Each set of goals has an emphasis on a particular type of parameter set to test how the design solution might vary depending on the values of the client or firm.

6.1

Design Goals for Scenario One

Scenario one has an emphasis on the environmental design parameters. The goals and design process through the parametric modules are explained in Figure 35

DESIGN SCENARIO ONE Focus on Environmental Design

DESIGN SCENARIO ONEONE DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO

Focus on Environmental Design • Organize the site to maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street

DESIGN GOALS FORSCENARIO SCENARIO ONE • Create buildings that maximize square footage while maintaining DESIGN GOALS FOR ONE proper daylighting • Organize the site to maximize solar access for ONE Lovejoy Fountain DESIGN GOALS FORsolar • Thoughtfully glazing toSCENARIO capture while minimizing solar • Organize the siteutilize to maximize accessdaylight for Lovejoy Fountain

• Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street gain Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street • Improve • Organize the site that to FOR maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain Create buildings maximize square footage while maintaining DESIGN GOALS ONE • Utilize vertical fins and sunSCENARIO shades tofootage minimize solarmaintaining gain • Create buildings that maximize square while •proper Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street daylighting • Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments proper daylighting • Thoughtfully Create buildings maximize square footage whileFountain maintaining utilize glazing to capture minimizing solar •DESIGN Organize the tothat maximize solar accessdaylight for ONE Lovejoy GOALS FOR on the uppersite floors • Thoughtfully utilize glazing toSCENARIO capture daylight while minimizing solar proper daylighting gain Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street • Improve gain • Thoughtfully glazing tosquare capture daylight while minimizing solar • Organize the siteutilize to maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain Utilize vertical fins and sun shades tofootage minimize solar gain Create buildings that maximize while maintaining • Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solar gain gain •proper Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s from the more perimeter streetapartments • Distribute residential unitsvisibility to create larger, desirable daylighting • Distribute residential unitssun to shades create larger, more desirable apartments •on Utilize vertical fins and to minimize solar gain • Thoughtfully Create that maximize square footage while maintaining thebuildings upper floors utilize glazing to capture daylight minimizing solar on•DESIGN the upper floors GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments proper daylighting gain Focus on Contextual Design on thevertical upperutilize floors • Thoughtfully glazing to capture daylight solar whilegain minimizing solar Utilize fins and sun shades to minimize • Organize the site based desiredlarger, view corridors gain • Distribute residential units on to create more desirable apartments •the Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain solar gain •on Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize upper floors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO GOALS FOR TWO • Create view corridors from the upper floors of desirable each building •DESIGN Distribute residential units to SCENARIO create larger, more apartments Focus on Contextual Design • Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards onDESIGN the upper floors GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO • Organize the site based on desired view corridors where needed • Organize the site based on desired view corridors • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize vertical fins and shades to minimize solar gain • Create view the corridors fromsun Lovejoy Fountain • Organize site based on desired view corridors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO Create view corridors from the upper floors of each building • Allowview ample solar access for upper Lovejoy Fountain • Create corridors from the floors of each building • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors • Assure proper daylighting in each building byTWO creating courtyards DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO •where Create view corridors from the upper of each building needed • Organize the site based on desired viewfloors corridors where needed • Assure proper daylighting inshades eachFountain building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical fins and to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors fromsun Lovejoy • Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solar gain where needed • Organize the site based on desired view corridors • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain Create view corridors from the upper floors of each building • Allow ample solarfins access for Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize vertical and sun shades to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors • Allow ample solar access for upper Lovejoy Fountain •where Create view corridors from the floors of each building needed • Create a facade corridors • Assure proper daylighting eachthe building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical finsthat and reinforces suninshades to view minimize solar gain DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE where needed • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize and sun shades minimize solar gain Create vertical a facadefins that reinforces the to view corridors • Organize site basedfor onLovejoy desiredFountain programmatic locations • Allow amplethe solar access • Create formal distinctions between different program types on Programmatic Design • Focus Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Set a maximum floorFOR plate SCENARIO width to allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS THREE adequately into each building • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Create view corridors from the upper floors within the residential • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations • Create formal distinctions between different program types towers • Create formal between different program types Focus on Programmatic Design • Organize thedistinctions sitefloor based on SCENARIO desired locations Set a maximum plate width toprogrammatic allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS FOR THREE • Programmatically typesdaylight based on within • Set a maximum floordistinguish plate widthunit to allow tolocation penetrate

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO

figure 35: design process through modules

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE

Focus on Environmental Design

DESIGN SCENARIO ONEONE DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO

Focus on the Environmental Design • Organize site to maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain

Lovejoy visibility 6.2 • Improve Design Goals Fountain’s for Scenario Two from the perimeter street DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO ONE • Create buildings that maximize square footage while maintaining DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO ONE proper daylighting Scenario two has an on the • Organize the siteemphasis to maximize solar access for ONE Lovejoy Fountain DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO • Thoughtfully utilize glazing to capture daylight whileFountain minimizing solar • Organize the site to maximize solar access for Lovejoy contextual design parameters. The • Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street gain • Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street goals and design through the • Organize theprocess site that to maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain Create buildings maximize square footage while maintaining DESIGN GOALS FOR ONE • Utilize vertical fins and sun SCENARIO shades to footage minimize solarmaintaining gain • Create buildings that maximize parametric modules are explained insquare •proper Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the while perimeter street daylighting • Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments proper Figure 36daylighting • Create buildings that maximize square footage while maintaining Thoughtfully utilize glazing to capture daylight minimizing solar • Organize the site to maximize solar access for ONE Lovejoy Fountain DESIGN GOALS FORtoSCENARIO on the upper floors • Thoughtfully utilize glazing capture daylight while minimizing solar proper daylighting gain • Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street gain • Thoughtfully utilize glazing to capture daylight while minimizing solar Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to footage minimize solar gain • Organize the site to maximize solar access for Lovejoy Fountain Create buildings that maximize square while maintaining • Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solardesirable gain apartments gain • Distribute residential units to create larger, more •proper Improve Lovejoy Fountain’s visibility from the perimeter street daylighting • Distribute residential units toshades create larger, more desirable apartments • Utilize vertical fins and sun to minimize solar gain on the upper floors • Thoughtfully Create buildings thatglazing maximize square daylight footage while maintaining utilize to capture minimizing solar on•DESIGN the upper floors GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments proper daylighting gain Focus on Contextual Design on thevertical upperutilize floors • Thoughtfully glazing to capture daylight solar whilegain minimizing solar Utilize fins and sun shades to minimize • Organize the site based on desired view corridors gain • Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain solar gain •on Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize the upper floors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWObuilding • Create view corridors from upper floors of each GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO •DESIGN Distribute residential units to the create larger, more desirable apartments Focus onproper Contextual Design • the Assure daylighting in each building byTWO creating courtyards onDESIGN upper floors GOALS FOR SCENARIO • Organize the site based on desired view corridors where needed • Organize the site based from on desired view corridors • Create view corridors Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize vertical fins and sun shadesFountain to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy • Organize thecorridors site based on the desired view corridors Create view from upper floors of each building DESIGN GOALS FOR TWO • Allowview ample solar access forSCENARIO Lovejoy Fountain • Create corridors from the upper floors of each building • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors • Assure daylighting in the each building byTWO creating courtyards •where Createproper view corridors from upper of each building DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO needed • Organize the site based on desired viewfloors corridors where needed • Assure proper daylighting inshades eachFountain building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical fins and sun to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy • Utilize vertical fins and sun for shades to minimize solar gain where needed • Allow ample solar access Lovejoy Fountain • Organize thecorridors site based on the desired view corridors Create view from upper floors of each building • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solar gain Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain •where Create view corridors from the upper floors of each building needed • Create a facade corridors • Assure proper daylighting eachthe building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical finsthat andreinforces suninshades toview minimize solar gain DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE where • Allowneeded ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize and sun shades minimize solar gain Create vertical a facadefins that reinforces the to view corridors • Organize siteaccess basedfor onLovejoy desiredFountain programmatic locations • Allow amplethe solar • Create formal distinctions between different program types on Programmatic Design •Focus Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Set a maximum floorFOR plate width to allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS SCENARIO THREE adequately into each building • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Create view corridors the upper floors within the residential • Organize the site based from on desired programmatic locations • Create formal distinctions between different program types towers • Create formal distinctions between different program types Focus on Programmatic Design • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations Set a maximum floor plate width to allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS FORwidth SCENARIO THREE • Programmatically distinguish unit typesdaylight based ontolocation within • Set a maximum floor to allow penetrate •adequately Create formal between different program types intodistinctions eachplate building building adequately intocorridors each building • Set a maximum floor plate width to allow daylight to Create view from the upper floors within thepenetrate residential • Organize the site based onspaces desired locations DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Create additional public toprogrammatic support Lovejoy • Create view corridors from the upper floors within theFountain residential adequately into each building towers • Create formal distinctions between different program types towers • Create view corridors from theunit upper floors within the residential Programmatically distinguish types based on within • Organize the site based on width desired locations Set a maximum floor plate toprogrammatic allow daylight tolocation penetrate • Programmatically distinguish unit types based on location within towers building •adequately Create formal between different program types intodistinctions each building building • Programmatically distinguish unit types based onto location within Create additional toallow support Lovejoy Fountain • Set a maximum floorpublic plate width to daylight penetrate Create view corridors fromspaces the upper floors within the residential • Create additional public spaces to support Lovejoy Fountain building adequately into each building towers • Create additional public to support Lovejoy • Create view corridors fromspaces theunit upper floors within theFountain residential Programmatically distinguish types based on location within towers building • Programmatically distinguish unit based on location within Create additional public spaces to types support Lovejoy Fountain building • Create additional public spaces to support Lovejoy Fountain

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE

figure 36: design process through modules

• Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments proper daylighting gain Focus on Contextual Design on the upper floors • Thoughtfully glazing to capture daylight solar whilegain minimizing solar Utilize verticalutilize fins and sun shades to minimize • Organize the site based on desired view corridors gain • Distribute residential units to create larger, more desirable apartments • the Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain solar gain •on Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize upper floors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWObuilding DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO • Create view corridors from upper floors of each • Distribute residential units to the create larger, more desirable apartments Focus on Contextual Design • Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating onDESIGN upperthe floors GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO courtyards • the Organize site based on desired view corridors where needed • Organize theGoals site based on desired 6.3 Design for Scenario view corridors • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain • Utilize vertical fins and sun shadesFountain to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Three • Organize thecorridors site based on the desired view corridors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO TWO Create view from upper floors of each building • Allowview ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Create corridors from the upper floors of each building • Create corridors from in Lovejoy Fountainby creating courtyards Assure view proper daylighting each building • Create a facade reinforces the view corridors • Assure proper daylighting inon each building byTWO creating courtyards Scenario three hascorridors anthat emphasis the DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO •where Create view from the upper of each building needed • Organize the site based on desired viewfloors corridors where needed programmatic designdaylighting parameters.inThe • Assure proper eachFountain building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy • Utilize vertical fins andthrough sun shades to minimize solar gain goals and design process where needed • Organize thecorridors site based on the desired view corridors • Allowview ample solar access forthe Lovejoy Fountain Create from upper floors of each building • Allow ample solarare access for Lovejoy Fountain parametric modules explained in the • Utilize vertical fins and sun shades to minimize solar gain • Create view corridors from Lovejoy Fountain Create a facade that reinforces view corridors Assure proper daylighting in each building by creating courtyards • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors Figure 37. • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain •where Create view corridors from the upper floors of each building needed

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO

• Create a facade corridors • Assure proper daylighting eachthe building by creating courtyards Utilize vertical finsthat andreinforces suninshades toview minimize solar gain DESIGN GOALS SCENARIO where needed • Allow ample solar accessFOR for Lovejoy Fountain THREE • Utilize and sun shades minimize solar gain Create vertical a facadefins that reinforces the to view corridors • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations • Allow ample solar access for Lovejoy Fountain • Create formal distinctions between different program types Focus on Programmatic Design • Create a facade that reinforces the view corridors DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Set a maximum floor plate width to allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE adequately into each building • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Create view corridors the upper floors within the residential • Organize the site based from on desired programmatic locations • Create formal distinctions between different program types towerson • Create formal distinctions between different program types Focus Programmatic Design • Organize the sitefloor based on width desired locations Set a maximum plate toprogrammatic allow daylight to penetrate DESIGN GOALS FOR SCENARIO THREE • Programmatically unit typesdaylight based ontolocation within • Set a maximum floordistinguish plate width to allow penetrate •adequately Create formal between different program types intodistinctions each building building into each building adequately • Set a maximum floorFOR plate width to allow daylight to Create view corridors from the upper floors within thepenetrate residential • Organize the site based on desired programmatic locations DESIGN GOALS SCENARIO THREE • Create additional public to support Lovejoy • Create view corridors fromspaces the upper floors within theFountain residential adequately each building towersformalinto • Create distinctions between different program types towers • Create view corridors from theunit upper floors within the residential • Organize the site based on width desired locations Programmatically distinguish types based on within Set a maximum floor plate toprogrammatic allow daylight tolocation penetrate • Programmatically distinguish unit types based on location within towers •adequately Create formal distinctions between different program types building into each building building • Programmatically distinguish unit types based onto location within • Set a maximum floorpublic plate width to daylight penetrate Create additional toallow support Lovejoy Fountain Create view corridors fromspaces the upper floors within the residential • Create additional public spaces to support Lovejoy Fountain building into each building adequately towers • Create additional public to support Lovejoy • Create view corridors fromspaces theunit upper floors within theFountain residential Programmatically distinguish types based on location within towers building • Programmatically distinguish unit based on location within Create additional public spaces to types support Lovejoy Fountain building • Create additional public spaces to support Lovejoy Fountain

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE

figure 37: design process through modules

How can architects use parametric design software to integrate complex relationships across different scales in the conceptual design process?

7.0

Design Resolution

This section attempts to answer the original thesis question (re-stated above) through the physical manifestation of all the research and ideas previously presented in this thesis. The three design scenarios were roughly conceptualized in Section 6.0, with each having an emphasis on a specific parameter set. Additionally, the four parametric principles found in Section 3.4 play a significant role in the design process of each of these three scenarios.

7.1

Design Scenario One

7.1.1

Design Introduction

Design scenario one has a focus on environmental design parameters. Parameters such as sunlight on Lovejoy Fountain, daylight levels, and thermal gain have a high priority and are clearly evident in the design. Secondary parameters such as views to Lovejoy Fountain, housing unit distribution and balcony sizes also show up clearly in the final design.

Figures 38-41: models of scenario one

figure 42: aerial overview of scenario one

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3 PATH WIDTHS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Full building heights • No desired sunlight on Lovejoy

DAY OF YEAR

DESCRIPTION

MINIMUM DAYLIGHT

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

TRANSIT FLOWS

• Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

• NW corner has an entrance • Maximum building heights • Views to Lovejoy specific to each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

• Retail on ground floor of every ANALYSIS building • Oﬃces on floors 1-4 Paths and views to Lovejoy are • Housing on floors 5 and up appropriately distributed • No parking on site Building heights are cohesive with adjacent buildings

% RETAIL

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS Retail may not be necessary at all locations

7.1.2

TIME OF DAY

Diagramming the Design Process MINIMUM TEMPERATURE

DAYLIGHT LEVELS (lux)

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

DESIGN SCENARIO ONE % OF GREEN SPACE

Focus on Environmental Design

Parking is a necessity

SOLUTION 2

MAXIMUM FLOOR WIDTH

• 50% sunlight on Lovejoy desired • Minimum temperature of 50˚F • January 20th - November 24th • 10 am - 4 pm

Mixed use may not be ideal for every building

% PARKING

% HOUSING

DESCRIPTION • Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract courtyard with curvature between points • No minimum or maximum floorplate width

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

• Retail on most ground floors • Oﬃces located in north and east buildings • Housing located in south and west buildings • Parking garages on southeast corner

% OFFICE

MINIMUM FLOOR WIDTH ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

LOVEJOY SHADE

LOCATION OF RETAIL

Physical separation of use is good Still not enough parking on the site

SIZE OF COURTYARDS % SUNLIGHT DESIRED

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

SHAPE OF COURTYARDS

• Specific sunlight on Lovejoyjoy desired based on likely seating • March 6th - October 2nd • Minimum temperature of 70˚F • 11 am - 3 pm

SUNLIGHT LOCATION

FO LOV UN EJO TA Y IN

4 PM LOCATION OF OFFICE

SOLUTION 1

• Avg. size is 593 sq. ft. • Units sizes stay constant throughout building • Each unit has a balcony that is 80% of the unit width and 3 feet deep

FO LOV UN EJO TA Y IN

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION • Near floor to ceiling windows • 4 ft deep sun shades required to block summer solar radiation • Vertical fins located on east and west facades • Windows maximize daylight and views

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

ANALYSIS

• Retail only in buildngs where it is beneficial • Parking garages on the entire pedestrian free east edge • Housing and oﬃce locations generally stay the same

LOCATION OF HOUSING

LOCATION OF COURTYARDS

ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION • Cull out floorplates less than 40 feet wide • Keep courtyards in the same location • Keep curvature of courtyard

SHADE ON ADJACENT BUILDINGS

BALCONY SIZES

Retail not necessary on underused east edge

LOCATION OF PARKING

Physical separation of use is good Adequate parking on the site Retail is located in areas where it can thrive

1 PM

ANALYSIS

Some interior units have awkward shapes Upper floors could have bigger units (more desirable)

BALCONY LOCATIONS

VIEWS FROM UNITS FULL SITE

SOLUTION 2

DESIRED PATHS

UNIT SIZES

FIN SIZES

FIN LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

DESIRED VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

• Avg. unit size is based on an algorithm of floor height and total floor area (units get larger with each ascending floor) • Minimum unit size is 200 sq. ft. • Balcony sizes and locations are the same

BUILDING HEIGHTS MAXIMUM

SUNSHADE SIZES

DESCRIPTION • Window heights adjusted to lessen solar gain • No sunshades or louvers • Views remain unobstructed

SPECIFIED SUNLIGHT TO LOVEJOY

10 AM

FIND AREAS OF INADEQUATE DAYLIGHT

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

Balconies are too wide and not deep enough Larger units near top will also have the best views, thereby creating highly desirable units

UNIT DISTRIBUTION

FENESTRATION SIZES

MINIMUM UNIT SIZE

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

>220 lux <40’

• Avg. unit size gets larger with each ascending floor • Balconies are 50% of the unit width and 4 feet deep • Balconies are located in middle of unit to allow program to center around exterior connection

MINIMUM BALCONY SIZE

FENESTRATION PATTERN

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION • Window heights remain constant • Window right of balcony uses solar shade as a light shelf as well • Windows left of balcony have sun shades or fins (orientation) • Size of shades or fins is determined on amount of radiation

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

CON LARGER BAL

S LARGER UNIT

IES

ANALYSIS

Balconies are appropriately scaled for each unit, with no balcony being less than 12 sq. ft. Larger units near top of building are the most desirable

Retail - 234,674 sq. ft.

DELETE AREAS WITH <220 lux

DELETE FLOORPLATES WITH <40ft

Housing - 905,856 sq. ft. LOCATE PROGRAM Offices - 610,183 sq. ft.

Housing - 905,856 sq. ft. Offices - 610,183 sq. ft. Parking - 678,875 sq. ft.

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

LOCATE CIRCULATION CORES

DISTRIBUTE HOUSING UNITS

LOCATE BALCONIES

Parking - 678,875 sq. ft.

(.9)(Length)=X X

(Length/4 ft)-2 ft = X

1 ft

1 ft 4 ft

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVELS

WRAP BALCONIES WITH COLOR

LOCATE FENESTRATION FOR UNITS

8 ft

INDIVIDUAL UNIT WITH CLADDING

SUNSHADES ON SOUTH FACADE

VERTICAL FINS ON EAST AND WEST FACADE

figure 43: design process diagrams

7.1.3

Parametric Design Process

DESIGN SCENARIO ONE Focus on Environmental Design

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

LOVEJOY SETBACK

SOLUTION 1

• Full building heights • No desired sunlight on Lovejoy

• Main paths at edges • Lower buildings at south • 50% view of Lovejoy at each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

DAY OF YEAR

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION • Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

MINIMUM DAYLIGHT

ANALYSIS

% RETAIL

ANALYSIS

Main paths at edges creates good connection to street

VIEWS FROM LOVEJOY

VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

TIME OF DAY

View corridors create awkward buildings

SOLUTION 2

MINIMUM TEMPERATURE

DESCRIPTION • Main paths at edges • Building heights scattered • Views to Lovejoy specific to each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

STREET SETBACK

% PARKING

DAYLIGHT LEVELS (lux)

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

MAXIMUM FLOOR WIDTH

• 50% sunlight on Lovejoy desired • Minimum temperature of 50˚F • January 20th - November 24th • 10 am - 4 pm

% OF GREEN SPACE

SOLUTION 2

% HOUSING

DESCRIPTION • Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract courtyard with curvature between points • No minimum or maximum floorplate width

% OFFICE

MINIMUM FLOOR WIDTH ANALYSIS BUILDING HEIGHTS

ANALYSIS

LOVEJOY SHADE

Views to Lovejoy are more appropriately distributed

LOCATION OF RETAIL

Scattered building heights creates a non cohesive site

SIZE OF COURTYARDS

PATH LOCATIONS

% SUNLIGHT DESIRED SOLUTION 3

PATH WIDTHS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

• NW corner has an entrance • Maximum building heights • Views to Lovejoy specific to each entrance • 15’ street setback, 15’ Lovejoy setback

TRANSIT FLOWS

LOCATION OF PARKING

SHAPE OF COURTYARDS

• Specific sunlight on Lovejoyjoy desired based on likely seating • March 6th - October 2nd • Minimum temperature of 70˚F • 11 am - 3 pm

SUNLIGHT LOCATION

DESCRIPTION • Cull out floorplates less than 40 feet wide • Keep courtyards in the same location • Keep curvature of courtyard

SHADE ON ADJACENT BUILDINGS

ANALYSIS

SOLUTION 3

LOCATION OF HOUSING

LOCATION OF OFFICE

LOCATION OF COURTYARDS

ANALYSIS

Paths and views to Lovejoy are appropriately distributed Building heights are cohesive with adjacent buildings

4 PM

figure 44: parametric design process with modules >220 lux

S LARGER UNIT

<40’

1 PM

Retail - 234,674 sq. ft.

SPECIFIED SUNLIGHT TO LOVEJOY

10 AM

Retail - 234,674 sq. ft.

FIND AREAS OF INADEQUATE DAYLIGHT

DELETE AREAS WITH <220 lux

DELETE FLOORPLATES WITH <40ft

Housing - 905,856 sq. ft. LOCATE PROGRAM Offices - 610,183 sq. ft.

Parking - 678,875 sq. ft.

Housing - 905,856 sq. ft. Offices - 610,183 sq. ft. Parking - 678,875 sq. ft.

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

LOCATE CIRCULATION CORES

DISTRIBUTE

DESIGN SCENARIO ONE Focus on Environmental Design

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION • Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

SOLUTION 1

• Retail on ground floor of every building • Oﬃces on floors 1-4 • Housing on floors 5 and up • No parking on site

% RETAIL

ANALYSIS

BALCONY SIZES

Mixed use may not be ideal for every building

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION • Near floor to ceiling windows • 4 ft deep sun shades required to block summer solar radiation • Vertical fins located on east and west facades • Windows maximize daylight and views

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

ANALYSIS

Retail may not be necessary at all locations

% PARKING

DESCRIPTION • Avg. size is 593 sq. ft. • Units sizes stay constant throughout building • Each unit has a balcony that is 80% of the unit width and 3 feet deep

ANALYSIS

Some interior units have awkward shapes Upper floors could have bigger units (more desirable)

BALCONY LOCATIONS

FIN SIZES

Parking is a necessity

% HOUSING

DESCRIPTION • Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract courtyard with curvature between points • No minimum or maximum floorplate width

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

• Retail on most ground floors • Oﬃces located in north and east buildings • Housing located in south and west buildings • Parking garages on southeast corner

% OFFICE

SOLUTION 2

LOCATION OF RETAIL

UNIT SIZES

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION • Cull out floorplates less than 40 feet wide • Keep courtyards in the same location • Keep curvature of courtyard

SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

FENESTRATION SIZES

MINIMUM UNIT SIZE

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION • Avg. unit size gets larger with each ascending floor • Balconies are 50% of the unit width and 4 feet deep • Balconies are located in middle of unit to allow program to center around exterior connection

Adequate parking on the site

Larger units near top of building are the most desirable

Retail is located in areas where it can thrive

(.9)(Length)=X X

IES (Length/4 ft)-2 ft = X

1 ft

1 ft 4 ft

LOCATE CIRCULATION CORES

DISTRIBUTE HOUSING UNITS

LOCATE BALCONIES

ANALYSIS

Balconies are appropriately scaled for each unit, with no balcony being less than 12 sq. ft.

Physical separation of use is good

CON LARGER BAL

FENESTRATION PATTERN

ANALYSIS

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

MINIMUM BALCONY SIZE

LOCATION OF OFFICE ANALYSIS

S LARGER UNIT

ANALYSIS

• Retail only in buildngs where it is beneficial • Parking garages on the entire pedestrian free east edge • Housing and oﬃce locations generally stay the same

LOCATION OF HOUSING

DESCRIPTION • Window heights adjusted to lessen solar gain • No sunshades or louvers • Views remain unobstructed

Larger units near top will also have the best views, thereby creating highly desirable units

UNIT DISTRIBUTION

Retail not necessary on underused east edge

LOCATION OF PARKING

SOLUTION 2

SUNSHADE SIZES

Balconies are too wide and not deep enough

Physical separation of use is good Still not enough parking on the site

FIN LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION • Avg. unit size is based on an algorithm of floor height and total floor area (units get larger with each ascending floor) • Minimum unit size is 200 sq. ft. • Balcony sizes and locations are the same

ANALYSIS

ING

VIEWS FROM UNITS

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVELS

WRAP BALCONIES WITH COLOR

LOCATE FENESTRATION FOR UNITS

8 ft

INDIVIDUAL UNIT WITH CLADDING

SUNSHADES ON SOUTH FACADE

7.1.4

Perspectives at Three Scales

FIGURE 45 - PERSPECTIVE OF URBAN SCALE FROM LOVEJOY FOUNTAIN (top image)

FIGURE 46 - PERSPECTIVE OF BUILDING SCALE (middle image)

FIGURE 47 - PERSPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL SCALE FROM COMMUNAL BALCONY (bottom image)

7.2

Design Scenario Two

7.2.1

Design Introduction

Design scenario two has a focus on contextual design parameters. The term “context” has a broad meaning in architectural design. To clarify, the “context” in this design is largely concerned with view corridors and pedestrian traffic patterns based on the surrounding context. Parameters such as sunlight on views from Lovejoy Fountain, views from housing units, and pedestrian paths have a high priority and are clearly evident in the design. Secondary parameters such as thermal gain, sunlight on Lovejoy, and daylight levels also show up clearly in the final design.

Figures 48-51: models of scenario two

figure 52: aerial overview of scenario two

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3 PATH WIDTHS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Each building has at least two of the following four view corridors: SW Hills, South Waterfront, Mt. Hood, Downtown • Floor to Floor height is 14 feet

POTENTIAL VIEWS

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

Views to Downtown, SW Hills, and South Waterfront also create desired connections to the street

DAY OF YEAR

ANALYSIS

Views corridors are thoughtfully placed to coalesce potential building area with views

Lack of hierarchy for view corridors creates unusable floor areas

7.2.2

No views are prioritized

Diagramming the Design Process

TIME OF DAY

DAYLIGHT LEVELS (lux)

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT

MAXIMUM FLOOR WIDTH

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

% OF VIEWS DESIRED

Focus on Contextual Design

MINIMUM TEMPERATURE

• Cull out daylighting levels under 180 lux • Define the courtyard with orthogonal lines

• Every building has a view of Mt. Hood • Views to SW Hills are not included • Floor to Floor height is 14 feet

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO

DESCRIPTION

• View to Mt. Hood has been • Full building heights remove adjusted to only partially No desired sunlight the•building directly Easton Lovejoy

ANALYSIS

MINIMUM DAYLIGHT

ANALYSIS

VIEW LOCATIONS

• View to the South Waterfront has been added

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Specific sunlight on Lovejoy desired • February 10th - November 1st • 10 am - 4 pm

% OF GREEN SPACE

MINIMUM FLOOR WIDTH ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

LOVEJOY SHADE

Views to Mt. Hood for every building may not be necessary or desirable

FLOOR AREA RATIO

SIZE OF COURTYARDS

14 foot Floor to Floor height is too high for residential zones

% SUNLIGHT DESIRED

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

SHADOWS CAST

SHAPE OF COURTYARDS

• Views are prioritized and thoughtfully located for each specific building • Floor to Floor heights of 12 feet for residential zones

• Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract the courtyard with a degree of curvature

ZONING CODE

VIEWS FROM UNITS

FO LOV UN EJO TA Y IN

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

Views corridors create more • Buildingviews has awith glasseach facade desirable ascenddivided vertically by 6 foot high ing floor in each building windows • Theto same number windows are Floor Floor heightsofare appropriusedadjusted within each vertical strip, ately for each building getting narrower and wider where necessary

DESCRIPTION • Specific sunlight on Lovejoy desired based on likely seating • March 6th - October 2nd • Minimum temperature of 70˚F • 10 am - 2 pm

SUNLIGHT LOCATION

SHADE ON ADJACENT BUILDINGS

LOCATION OF COURTYARDS

ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

• Mullions are spaced evenly and have a consistent width and depth • Window sizes are consistent throughout the unit

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

ANALYSIS

All glass facade is too vulnerable for Portland weather

UNIT SIZE

FIN SIZES

No views are prioritized

UNIT LOCATION

FIN LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

FULL SITE

REQUIRED PATHS

• Windows are divided vertically by half, leaving 3 foot tall windows • The same number of windows are used within each vertical strip

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

• Windows get larger near desired views

VIEW CORRIDORS FROM LOVEJOY

• Windows get smaller where views VIEW CORRIDORS FROM BUILDINGS are not needed to minimize

SUNSHADE SIZES

unwanted thermal loss and gain

TOP AND BOTTOM SITE BOUNDARIES

EXTRUDED BUILDINGS

SIZE OF VIEW OPENING ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

Glazing % is lower than the previous scheme, allowing for better thermal control

TYPE OF FENESTRATION

Views are still not specified and prioritized

FENESTRATION SIZES

DEPTH OF MULLIONS

WIDTH OF MULLIONS

>220 lux

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

• Views are prioritized and thoughtfully located for each individual unit • Larger openings are located near the top of the building • Mullions expand and contract based on views within units

• Windows sizes remain the same as in the previous model • Mullions turn into vertical fins or sunshades near openings to assist in blocking solar gain

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

FENESTRATION PATTERN 2 pm

ANALYSIS

Window openings create more desirable views with each ascending floor in each building Expansion and contraction of mullions creates optimized ratio of glazing

12 pm 10 am

FIND AREAS OF INADEQUATE DAYLIGHT

ADJUST WINDOWS BASED ON VIEWS

DELETE AREAS WITH <220 lux

ADJUSTED WINDOW SIZES

SPECIFIED SUNLIGHT TO LOVEJOY

CLOSE UP OF FACADE

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

APPLY GRID OF WINDOWS

EXTRUDE MULLIONS AS SUN SHADES ON SOUTH FACADE

FIND DIRECTED VIEWS FOR EACH UNIT

EXTRUDE MULLIONS AS FINS ON EAST/WEST FACADE

figure 53: design process diagrams

DINGS

7.2.3

Parametric Design Process

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO Focus on Contextual Design

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

LOVEJOY SETBACK

POTENTIAL VIEWS

ANALYSIS

VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

DESCRIPTION • Building directly east of Lovejoy is taken out to provide full views of Mt. Hood • Views to SW Hills has been repositioned to create a better connection with the street

STREET SETBACK

MINIMUM DAYLIGHT

No views are prioritized

VIEW LOCATIONS

FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT

MAXIMUM FLOOR WIDTH

MINIMUM TEMPERATURE

% OF GREEN SPACE

MINIMUM FLOOR WIDTH ANALYSIS LOVEJOY SHADE

Views to Mt. Hood for every building may not be necessary or desirable

FLOOR AREA RATIO

Explore the possibility for views to the South Waterfront

PATH WIDTHS

• Cull out daylighting levels under 180 lux • Define the courtyard with orthogonal lines

ANALYSIS

Views to Mt. Hood is maximized, however it may not be necessary to completely remove a building

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

• Every building has a view of Mt. Hood • Views to SW Hills are not included • Floor to Floor height is 14 feet

% OF VIEWS DESIRED

PATH LOCATIONS

DAY OF YEAR

TIME OF DAY

DAYLIGHT LEVELS (lux)

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

ANALYSIS BUILDING HEIGHTS

ANALYSIS

Lack of hierarchy for view corridors creates unusable floor areas

Views to Downtown and SW Hills could begin to create paths as well

SOLUTION 2

• Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

ANALYSIS

View to Mt. Hood is not as strong as desired

VIEWS FROM LOVEJOY

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Each building has at least two of the following four view corridors: SW Hills, South Waterfront, Mt. Hood, Downtown • Floor to Floor height is 14 feet

• Path locations and widths consistent with original URA requirements • Views to Mt. Hood, Downtown, and the SW Hills from Lovejoy Fountain

SIZE OF COURTYARDS

14 foot Floor to Floor height is too high for residential zones

% SUNLIGHT DESIRED

DESCRIPTION

SHADOWS CAST

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

SHAPE OF COURTYARDS

• Views are prioritized and thoughtfully located for each specific building • Floor to Floor heights of 12 feet for residential zones

• View to the South Waterfront has been added • View to Mt. Hood has been adjusted to only partially remove the building directly East

• Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract the courtyard with a degree of curvature

ZONING CODE

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

SHADE ON ADJACENT BUILDINGS

LOCATION OF COURTYARDS

ANALYSIS

Views to Downtown, SW Hills, and South Waterfront also create desired connections to the street

Views corridors create more desirable views with each ascending floor in each building

Views corridors are thoughtfully placed to coalesce potential building area with views

Floor to Floor heights are appropriately adjusted for each building

SUNLIGHT LOCATION

figure 54: parametric design process with modules >220 lux

2 pm

12 pm 10 am

TOP AND BOTTOM SITE BOUNDARIES

EXTRUDED BUILDINGS

FIND AREAS OF INADEQUATE DAYLIGHT

DELETE AREAS WITH <220 lux

SPECIFIED SUNLIGHT TO LOVEJOY

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

APPLY GRID OF WINDOW

DESIGN SCENARIO TWO Focus on Contextual Design

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

DAY OF YEAR

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Building has a glass facade divided vertically by 6 foot high windows • The same number of windows are used within each vertical strip, getting narrower and wider where necessary

• Full building heights • No desired sunlight on Lovejoy

• Test daylighting levels (lux) in current building

VIEWS FROM UNITS

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION • Mullions are spaced evenly and have a consistent width and depth • Window sizes are consistent throughout the unit

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

ANALYSIS

All glass facade is too vulnerable for Portland weather

TIME OF DAY

DESCRIPTION • Cull out daylighting levels under 180 lux • Define the courtyard with orthogonal lines

MINIMUM TEMPERATURE

No views are prioritized

UNIT LOCATION

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Specific sunlight on Lovejoy desired • February 10th - November 1st • 10 am - 4 pm

% OF GREEN SPACE

UNIT SIZE

FIN SIZES

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION

FIN LOCATIONS

SOLUTION 2

• The same number of windows are used within each vertical strip

DESCRIPTION • Windows get larger near desired views • Windows get smaller where views are not needed to minimize unwanted thermal loss and gain

• Windows are divided vertically by half, leaving 3 foot tall windows

SUNSHADE SIZES

SIZE OF VIEW OPENING

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS LOVEJOY SHADE

Glazing % is lower than the previous scheme, allowing for better thermal control

TYPE OF FENESTRATION

• Cull out daylighting levels under 220 lux • Abstract the courtyard with a degree of curvature

FENESTRATION SIZES

SOLUTION 3 SUNLIGHT LOCATION

DESCRIPTION

NTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

DEPTH OF MULLIONS

SOLUTION 3

• Specific sunlight on Lovejoy desired based on likely seating • March 6th - October 2nd • Minimum temperature of 70˚F • 10 am - 2 pm

• Views are prioritized and thoughtfully located for each individual unit • Larger openings are located near the top of the building • Mullions expand and contract based on views within units

ANALYSIS

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

WIDTH OF MULLIONS

SHADE ON ADJACENT BUILDINGS

ANALYSIS

SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

Views are still not specified and prioritized

% SUNLIGHT DESIRED

DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

FENESTRATION PATTERN

DESCRIPTION • Windows sizes remain the same as in the previous model • Mullions turn into vertical fins or sunshades near openings to assist in blocking solar gain

ANALYSIS

Window openings create more desirable views with each ascending floor in each building Expansion and contraction of mullions creates optimized ratio of glazing

APPLY GRID OF WINDOWS

FIND DIRECTED VIEWS FOR EACH UNIT

ADJUST WINDOWS BASED ON VIEWS

ADJUSTED WINDOW SIZES

CLOSE UP OF FACADE

EXTRUDE MULLIONS AS SUN SHADES ON SOUTH FACADE

7.2.4

Perspectives at Three Scales

FIGURE 55 - PERSPECTIVE OF URBAN SCALE FROM LOVEJOY FOUNTAIN (top image)

FIGURE 56 - PERSPECTIVE OF BUILDING SCALE (middle image)

FIGURE 57 - PERSPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL SCALE FROM INTERIOR (bottom image)

7.3

Design Scenario Three

7.3.1

Design Introduction

Design scenario three has a focus on programmatic design parameters. Parameters such as location of retail, housing unit distribution, and fenestration patterns have a high priority and are clearly evident in the design. Secondary parameters such as sunlight on Lovejoy, daylight levels, and external views from buildings also show up clearly in the final design.

Figures 58-61: models of scenario three

figure 62: aerial overview of scenario two

• Parking eliminated from oﬃce and residential buildings • The rest of the program remains in the same location

LOCATION OF HOUSING

LOCATION OF OFFICE

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Path locations and widths consistent with original URA requirements • Buildings are trimmed to provide paths to Lovejoy Fountain

LOVEJOY SETBACK

7.3.2

Diagramming the Design Process

VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE

POTENTIAL VIEWS

Buildings are not appropriately set back from the street

STREET SETBACK

ANALYSIS

FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT

SOLUTION 2

UNIT SIZES

SHADOWS CAST

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

SOLUTION 1 ZONING CODE

• Avg. size is 347 sq. ft. •ANALYSIS All units are distributed as studios Lovejoy Fountain is easily accessible from most important nodes around the site

FO LOV UN EJO TA Y IN

Lovejoy Fountain is visible from many locations around the edge of theANALYSIS site

BALCONY SIZES

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

Lack of variety in unit sizes per floor is not desirable

DESCRIPTION • Avg. unit size is 750 sq.ft. • All units are at least one bedroom, with several two bedrooms integrated within the floor

Lack of communal space for each floor

TRIM BUILDINGS

FIN LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

COMMUNAL LOCATIONS

• Units are specfied based on their vertical location in the building • Communal open air spaces are inserted every fourth floor, with two located on the first floor due to its length

RETAIL LOCATION

ANALYSIS Unit distribution is eﬀective and specific to their location in the building Communal open air spaces provide everyone with equal access to nature

ANALYSIS Maximized daylight is appropriate for lower levels that have little view

FIN SIZES

BALCONY LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION • Residential buildings remain in the same configuration • Office buildings are staggered to provide views to South Waterfront and Downtown • Office buildings are twisted DESCRIPTION toward the top • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid ANALYSIS • Vertically oriented glazing is used to maximizeand daylight theare Residential office within buildings unit staggered and oriented properly to maximize views while minimizing a negative impact on sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

Units could be bigger

LOCATE PROGRAM

ANALYSIS Unit distribution is eﬀective and specific to their location in the building

% COMMUNAL SPACE

Views from oﬃce buildings should be explored

• Paths are added to create pathways from each corner of the site as well as from access nodes • Setback remains 15 feet

SOLUTION 1

• Units are specified based on their vertical location in the building • Floors 2-5 are “Light Units”, Floors 6-13 are “Garden Units”, Floors, 14-19 are “View Units”

Residential buildings are staggered appropriately to maximize daylight to Lovejoy Fountain

FLOOR AREA RATIO

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

UNIT TYPES

ANALYSIS

Path locations from all corners is desired and not currently incorporated

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION

% OF VIEWS DESIRED

PATH WIDTHS

Lack of unit specification; potential to specify units either vertically or horizontally

• Residential buildings are staggered in reverse order as before to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

Setback from street is apprpopriate

PATH LOCATIONS

ANALYSIS Retail on the ground floor is desirable

VERTICAL UNIT DIST.

ANALYSIS BUILDING HEIGHTS

VIEWS FROM UNITS FULL SITE

floor of each building to promote pedestrians

HORIZONTAL UNIT DIST.

VIEW LOCATIONS

• Buildings are setback from the street 15 feet • Paths are created from the edges into Lovejoy by cutting through the ground floors of buildings

Focus on Programmatic Design

• Retail parking located on on the the site ground floor Adequate • All units are classified as the same type Retail is located on the ground

Current staggered distribution would likely block sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

Paths to Lovejoy are obstructed by buildings in several locations

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

Physical separation of use is good DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Residential units are staggered vertically to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

ANALYSIS

VIEWS FROM LOVEJOY

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

Pattern should adjust based on unit location

INSERT GREEN SPACE

SOLUTION 2

SUNSHADE SIZES

DESCRIPTION • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid • Pattern is distributed randomly to act as a trellis for the garden units

ADD PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS

ADJUST RESIDENTIAL FOR VIEWS

UNIT SIZES ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

Distribution of unit types is better than the first iteration

Trellis pattern does not favor views or lighting

More variety in unit sizes is desirable

UNIT DISTRIBUTION

Pattern should adjust based on unit location

FENESTRATION SIZES

MINIMUM UNIT SIZE

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

• Studios, One Bedrooms, and Two Bedrooms are integrated in each floor • Ratio of unit types is dependent on vertical location within the building

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

MINIMUM BALCONY SIZE

FENESTRATION PATTERN

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid • Glazing is oriented horizontally to provide panoramic views for the view units

“View” Floors (14-19) ANALYSIS Pattern favors views,“Garden” daylighting isFloors (6-13) not as heavily considered, although the glazing reaches the ceiling in several places allowing maximum daylight “Light” Floors (2-5)

Distribution and variety of unit types is most desirable Larger units near top of building are the most desirable

Retail Floors (1)

90% Studio 10% 1 BR 0% 2 BR 0% 3 BR

TRIM OFFICES FOR SUN ACCESS

ROTATE OFFICES FOR VIEWS

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

SPECIFY PROGRAM OF UNITS

INSERT OPEN-AIR COMMUNAL SPACES

“LIGHT” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

0% Studio 0% 1 BR 40% 2 BR 60% 3 BR

32% Studio 47% 1 BR 21% 2 BR 0% 3 BR

“GARDEN” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

“VIEW” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

“LIGHT” UNIT FENESTRATION

“GARDEN” UNIT FENESTRATION

“VIEW” UNIT FENESTRATION

figure 63: design process diagrams

7.3.3

Parametric Design Process

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE Focus on Programmatic Design

SOLUTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

• Retail on ground floor of every building • Parking on floors 2-4 of every building • Oﬃces on floors 5-8 • Residential on floors 9 and up

% RETAIL

ANALYSIS

LOVEJOY SETBACK

ANALYSIS

Mixed use may not be ideal for every building Oﬃce and Residential buildings may want to be separated

% PARKING

% HOUSING

SOLUTION 2

VIEWS FROM LOVEJOY

DESCRIPTION

VIEWS TO LOVEJOY

Buildings are not appropriately set back from the street

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Buildings are setback from the street 15 feet • Paths are created from the edges into Lovejoy by cutting through the ground floors of buildings

STREET SETBACK

BUILDING HEIGHTS

Too much parking provided for the site

Path locations from all corners is desired and not currently incorporated

PATH LOCATIONS

VIEW LOCATIONS

FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT

VERTICAL UNIT DIST.

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION

UNIT TYPES

• Residential buildings are staggered in reverse order as before to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

UNIT SIZES ANALYSIS Residential buildings are staggered appropriately to maximize daylight to Lovejoy Fountain

FLOOR AREA RATIO

% COMMUNAL SPACE

Views from oﬃce buildings should be explored

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

• Parking eliminated from oﬃce and residential buildings • The rest of the program remains in the same location

LOCATION OF OFFICE

HORIZONTAL UNIT DIST.

ANALYSIS Current staggered distribution would likely block sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

Setback from street is apprpopriate

LOCATION OF PARKING

SOLUTION 3

POTENTIAL VIEWS

ANALYSIS

Physical separation of use is good

LOCATION OF HOUSING

DESCRIPTION • Residential units are staggered vertically to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

% OF VIEWS DESIRED

ANALYSIS LOCATION OF RETAIL

SOLUTION 1

Paths to Lovejoy are obstructed by buildings in several locations

• Retail on most ground floors • Oﬃces located in north buildings • Housing located in southwest buildings • Parking garages on southeast corner and on floors 2-5 of every building

% OFFICE

DESCRIPTION • Path locations and widths consistent with original URA requirements • Buildings are trimmed to provide paths to Lovejoy Fountain

PATH WIDTHS

DESCRIPTION

SHADOWS CAST

• Paths are added to create pathways from each corner of the site as well as from access nodes • Setback remains 15 feet

ANALYSIS

SOLUTION 3

ZONING CODE

ANALYSIS

Physical separation of use is good

Retail is located on the ground floor of each building to promote pedestrians

RETAIL LOCATION

ANALYSIS

Lovejoy Fountain is easily accessible from most important nodes around the site

Adequate parking on the site

COMMUNAL LOCATIONS

Residential and oﬃce buildings are staggered and oriented properly to maximize views while minimizing a negative impact on sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

Lovejoy Fountain is visible from many locations around the edge of the site

figure 64: parametric design process with modules “View” Floors (14-19) “Garden” Floors (6-13) “Light” Floors (2-5) Retail Floors (1)

ADD PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS

ADJUST RESIDENTIAL FOR VIEWS

TRIM OFFICES FOR SUN ACCESS

ROTATE OFFICES FOR VIEWS

ZOOM INTO INDIVIDUAL BUILDING

SPECIFY PROGRAM OF UNITS

INSERT OPEN-AIR COMMUNAL SPAC

DESIGN SCENARIO THREE Focus on Programmatic Design

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

HORIZONTAL UNIT DIST.

ANALYSIS

Lack of unit specification; potential to specify units either vertically or horizontally

UNIT TYPES

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Units are specified based on their vertical location in the building

• Residential buildings are staggered in reverse order as before to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

FIN SIZES

BALCONY LOCATIONS

FIN LOCATIONS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 2

• Avg. unit size is 750 sq.ft. • All units are at least one bedroom, with several two bedrooms integrated within the floor

Pattern should adjust based on unit location

SOLUTION 2

DESCRIPTION • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid • Pattern is distributed randomly to act as a trellis for the garden units

SUNSHADE SIZES

% COMMUNAL SPACE

Lack of communal space for each floor

SUNSHADE LOCATIONS

Distribution of unit types is better than the first iteration

Unit distribution is eﬀective and specific to their location in the building

Views from oﬃce buildings should be explored

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS Maximized daylight is appropriate for lower levels that have little view

UNIT SIZES

ANALYSIS

• Residential buildings remain in the same configuration • Oﬃce buildings are staggered to provide views to South Waterfront and Downtown • Oﬃce buildings are twisted toward the top

SOLAR INSOLATION LEVEL

ANALYSIS Lack of variety in unit sizes per floor is not desirable

VIEWS FROM UNITS

DESCRIPTION • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid • Vertically oriented glazing is used to maximize daylight within the unit

Units could be bigger

• Floors 2-5 are “Light Units”, Floors 6-13 are “Garden Units”, Floors, 14-19 are “View Units”

UNIT SIZES Residential buildings are staggered appropriately to maximize daylight to Lovejoy Fountain

SOLUTION 1

• Avg. size is 347 sq. ft. • All units are distributed as studios

BALCONY SIZES

ANALYSIS

VERTICAL UNIT DIST.

Trellis pattern does not favor views or lighting

More variety in unit sizes is desirable

UNIT DISTRIBUTION

Pattern should adjust based on unit location

FENESTRATION SIZES

COMMUNAL LOCATIONS

SOLUTION 3

DESCRIPTION • Units are specfied based on their vertical location in the building

MINIMUM UNIT SIZE

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 3

FENESTRATION LOCATIONS

MINIMUM BALCONY SIZE

RETAIL LOCATION

ANALYSIS

SOLUTION 3

• Studios, One Bedrooms, and Two Bedrooms are integrated in each floor • Ratio of unit types is dependent on vertical location within the building

• Communal open air spaces are inserted every fourth floor, with two located on the first floor due to its length

FENESTRATION PATTERN

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS Unit distribution is eﬀective and specific to their location in the building

Residential and oﬃce buildings are staggered and oriented properly to maximize views while minimizing a negative impact on sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

OF UNITS

DESCRIPTION

SOLUTION 1

Retail on the ground floor is desirable

Current staggered distribution would likely block sunlight to Lovejoy Fountain

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION • Retail located on the ground floor • All units are classified as the same type

• Residential units are staggered vertically to provide views to Mt. Hood and SW Hills • Oﬃce buildings are left alone

Distribution and variety of unit types is most desirable

ANALYSIS Pattern favors views, daylighting is not as heavily considered, although the glazing reaches the ceiling in several places allowing maximum daylight

Larger units near top of building are the most desirable

Communal open air spaces provide everyone with equal access to nature

DESCRIPTION • Voronoi Pattern is used to distribute glazing to solid • Glazing is oriented horizontally to provide panoramic views for the view units

“View” Floors (14-19) “Garden” Floors (6-13) “Light” Floors (2-5) Retail Floors (1)

90% Studio 10% 1 BR 0% 2 BR 0% 3 BR

INSERT OPEN-AIR COMMUNAL SPACES

“LIGHT” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

32% Studio 47% 1 BR 21% 2 BR 0% 3 BR

“GARDEN” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

0% Studio 0% 1 BR 40% 2 BR 60% 3 BR

“VIEW” FLOOR TYPICAL LAYOUT

“LIGHT” UNIT FENESTRATION

“GARDEN” UNIT FENESTRATION

“VIEW”

7.3.4

Perspectives at Three Scales

FIGURE 65 - PERSPECTIVE OF URBAN SCALE FROM LOVEJOY FOUNTAIN (top image)

FIGURE 66 - PERSPECTIVE OF BUILDING SCALE (middle image)

FIGURE 67 - PERSPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL SCALE FROM INTERIOR (bottom image)

8.0 Conclusion

8.1

Reflection

One of the primary goals for this thesis investigation was to establish a unified set of principles inherent to the parametric design process. While this was necessary to inform the subsequent design investigation, it also became a catalyst for discussion. I found that many people, myself included, had a very distorted or misinformed view of the role of parametric design software in the design process. Rather than simply a form finding method based on abstract data, the parametric design process offers architects a way to organize complex information and efficiently iterate through potential design solutions. Additionally, the ability for parametric software to integrate with analysis tools provides an easy way for architects to balance optimized design requirements with radical design strategies. Through this inestigation, I hope that I was able to convince others to at least consider these possibilities offered by the parametric design process. Another primary goal for this thesis was to essentially test how the parametric design process could be carried out at all scales of design simultaneously. While I had hoped to create a single parametric model to carry out this goal, I quickly discovered that modern computational processes are still incapable of handling that amount of complex relationships simultaneously. To mitigate this problem, I developed the parametric â&#x20AC;&#x153;modulesâ&#x20AC;? that could iterate through design solutions independently while still informing the next set of parameters. While this approach is slightly less parametric in nature, it is capable of effectively achieving the same results, albeit through a longer process.

Given how quickly technology advances, perhaps in the near future the original intent for this thesis can be fully realized. 8.2 Projection There are a number of ideas presented in this thesis that did not get explored as thoroughly as I would like due to the scope of the investigation. While this thesis explored the way parametric design is used at different scales, the parameters at each scale could be greatly expanded. In particular, it would be interesting to investigate just how specific the parametric design process can get in a space. Can it be used to project particular moods based on numerical data? How could the other human senses be investigated with parameters? These are the types of questions I find myself asking, and I think they are ripe for further investigation. Similarly, the design process for each scenario was rather limited and only explored six of the nine modules. This can be attributed to the fact that the scope of the investigation was so large that it limited the possibility to explore any particular issue in depth. I would like to see how the designs could develop further by at least exploring the last three modules in each scenario. To take this idea even one step further, it would be interesting to see how the architecture progresses when you begin to loop it back through the process a second time. 8.3 Conclusion As the task of designing architecture is continuously becoming more complex, the conventional design approach 78

is simply too primitive to effectively balance the expanding list of design parameters. Either architects can continue to position themselves as artists by handing off important design decisions to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;less-giftedâ&#x20AC;? engineers (Alexander 11), or we can embrace the powers of modern computation techniques and adapt them to explore a new process of design. While this thesis posits that emerging parametric modeling software has the ability to organize and balance these complex relationships throughout the phase of conceptual design, it does not explicitly suggest that the parametric design process should entirely replace conventional methods. Architects should merely explore these powerful parametric tools to discover their best application within the design process rather than reject them outright based to misguided understandings. Regardless of the choices made by individual architects, the rapidly growing interest in these parametric tools all but assures that the practice of architecture is in the midst of a monumental paradigm shift.

9.0 Bibliography

Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Berkel, Ben van and Caroline Bos. UN Studio: Design Models. New York: Rizzoli, 2006. Cooper-Marcus, Clare and Carolyn Francis. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, Part 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis. Precis of the Lectures on Architecture. Trans. David Britt. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2000. Fonda, Daren. “Home Smart Home”. The Boston Globe Magazine. 5 Dec., 1999. Gerber, David Jason. “Parametric Practices: Models for Design Exploration in Architecture”. Dissertation Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007. Grabow, Stephen. Christropher Alexander: The Search for a New Paradigm in Architecture. London: Oriel Press, 1983. “Morphogenetic Design Strategies”. Architectural Design Vol. 74 no. 3. London: Wiley-Academy, 2004. Hohl, Wolfgang. Interactive Environments with Open Source Software. New York: SpringerWeinNewYork, 2009. Kolarevic, Branko, ed. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. London: Spon Press, 2003. Kolarevic, Branko. “Digital Morphogenesis and Computational Architectures”. Constructing the Digital Space. September 2000. Kolarevic, Branko and Kevin Klinger, eds. Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge, 2008. Leach, Neil, ed. Digital Cities. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009. Leach, Neil. “Digital Morphogenesis”. Architectural Design 79.1 (2009): 32-37. Leach, Neil, ed. Digital Tectonics. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2004. Lenzholzer, Sanda and Nickie Y. van der Wulp. “Thermal Experience and Perception of the Built Environment in Dutch Urban Squares”. Journal of Urban Design 15.3 (2010): 375-401.

Lootsma, Bart. “What is (really) to be done?” Reading MVRDV. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers, 2003. 25-37. Lynn, Greg. Animate Form, Volume 1. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Lynn, Greg. “Soft House: Home Grown” Artbyte: The Magazine of Digital Arts and Culture. Nov-Dec 2000. Madkour, Yehia and Oliver Neumann. Emergent Programmatic Formation: Parametric Design Beyond Complex Geometries. Saarbrucken: VDM, 2009. Madrazo, Leandro. “Durand and the Science of Architecture”. Journal of Architectural Education 48.1 (Sept. 1994): 12-24. Mitchell, William. E-topia. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. Mitchell, William. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. Maas, Winy. Metacity Datatown. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1999. MVRDV. KM3: Excursions on Capacities. Netherlands: Actar, 2005. “Ralph Rapson Rules”. Architecture. 15 March, 2005. Schumacher, Patrik. “Parametricism and the Autopoiesis of Architecture”. SCI-Arc Graduation Pavilion, Los Angeles. 13 Sept. 2010. Schumacher, Patrik. The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Vol.1. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2011. Schumacher, Patrik. “The Parametricist Manifesto”. The Architects’ Journal May 2010. Schumacher, Patrik. “Parametricism: A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design”. Architectural Design 79.4 (July 2009): 14-23. Shouheng Sola-Morales, Ignasi de. “The Origins of Modern Eclecticism: The Theories of Architecture in Early Nineteenth Century France”. Perspecta Vol. 23 (1987): 120-133. Steele, James. Architecture and Computers: Action and Reaction in the Digital Design Revolution. New York: Watson-Guptill, 2002. Szalapaj, Peter. Parametric Propagation of Form. Architecture Week No. 139, 2003. 83

Terzidis, Kostas. Algorithmic Architecture. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2006. Ulmer, Gregory. Heirustics: The Logic of Invention. The John Hopkins University Press, 1994. Whyte, William H. and Paco Underhill. City: Rediscovering the Center. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1988.