Catherine Sellergren Arch 102 - Fall 2014
The introductory models for Architecture 102 imposed strict constraints and required three dimensional interpretation of an image in the form of a 12x12” tile. Using corrugated cardboard with a maximum thickness of twenty four layers and a minimum of one layer thin, I created two tiles based on Georgia O’Keefe’s painting Green Lines and Pink. My intent to create two very different models from the same image was realized by placing myself in the painting where I could examine the elements from above, behind, and from each side. I imagined O’Keefe’s work as a place where there was geography and topography, which offered a complexity to the image that I could build upon.
Manipulating the board to create variances allowed me to separate the elements, which in turn established the significance of the two central figures.
In my first iteration, I layered the board in order to recreate the shadows and highlights of the painting. Directional cutting allowed me to reveal the beauty of the corrugation.
For my second iteration, I wanted to create a landscape that would appear as mimic to O’Keefe’s work from one view, but create an unexpected vantage when explored from any other perspective. Subtle changes from layer to layer gives the effect of rolling hills. Elongating one of the two central elements introduces a depth that is unpredictable.
Advancing into gesture models, I placed my focus on form and the evocation of content. I responded to three qualities of human activity: waiting, reading, and throwing. I analyzed aspects of each of these activities, and designated three systems, each of which represented each activity. The model was to be non directional, 1:3 scale. I focused on the rectilinear form of books and chairs where one might sit to read; the trajectory of an item that is thrown; and the stagnant anticipation of waiting.
Exploring the capacity of my material was a prime focus with this model. I used chipboard to create defined forms and also movement, but the result felt closed and limited to a degree. I considered how I could begin to draw the elements together by merging the aspects and unifying them through a more integrated approach.
Expanding upon my original concept, I established repetition of the pentagonal form. I also wanted to create an illusion of continuous movement through the design with the curvilinear strips that weave around and through the piece. My exploration of the material was providing an increase in direction, though working towards a looser, increasingly integrated design was still a priority.
With my fifth model, I felt that I hit a comfortable stride in both design and comprehension of my direction and purpose. Breaking apart the closed elements allowed me to develop an interesting interaction between the components. My focus was to explore deeper aspects of the human activities of waiting, reading, and throwing. By qualitatively expanding the breadth of these activities, and subsequently paring my intentions down to specific assignments of the ways the activities can and do exist, I began to pinpoint my connection between my language and the model. “Suspension”, “fragmentation”, and “veering” became the drivers for this iteration. This directed exploration secured the meaning behind the form and how it came to existence.
Co-mingling the elements birthed a unification of my design and I began to notice how radically simple shapes and forms can transform when repeated, turned, and twisted. It was the exploration of the placement of the elements that provided me insights as to what would work and what wouldn’t within my design. I found many answers and even more questions from the building process. Mentally developing my design prior to building it became a goal.
Developing my concept of fragmentation further yet, and taking a progressively more linear approach led to model six. I applied the same strategy as I did with the previous model with the intention of using the same language to create a similar form that embraced space between the forms rather than the tighter central grouping of the previous. Through this exploration I began to adapt my design towards a site specific program, which was still unknown.
Addressing site, I manipulated the ground plane in order to use it as a design tool. I considered paths of human circulation in relation to the site as well as surrounding structures and topography. My intention with model seven was to create paths of travel between a campus building to the north of the site and the busy bus stop to the south. Using the ground level as open space defined by raised elements which form the edges of walkways, I explored the organization of my language so it may address the program’s needs. I broke free of the defined pentagon theme that had become a hindrance to my design exploration and applied my technique to varying shapes.
The program was presented as a multiple activity center which includes a four-lane bowling alley, a bookstore/cafĂŠ, and an exterior waiting space, bound by the CCSF Multi-use building to the north, Phelan Avenue to the east, the Phelan loop hub and fire station to the south, and apartments with ground floor retail to the west/southwest. Iteration eight focused on further developing the ground floor circulation and moving further away from pentagonal forms and towards larger free-form geometry in order to add complexity to the structure and interest to the design.
Model nine continued exploration of ground floor waiting and circulation space and I began to consider applying garden spaces to form the circulatory elements of the design. I began to visualize how people would actually use the space, their natural tendencies in interacting with a space, and in addition, the transition from one elevation to another between north and south.
I also began to experiment with organizing the spaces for the individual activities, loosely compartmentalizing areas for bowling lanes as well as bookstore. Creating an ascending form from west to east was a priority, as I envisioned the structure working as an arrow pointing up to the hilltop of the main part of campus. I also wanted to open up the space and effectively create series of canopies which would direct a line of vision from the multi-use building through my structure to the Phelan loop bus area.
My site drawings embraced perspective, proportion, and facts about the site and its surroundings. I observed the flow of human and vehicular traffic as well as the interactions between streets and buildings, trees and topography, and the overall composition of the area.
By studying the site from various vantage points, I gained a more thorough understanding of where I wanted to place my priorities in terms of my design. I felt that I could solve some problems in terms of current obstructions, in addition to beautifying a highly active corner of campus.
Model ten is beginning to address the specifics of program more attentively, but I feel that it was a mild failure in terms of my exploration of other forms which were responses to certain aspects of the site, such as light posts. I also created an unrealistic structure in terms of size. While I focused on addressing programmatic needs with various levels and transitions, I ignored the reality of size limitations. However, the general concepts of transition and developing space became more developed with model ten and applying those lessons to future designs is of great priority.
As I move forward with the progression of my design I look forward to balancing complexity and cohesion to develop a pleasing composition and functional design.
Pulling together the areas north and south of the site is my prime focus and learning how to create functional and aesthetically pleasing transitions between different spaces is exciting and enlightening. By incorporating new elements I pushed my design boundaries past my comfort zone, which was elemental to my learning.