Alex Jeffrey Siekierski 617.894.0664 siekierski.alex@gmail.com INTRODUCTORY REVIEW January 17th, 2012
ENGAGING SPACES: Architecture which can stimulate innovation through social interaction. Supported by collaboration and inspired by Montessori principles
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW OBJECTIVES: 1.
Address the addendum from my thesis proposal.
2.
Determine which site is best for my thesis exploration.
3.
Choose a design strategy & discuss comments/ concerns related to the program.
4.
Itemize goals for the Preliminary Review.
THESIS PROPOSAL ADDENDUM:
1) Reduce site - dovetail your project into a larger project that has been proposed on the same site, or find a smaller new site. The original site was zoned for 1.5 million square feet with a FAR of 4. My solution was to select a portion of the original proposed site. The location is closest to the channel containing an approximate area of 28,000 square feet. The smaller site consists of using two adjacent buildings areas which were proposed with the 100 Acre Master Plan. In addition to decrease the site area I also increased my proposed program too roughly 130,000 square feet. My program is subject to change slightly depending on the direction and exploration of scale within the selected site.
2) Test different program sizes with massing models on a site model, in scale. 3) Explore different design ideas & directions. 4) Get more design critics.
THESIS STATEMENT Can the engaging of multiple professions yield an environment for enhanced exchanging of information via collaboration and digital media? My thesis is about creating an environment for education, communication, technology, active learning, and collaboration. Key components of collaboration regard adaptability, visual connectivity, integration of nature, order, transformative spaces, layering of program, and the de-standardization of space types. With the standardization
of building uses come restraints on adaptability and functionality within spaces. In order for sharing of ideas and problem solving to occur, standard space types are no longer a determining factor for the success for the program. My overarching investigation is to create a resource center which can attract minds from different professions and trades. As a result I am providing an environment which can overlap the artists, mathematicians, philosophers, scientists, doctors and historians, to facilitate the birth of new ideas and provides the tools essential to bring them to life, all within a mutual environment that is safe for communicating ideas freely.
Montessori Design Attributes: 1. Openness within a space. 2. Clear visibility between adjacent spaces with adequate lighting. 3. Integrate nature within the context of the classroom. 4. The atmosphere must compliment the use. Montessori believed that the curriculum and the spaces they are taught in, must promote freedom, order, beauty and atmosphere, didactic materials, community life, and reality and nature. These concepts determined as the criteria of the Montessori approach which became critical in allowing the creative mind to flourish.. “Emphasis must be placed on visibility between activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher, and activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher and between the children.” For Montessori, visibility promoted freedom and the inclination that if the boundaries of a space can be minimized and the use can be adaptable, then architecture can begin to facilitate collaboration.
TERMS OF CRITICISM
Does the environment allow for its users to customize for the respected users, promote freedom through visual awareness between multiple spaces, use the architecture as part of the learning, bring in nature into the environment and bring the environment out into nature.
Does the building encourage social interaction and engagement between various users.
Will the building showcase the concept of active learning and engagement?
Does it provide an open and inviting environment?
Are the spaces arranged in a non-standard method that caters to a variety of learning styles which can be adaptive and flexible.
Does the building showcase multiple styles of learning in a completely new type of application. Does the building facilitate collaboration in both a physical and digital way.
METHODS OF INQUIRY
Resources, in which I am referencing, pertain to active learning and collaboration along with engaging environments. Due to the wide variety of spaces types in which these processes occur, my research and precedents include: assembly spaces, exhibition installations, institutional, public spaces, operas, and libraries. These project types/spaces all act in supporting both new trends in learning as well as bringing large groups of people together. Both tie back to my concept relating to integration of active learning within a collaborative environment, which can support innovative solutions.
How can architectural form, spatial relationships and visual openness of programmed elements facilitate and environment which alters the sensory receptors for an ideal learning atmosphere. I might try to answer this question by investigating space types which facilitate learning in a non-academic function. This will help me find references which I can explore beyond implementation in Universities.
Can a built environment based on academic principals look like a typology that is nonacademic? This research will be explored in the library and on-line, in order to further find new curriculums and typologies in which I might not know about. This will ensure that I am implementing my ideas into the appropriate program.
MISSION The mission is to create an active learning environment which cultivates innovation through social exchange. It is essentially to have the site working as part of this mission to support collaboration both within the building and outside within the surrounding context. The mission of my thesis is to create a melting-pot where education, culture, community, and nature are all working together to create a place for spending as well as leisure, and outdoor activities to take place. Ultimately I envision the thesis building type to become a part of the urban fabric in which it can create moments which had not occurred. In lesser of a word; the intention is to create an engaging architecture which a focus on natural integration both for experiencing open space and for the fostering of collaboration.
TERMINOLOGY engaging to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons): to occupy oneself; become involved: collaboration to work within a group towards a common goal: to bring together unlike minds in order to troubleshoot problems and generate new ideas: active learning is an approach to instruction in which students engage the material they study through engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Active learning stands in contrast to “standard” modes of instruction in which teachers do most of the talking and are passive. nonstandard not conforming to traditional architectural programming strategies adhering to a specific building typology. timebanking is a pattern of reciprocal service exchange that uses units of time as currency. Skillshare is a community marketplace to learn anything from anyone. We believe that everyone has something they want to learn and something they can teach to others. This means our communities are really the greatest universities. Our platform helps make the exchange of knowledge easy, enriching, and fun.
PLANNED RESEARCH
Visiting the Kingsley Montessori School at 30 Fairfield Street, Boston, MA Visiting the Genzyme Corporation at 64 Sidney St # 400, Cambridge, MA Visiting the Lulu Chow Wang Campus Center at 21 College Road Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481 Visiting the MIT Media Lab at 20 Ames St, Cambridge, MA Interviewing Peter Boyce II – Boston Manager & Co-Founder of Skillshare.
SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS *located at 100 Massachuessetts Avenue, 5th Floor Room 502
FAST TRACK SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 22rd, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday June 20th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday September 12th, 2012
EXTENDED SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 29th, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday September 12th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday November 7th, 2012
WEBLINK REFERENCES Thesis reviews will be scheduled through Doodle, gmail an outlook events can be sent out as well if requested: http://doodle.com/ Thesis document’s will be posted here for download: http://issuu.com/siekierski.alex/docs You can find my credentials and resume on linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexsiekierski Boston Architectural College: http://www.the-bac.edu/
http://www.the-bac.edu/Documents/Departments/Education/Thesis/MArch_Thesis_Handbook.pdf http://bacstudentprofiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/alex-siekierski-master-of-architecture.html
Local Time Banking Service http://timetradecircle.org/ Online Hosting for educational services http://www.skillshare.com/ Fort Point Channel Blog: http://www.fortpointboston.com/2008_04_01_archive.html Innovation District Website: http://www.innovationdistrict.org/ BRA | Planning Initiatives | Fort Point District Planning (100 Acres) http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=33
Alex Jeffrey Siekierski Masters Thesis Schematic Program Primary Space
Sub-Spaces
Room #
Qty
Unit Area
Area
1,100
2,200
Comments
General Use Shared Assignable Ground floor lobby/exhibits
2
Main Circulation/ Sitting Entrance Vestibules
2
1,200
0
96
192
Primary entry will remain larger
Entry Sitting Lounge
1
400
400
Reception/Security
1
200
200
Coat Check
1
100
100
Meeting Space/touchdown
1
1,000
1,000
public toilets male
1
120
120
public toilets female
1
180
180
1
200
200
Shower Rooms
2
50
100
one per sex
media library
1
150
150
wayfinding kiosk
Innovation/ Building Exhibit
1
400
400
retail area
1
1,200
1,200 small supply store for art and technology
CafĂŠtorium & Lounge
2
1,500
3,000
2
500
1,000
5
1,000
5,000
2
300
600
Information Area/ Memberships
office with cubicles
0 Food Prep Collaboration Rooms Canteens main auditorium & theater
has areas for collaboration
rentable conference spaces areas for quests to bring their own food
0
seating 300
1
3,600
3,600
stage
1
1,200
1,200
projection/control room
1
300
300
equipment storage
1
300
300
rear projection room
1
400
400
Open Air Garden/Courtyard
1
7,000
7,000
Small Winter Garden
6
250
Roof Top Greens
2
4,000
8,000
Similar to Oslo Operah House
2
500
1,000
Combination of open & partitioned
1
10,000
10,000
Total
49,342
0
0
0
Core Director - Office
1 1 1
180 150 200
180
Small Office Two Person Office Business Manager - Office
1
120
120
Administrative/Reception
1 1
Staff Conference Room Kitchennette and HC RR
1
100 100 250 150
100
Membership Records Storage
electrical equipment room
1
2000
2,000
support space
dancing/lectures
0
bull pen Green Artery Connection/ Classroom Space
multistory
1,500 dispursed throughout transitional spaces
0 Services & Back of House Office and Administrative
Supply Storage
1 1
150
150 200
100 250 150 150
Janitor Storage
3
60
180
Circulation
1
1500
1,500
Mechanical Spaces Boiler Room
1
3,000
3,000
1
1,000
1,000
Electrical Room
1
200
200
Pump Room
1
310
310
security office
1
80
80
loading dock
1
300
300
including copy/print areas
Public
Mixed
Private
postal service area
1
Vertical Circulation
1
100
100 0
Architectural Stair
1
900
900
Egress Stairs
2
600
1,200
6
100
600
Around Building
1
2,560
2,560
Attached Garage
1
20,000
20,000
Elevator Shafts Parking Area
per floor must include one freight elevator
0 160sf per spot, Summer Street New Ramp from Summer, Garage entry at mid level
0 0 0 0 Total
35,330
Artist's Community Lockers
1
150
150
Breakout Space Equipment Storage
1 3
100 150
100 450
Supply Storage
1
150
150
regular locker storage
Art Waste Holding
1
200
200
contaminated holding area
Artist Work Benches
4
2,000
8,000
used for class seminars
Kitchenettes
80 3,000
480 6,000
could be used for classes
Open work studios
6 2
Small Gallery
2
300
600
design room
3
150
450
green screen room & photo
1
400
400
locker/cage storage for artist's
demising capabilities
demisable
0 0 0 Total
16,980
Time Bank Services Skilshare Service Areas
0
Community Commons
3
600
1,800 multipurpose, breakout, open to circulation
teaming spaces
8
350
2,800
(fitness/meeting/therapy/art)
2
2,000
4,000
Open source Network areas
6 4
400 800
2,400 3,200
Can be used for class & collaboration
Digital Resource Rooms
3
1,000
3,000
Opened to a larger scale
Hoteling & Study Kennels
40
50
2,000
ARE/SAT/Bar Exam
Lecture Room 50 people
2
800
1,600
include food accomodations
Huddle Rooms 6-10 people
5
250
1,250
include food accomodations
Multifunctional Ammenities Digital Media Labs
Music
small tutoring/ training
0 Sound proof classroom
1
900
900
25 people at most
Soundproof Studios
3
250
750
also used as office space
Soundproof Practice Room
8
150
1,200
Donated Library
1
700
700
Reading Area
4
0
0
Imaginarium
1
2,000
2,000
Open forum creative space
Touchdown Hub / Tel Rooms
10
100
1,000
Spread through building
0 Total BUILDING TOTAL
130,252
28,600
Periodicals / references spread through common corridors