Final Learning Por-olio Thomas Biba
Itera6on 15 • •
• • • • •
Program: Experiment with sec6oning (wild construc6on), make a clear defini6on and dis6nc6on and difference between interior and exterior spaces defined Ques6ons: What is possible with sec6oning? How far can I stretch the rules and how can I even break them? What new insights could the rapid approach to building and construc6on provide? Analysis of elements: varia6on, Strength : Complexity, Varia6on of sec6oning approaches (axial, radial, ver6cal, pedal), some ordering present, inside space is very dis6nct form exterior form Weaknesses: craR could be refined, more could be done with perceived entry paths, ordering could be more inten6onal, inside space could be more clearly defined, Conclusion: Deepened understanding and applica6on of varied sec6oning approaches achieved, inside and outside spaces defined Hypothesis: use this model to hypothesis how you would alter design if this were built on monumental scale
This form became my liberation from the uninhabitable models to thinking about inhabiting, but what I had not yet discovered was the deep meaning, significance, and architectural important of site LeR is a photo of the inside looking up ver6cally and as you can see is no6ceably dis6nct in rela6on to exterior form. To the right is a photo of the sketch that envisioned what this would look like if it were blown up to a human scale, this is what began my mental transi6on from studio to life size planning.
Field Studies •
•
•
The field study project was my introduc6on to the 6p of the iceberg of the meaning of site. The analysis was mainly about spaces and their. geometry and how that influences feelings, which create experiences. This was the founda6on point of me learning about how to craR 3 dimensional human inhabitable experiences through the spaces. Here I began to learn the algorithms, of the language of crea6ng emo6onal experiences with geometrical forms. I learned that 6ght, geometrically confining spaces (exist mainly as right angles) (angles that create divisions) angles that are most prominent in human built environments.. These confining spaces encourage you to move from closing in spaces to spaces that open up In the photo on the right of the “built world” of the embarcadero center (it seems the architect knew this but misused it) the ver6cally confining spaces lead you laterally outward to find the ver6cally unconfined space. (this was my primary learning from my study of the built environment) (more examples…
- In my study of glen canyon to the left, the feeling of awe, wonder, freedom, openness filled me. I observed how the v shape that opened towards the sky in the form of the canyon created this feeling. Outward upward slopes jutting out at about 60 degrees create this openness (the same degree within all angles of an equilateral triangle) - the lesson I learned from this place was that nature is primarily open, open spaces cause you to move more calmly slowly and peacefully, and make you feel unconfined . . . Even when there is the sense of enclosure, the feeling is still openness because the density of natural environments is characterized not by complete enclosure but by fragmentary enclosure, where space if defined not confined
•
•
•
•
Field Study
Upon further study of the natural environment I learned some key datum about specific special experiences of par6al enclosure, nurturing feel, and plays on light that would all be of great significance to the final product of our final instala6on..li]le did we know how important that may have been. In space to the right, in a redwood grove as observed at glen canyon we discovered how, “gentle, par6ally dense” enclosure can create a warm soR, nurturing feeling environment In the image below this cap6on we discovered the wonder and intricate complexity in this phenomenon in nature of the permeable skin, that defined space but didn’t feel confining, it felt opening as well, because the space could breath, physically, visually, and geometrically. As we moved into site study, which is the next slide I tried to apply the tools for analysis I had learned in the field study exercise.
As we walked back onto the concrete I realized how the softness of nature’s ground gave with the pressure of my foot, whereas the concrete did not give, it didn’t adjust to fit me, it was hard, and it wasn’t an interactive and rich experience, in comparison to the softer grounds with varying densities and pressures and textures
Site Study •
•
•
•
As I sat in the “hilltop” area behind the courtyard behind bat mail hall, a sat medita6vely by myself for a few hours. I consciously or unconsciously recalled what I had learning from the previous exercise where we explored the built and the natural. I had such dras6cally different experiences in the built and the natural environments that when on this site the existence of both of those forces was even more apparent, almost to the point where the built was unbearable and that it was imposing not only on the individual but on the natural environment that exists just across the new access road behind the retaining wall. This feeling guided me to a very specific pinpointed spot (in the upper leR photo marked by the umbrella), where I felt that I had escaped the influence of the built environment and had found refuge in the apprecia6on of nature, and this framed view. This drove me in my first site specific itera6on (in the following slide) to seek to highlight that pinpointed area where you were just far enough away from the air-‐ condi6oners of Batmail not to quite be able to hear them; instead what prevailed was the sound of the birds chirping in the trees across the road to the north.
View toward “nature”, chirping birds, and sense of tranquility
Itera6on 16
The bo]om leR photo shows an aerial view of the site. The open end of the structure would face north a which on the photo is (up or foreword) – even though the structure would be underneath the trees in the photo, the photo serves as a reference point for the context of the experience described in the analysis of this itera6on
• •
• • • • • •
Program: Create a structure that blocks out experience of the built world on site, through filtering sound and framing a view using a structural form that communicates serenity. Ques6ons: What materials best block out sound? What does it feel like to transi6on from a world of human dominated space into a sanctuary celebra6ng and capturing sudden experience of nature? What would that transi6on feel like and what would be the meaning of it in the experience? Analysis of elements: Rear wooden wall, trapped roof skin with wood frame suppor6ng it, frames views cut into bent plywood, wrapped around wood frame Ra6onale: Rear wall would block out sound, roof would allow lots of con6nuous natural light. The rear rounded wall would be predominantly south facing and the main opening would be north facing. Strengths: Sensi6ve to sound + framed views of specific site – the experience could only exsist there, enclosure created, Weaknesses: threshold experience is too abrupt, there is only one main node, and no real pathways, framed views are not the most specific in their direc6on, no journey Conclusion: Not full understanding of site specificity, but good first a]empt, the spirit and inten6on is there, but the evolving tectonic language is not yet developed Hypothesis: Create a structure that serves the same purpose but that has different dis6nct nodal experiences, and pathways linking them.
Top –node 1, entry way, right wide node 2 framed view of north facing nature scene • • • •
• • • •
Program: Create mul6modal experience that blocks out the built and slowly transi6ons you from built environment to the final nature apprecia6on point Ques6ons: How can you create a journey with mul6modal approach that slowly unfolds and provides you with gradual changes that slowly reveal the awe of nature to the person experiencing the journey? Analysis of elements and materials: wood frame, poten6ally tarp stretched across it. Ra6onal: As you enter near the emergency road leading into upper deck of Bat mail, you hear air condi6oners, as you pass into first node, sound is blocked out by a wooden wall, as you travel to second node you get farther from sound, entering into second node you see frames view of northern micro – forest, but it is not a complete view, this encourages you to precede to next node where you see hills to southeast, the around to the final node which opens vivaciously outward in obtuse angles that jehson you off into the experience of the trees and endless sky Strength: Strong mul6modal design that creates a gradually changing experience through framed views, ad the geometrics of the spaces which frame those views that the feelings they convey, Weaknesses: not very feasible to build Conclusion: Idea and understanding of how to craR journey achieved, also growing understanding of site specific site responsive spaces Hypothesis: apply evolving concept of this unfolding journey and deepen and refine the meaning and the specifics of the journey
Itera6on 17
Itera6on 18 • • At this point, our team was slowly gehng a be]er idea of our group • concept and place. My team decided we are going to use • space around three trees so I had to alter my design around that new element • •
•
• •
Program: redefine experience previously craRed to incorporate the three trees on the site into design. Ques6ons: What is the evolving context of my story and how can it expand to incorporate the experience of the trees on the site Analysis of elements: each spherical-‐like oblong form surround each tree Ra6onale: expansion and contrac6on of space is supposed to create a hide and revealed effect to the experience of every newly experienced tree space. On the journey you cannot see everything full up ahead Strengths: interes6ng formal response to trees Weaknesses: not very site specific, no defined entry ways or exits, no clear way to build this structure (maybe with pvc piping) (unclear how a]achments would happen) needs more integra6on conceptually with narra6ve Lingering ques6ons: What is the meaning of the bowing of each of the spaces? How can form and geometry be more responsive to the form of the trees? How can this form of expansion and contri6on be elaborated upon? Conclusion: interes6ng form created that expands on the experience of the nature of a “general journey” Hypothesis: in next itera6on further refine this spa6al evolu6on of the experience of a journey, and more specifically the specific type of journey you want to create
Itera6on 19 •
•
•
• •
• •
Program: further evolve this developing form that further enunciates the specific nature of the experience I want to create Ques6ons: How can the form of the last itera6on be improved upon? How is it 6meless? How can it be materially and structurally built? Analysis of elements: similar form to last design except each node gets larger as you progress past each tree, and each pathway gets smaller as you progress signifies nature of journey as life expands you have to navigate through harder contrac6ons Strenths: defined entry and exit, more defined form and experience, sec6oning approach using wood Weaknesses: how is the general defini6on of a journey relevant and credible to specific narra6ve? Not so feasible Conclusion: deeper understanding of general journey, needs to be more specific Hypothesis: general framework for journey is there in place, now focus on making each nodal experience unique
Itera6on 20 •
• •
•
Program: experiment with nodal experience and the deeper meaning of tree and use of wood, and celebra6on of nature as inconsistent philosophies Analysis of elements: “built wood” sharp and acute appears to pierce through the bark “unadulterated wood” Ra6onale: needs to be a response and commentary on the to use wood in our installa6on because it is cheep and I have experience with it, how can we use this to our advantage? Tree would be at center Strengths: tectonically complex, shards would appear to pierce tree… this could be a powerful message if maybe used at a first node to describe on experience then the next nodes could describe an apposing experience
• Weaknesses: minimalist, not specific enough with respect to narrative about conflict between man and nature, not site specfic • Conclusion: • Hypothesis:find way to integrate this concept discovered into a larger whole.
Itera6on 21
• •
• •
Program: come up with more economical concept for incorpora6ng of three trees in design Pros: use of less material, sec6oning, nodes are s6ll responsive to each other even thought they are not physically very connected except by pathway Cons: to bone dry, not enough credible material, doesn’t define a specific experience Hypothesis: explore more into materials so you can make a more economical design in a different vien
Itera6on 22 • •
•
•
Program: conduct nodal explora6on into the repurposing of materials Pros: successfully repurposed pumpkin, made abstract, not clear that it is a pumpkin at first glance metaphorically and physically this same process can be done with found wood. Cons: Can be a in efficient process, repurposing could be a more difficult method, also the the craR of the forms are not smooth and refined. Hypothesis: try another nodal design experiment with a structure that would use wood common to buy at hardware stores.
Itera6on 23 •
• • •
Program: Explore use of stright pieces of wood to create more biomorphic form Strengths – biomorphic form achieved Weaknesses – to familiar, and now new and inova6ve Hypothesis: take knowledge form nodal experiments and apply the toa design that works around three trees
•
•
• •
Program: re-‐use/reevaluate earlier mul6-‐ nodal design nodal design in itera6on 21, how does it map onto narra6ve expressed in itera6ons16 and 17? Pros: expansion and progression built upon from itera6ons 18 and 19, diagonal lines create sense of movement, the forms are biomorphic, the can6lever structures have unity, varia6on, hierarchy rhythm and repe66on Cons: to simplis6c, not enough specific relevant content Hypothesis: Try same approach ut with different nodal experiment
Itera6on 24
•
•
• •
Itera6on 25
Program: create nodal experience that communicates reverence for trees following nodal model of previous itera6ons Pros: more complex parabolic forms mimic form of tree and respond in crea6ng space around tree more sacred Cons: craR, s6ll the “nodal model” doesn’t seem unified Hypothesis: expand on the learning or the parabolic shape mimicking the tree, and then revisit la]er problem in next itera6on
Itera6on 26 •
•
Program : refine design that communicates reverence for tree, experiment with different poten6al materials and are realis6c Pros, form of reverence achieved through send of eleva6on of diagonal forms, complexity and intricacy, use of rope and tarp to create lahce structure adds more skinning possibili6es, wood would be used for core structure
Cons: form perhaps a little too intense due to more extreme angles for fully communicating reverence, Lattice idea has promise but could be tacky and potential vulnerable to wind. Buthow to the two structural types unify Hypothesis: apply this to an allegory
Itera6on 27
Program: Use the Plato’s allegory of the cave to guide your specific journey construc6on using typified material described in previous itera6on with the goal of trying to make one conscious of something, through the experience of they journeys • Pros: journey mapped out through tectonic language of first rec6linear shapes in node 1 and then pointy shapes in node 2, and then opening biomorphic shapes in node 3. nod e1 communicate built world but also being in the “cave” in the allegory the represents ignorance. As you move to node to it gets spiky with maps onto leaving the cave it is painful leaving the built world behind, then node 3 is the light at the end of the tunnel to freedom of the truth which communicates reverence for tree and then has opening to nature. To the realer and truer world. I think this is decently successful • Cons: enclosure and rela6onship of tarp structure to wood en structure could be be]er defined (cave would be full enclosure (what I have here is just par6al enclosure , also how are the people going to receive the message of the allegory -‐ •
• This slide maps out the journey in the prospec6ve of the alker
Conclusion: narrative refined and basis for more growth achieved Hypothesis: work with group to expand on your own ideas and to contribute usefully, but not overbearingly. research tarp technologies and wood and joint technologies
Itera6on 27
My concept for Space • Evolved to fit all three trees • rope system to support lahce pieces of tarp sews across it • Wooden structured pathways with extensions to create internal experiences
Research on materials • •
•
•
•
Ques6on: What are material considera0ons for frame and surface components? Skin – Use of tarp – for crea6ng weather proof and poten6ally sound reducing surfaces and facades Connec6ons – Grip clips (shown above) are a joint fastening material invented by “Shelter Systems” – they are used to grip tarps without puncturing holes in them – and are very strong – Sewn loops, sewn onto tarp as shown in upper right most picture and further described at h]p:// www.backpacking.net/makegear/cat-‐tarp/ index.html Frame – Wood – holding tarp in space – Rope – holding tarp from tree to ground Ques6on: What are the most resourceful structural types that can be considered for this project? Why? – Equilateral triangles – because they are strong, visually interes6ng, and can be used as a sub shape (or theme of forms) to create more complex forms that are either biomorphic in nature or more rec6linear in form
To the right is an image describing how to sew seams of two tarps together in a structurally strong way
Evolu6on of Group Concept •
•
Individual Ideas to Group idea – Julio – morphogenesis and change – relates back to his biography topic of balance and nature – Kevin – interest in peacefulness of nature and sacredness – Crystal – interest in biomorphic lahce like structures – Thomas – philosophizing about consciousness “human dominance” of people growing up into city life Deciding and Refining Group Idea –
4 node design with concept of mans dominance over nature as theme • Node 1 – communicate man’s dominance over nature – rec6linear on outside and inside • Node 2 – nature power over man, biomorphic on outside, rec6linear inside • Node 3 – example of human in harmony with nature biomorphic inside and out • Node 4 – a interwoven harmony of natural and synthe6c material s and interior and experience biomorphic and rec6linear shapes • This journey is meant to communicate the intricacies of the complex conversa6on and conflict between man and nature that we iden6fied as being characterized by the site • We chose to cut down to 2 trees instead of 3 for shear reality of cost of materials and pheasbility in 6me we had been alloted
To the left shows a diagram which “imperfectly” documents our group’s process for deciding on a unified design. We all came up with a few refined proposals, which we drew all the possibilities on this board, then we voted on the one that we felt was the most efficient and credible design to carry out our narrative and program •
•
Group Itera6on 1
Fundamental Ques6on: From all aspects researched, what are the most inspiring approaches and why? – I think the 4 nodal design was most inspiring because it was provoca6ve layered and imbued with complex story journey message and execu6on through fairly clear tectonic language SWOT Analysis of – Strengths – concept is strong and tectonic language is strong and narra6ve is strong – Weaknesses – the use of materials could be to literal (branches for biomorphic) lumber for rec6linear, each node seams like its own separate insula6on, lacks unity – Opportuni6es – are for growth in use and repurposing of materials (blending) – Threats – this design could be unfeasible because could be too much material
Beginning Construc6on
•
•
We built frame base for node 1 of our planned design and through the amount of 6me this took we realized the rest of our design is not feasible So we went back to the drawing boards, but looked to work from the solid founda6on already created
Problem Our design was too complex (we already heavily simplified it) and guess what – jerry knew it – he came up with an idea about creating a morphing shape emanating from the frame base we had already built and we ran with the idea Through this proccess I discovered a deaper sense of what it meant to be site specific and how the language of tectonics was truly spoken Evolution in understanding of true meaning of site specificity and its application
Change in Design • •
•
Skin – Twine – semi-‐permeable skin (like we had seen in Connec6ons – Wooden joints craRed out of stacking 1x4’s on 2x4’s and sandwiching them with cut pieces of plywood Frame – Wood – connected 1x4, 2x4, and 2x1’s ver6cal pieces – Ques6on: What are the most resourceful structural types that can be considered for this project? Why? – Equilateral triangles – because they are strong, visually interes6ng, and can be used as a sub shape (or theme of forms) to create more complex forms that are either biomorphic in nature or more rec6linear in form • We would end up using a form of this in our joint technology
Groups Itera6ons 2 (second approach • •
Idea based on re-‐evaluated approach based on alightnments to batmail and visual arts exten6on New understnading of site specificity through tectonic language emerged – Ques0on: From all aspects researched, what are the most inspiring appraoches that have relevance to this Project and why? – Eventually this would evolve into the concept that in the context of a built dominant physical and psychological world wrought with fast pace life, and nero6c scedules behaviors and social preasures, we forget the beauty, awe, presence and power of nature
Construc6on of First Node •
SWOT Analysis of – Strengths – Form achieved, craR achieved, learning achieved, through facing challenge off broken jiont – Weaknesses – – –
Opportuni6es – what to do for the skin? Threats – what to do for the skin? Construc6on of node 2 with 6me constraints
Break in foundation due to storm
Joint fastening solutions
Construc6on of Node 2 •
Swot – Strengths • Efficiency based on established and repe66ve system – Weaknesses • Close to deadline – Opportuni6es • Learning the ease of building when you have structural systems in place for connec6ons established before work on site – Threats – Being viewed as incomplete by judges
Ins6lla6on Comple6on
Installa6on Tes6ng and Analysis •
Three people independently all described a essen6ally similar experience, when journeying through the structure. – Every person independently reported as they walked through, without being ques6oned, that they felt confined as they walked through the geometrically overarching angles of the north west most node, and as they moved into the second they felt liberated and welcomed into a space in the second node where they responded by pleasant sighs of relief, and then most came to sit at the highest bench and one perosn remarked ….it feels like I am meant to sit here (as though they felt it was the most natural place to sit. – Was this the response of the Judges??? • •
Chandler – elements of first space could be more established, and excentuated Skin on second node could be more established
– Demonstra6ng how this process made made people conscious of their feelings by captured the extremes of two spa6al experiences and juxtaposing them in the context of inters66al space.
Post Mortem • Strengths: the final outcome of the design and the experience created, the design goals achieved the experiences a]ained the deep mul6faceted group learning and building intelligence and awareness, and the response of the community and the sparking of rich social interac6ons were all strengths • Weaknesses: fullness and completeness and the end product and the facts and reali6es and sufferings of having to adjust on site, as a result of not having the most concrete plan in the beginning in the lab • Opportuni6es: more tes6ng of experience of different people walking through structure, true and honest and relaxed celebra6on of comple6on. • Challenge remaining: Refining the skin on node 2
Advice to Future 101 students • •
Reflec6ons Medita6ons – Free your mind • For the first half of the coarse feel what is within you – seek to honestly express yourself through form of the modeled itera6ons • For the second half of the coarse learn to feel the space around you, your site, let its presence fill you, and allow every element that makes that space what it is (the sounds the, sunlight touching your skin, your eyes gazing in direc6on, the feeling of the ground on your feet and the wind in your bones, and once you know inside yourself what it truly feels like to be in that space, then you have the informa6on and the capacity to realize it, and craR your vision for how you want to mold the experience of the space, (how would you take the world that is and make a be]er world?) .. Once you know what is… then you can create…