1
2
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Research 01. Introduction 02. Notes 03.Space 04. Curriculum 05. People 06. Three Schools 07. Existing Schools 08. Conclusions B. Site 01. Historal Analysis 02. Climatic Analysis 03. Topographic Analysis 04. Drawings 05. Models C. Application
D. Conclusions
4
5
NOTES
Acting closly like a journal, these notes helped me develop a dialog with myself in an informal manner. I would often let loose- text became my stress ball.
6
(Fig. XX) Expectation vs. Reality Sketch, 07 Oct. 2015
7
UNCOMFORTABLE I am uncomfortable. I can certainly diagram ideas, but can I write? After all, isn’t there a reoccurring joke that very few actually write in architecture school? In fact, yes there is. Those who view architecture schooling from the outside have a tendency to call our work ‘advanced arts and crafts’, playfully mocking student’s abstract models and drawings as something a bit elementary. Yet, I cannot blame their astuteness for pointing out how our value system has shifted to celebrate those who can draw, build, and converse about architecture. Have we forgotten about writing? Aside from the occasional history paper (the topic most likely about Mies, Corbusier, or any other architectural god), writing within architecture schools is an ancient way of expressing thoughts, hunches, or ideas. It is, rather, a report- a way of saying ‘here’s what I’ve found’ as opposed to saying ‘here’s what I think.’ How can an amateur writer, such as myself, begin to convert thought through text while avoiding a bombastic tone? It is no wonder why I am so uncomfortable- I have forgotten how to write! (11.06.15)
MONUMENTALITY VS. NUANCE It seems that there is a trend to suggest all projects need to demolish the notion of what a building actually is. That in order to be successful, one must question everything, while simultaneously prescribing new foundations to build a new world upon. The looming pressure to propose something monumental is, perhaps, a distraction. I would like to contribute to the architectural community a project that will have positive impact as opposed to one which may be used as an example of superficialness. To overthink this project is to kill this project. (11.07.15)
8
9
INTRODUCTION
Text goes here.
10
11
SPACE
Text goes here.
12
13 X
“Flexibility is critical because that ground, that platform, is not just a ground for work. It’s the ground for graduation, it’s the ground for the Beaux Arts Ball... It’s the every space.” “Education is about collaboration. It’s about the physical interaction of problem solving and doing things together.”
Tehrani, Nader. “Arriscraft Lecture: Nader Tehrani.” YouTube, 14 Oct. 2014
14
15
CURRICULUM
Text goes here.
16
17 X
“…we’re still foreseeing on the old fashioned model of teaching architecture where the question seems to be ‘what does this individual want to do with her life?’ rather than ‘what needs to happen in society?’” “Given the shift eastwards, the shift towards regimes that are not necessarily purely democratic, the shift to other cultures, requires, at this moment, a fundamental rethinking and understanding of our territory” Koolhaas, Rem. “Strelka Research Themes.”Vimeo. Strelka Institute, 20 Apr. 2011
18
19
PEOPLE
Text goes here.
20
21 X
“In the end it’s about people. Not buildings, not curriculum (always a seat of blame for over-comfortable faculty), not necessarily location (though that does help). To the discomfort of many, it is about who runs the place, their Diaghilevian skill and maybe, the example- even if you hate it- of what they do themselves.”
Peter Cook, Killing Creativity, Architectural Record, 2015
22
(Fig. XX) School I: Efficient Model Axonometric drawing
23
SCHOOL I: EFFICIENT MODEL adjective: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort, having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable. The Efficient Model is based on the idea that a school can revolve, and evolve, concentrically in order to achieve a spatial layout that is logical, simplistic, and understandable. A common problem among schools of architecture is a lack of space. Moreover, studio spaces tend to be cramped and cluttered with copious amounts of materials, study models, and books. While congestion has the potential to create a culture of shared ideas and work, this model views clutter as a negative. As a solution to this common problem, bookshelves are used in replacement of traditional walls. The school becomes a living archive of work, celebrating the rigor and process of its students and faculty. Shelves radiate from a center point in rings, forming a series of linked corridors. Starting at the center of the school, the cafÊ welcomes students and guests to converse, collaborate and connect. Its key location serves as the school’s social nucleus. Next, the second ring serves as a formal pin-up space for students to present and exhibit work. Fixed, tiered seating for viewers frees the area of clumsy (and noisy) movable furniture. The third ring hosts the design studios. With ample storage, students are able to work in clutter-free studio spaces with designated areas for computer use and model construction. Lastly, the perimeter ring stores the school’s books and archives as well as individual study rooms. The traditional library certainly promotes silent focus and discipline, yet lacks certain areas for individual focus. As a way to limit distraction, these personal focus spaces provides students individual rooms with a desk, chair, and skylight. Just as the design studio promotes collaborative work, the individual focus spaces promote isolation and attention. Pros 1. There is no vertical circulation. The entire model operates on one plane. 2.If needed, the school can add additional rings, allowing for circulation paths to remain the same. Cons 1. Maneuvering around the perimeter ring can be excessive and exhausting. 2. Noise can travel between rings if bookshelves are empty.
24
(Fig. XX) School I: Efficient Model Vignette
25
26
(Fig. XX) School II: Dense Model Axonometric drawing
27
SCHOOL II: DENSE MODEL adjective: having the component parts closely compacted together, crowded or compact. The Dense Model attempts to create a space where the consolidation of program and square footage is viewed as a positive endeavor. Traditionally, architecture schools have separated and fragmented spaces based on their function. This fragmentation contributes to the school’s need to constantly expand, as space somehow always runs out. Instead, the dense model examines a traditional architecture school program with intention to consolidate the quantity of rooms. Remaining true to the traditional method of isolation based on function, this humpy dumpty method of putting the architecture school back together again seeks to consolidate the many functional spaces of school into three clear, simplified areas: a room for repose, a room for work, and a room for building. The school is simplified to three rooms. At the ground level, the room for repose consists of a cafÊ and exhibition spaces; a connection is made between the school and the public, welcoming guests to socialize and explore student work. Next, the second level hosts the room for work. A coiled linear desk wraps throughout the room, allowing students to work closely together. Certain spaces between the coiled desk can double and classrooms and lecture halls. Above, the room for building allows students to craft intricate models using advanced machinery. In plan, the school takes the shape of a square. This logical shape becomes illogical once a necessary core is placed, say, in the center of the building. To avoid a disruption of sight lines within each room, the core is fragmented and placed along the perimeter of the building. Pros 1. Density of the program can create unique opportunities for learning. 2. Ground floor doubles as an uninterrupted connection to the community, which can lead to exposure. 3. As curriculum evolves and reshapes certain spaces, the school is less likely to renovate and accommodate for such change. Cons 1. Division of program based on floors creates disconnect between functions.
28
(Fig. XX) School II: Dense Model Traditional vs. Fragmented cores
29
30
(Fig. XX) School II: Shell Model Axonometric drawing
31
SCHOOL III: SHELL MODEL noun: i) any of various objects resembling such a covering, as in shape or in being more or less concave or hollow; ii) a hard, protecting or enclosing case or cover. The Shell Model explores the idea of establishing a school within an existing structure, usually of a classical or industrial type. Historically, a majority of architectural programs acted as nomadic tribes- migrating from building to building, calling home to structures designed for a different purpose. Thus, within this context, the architecture program and architecture building can be viewed as two distinctive and heterogeneous entities. Programs that were within a campus setting likely adopted a more classical building, whereas those which operated in cities made home on the periphery, most likely in an abandoned warehouse. In order to make the spaces suitable for faculty and students, interventions, mostly to interior walls and floor plates, were usually required. Rarely was the exterior manipulated, as classical structures needed to blend in with its neighboring academic buildings, and industrial buildings tended to provide adequate lighting through its punched windows. An existing industrial structure was chosen as a model to test this type of school. The nearly 450-foot long double-height warehouse is flanked by a single-height space with perimeter columns, also as long as the warehouse. Support program, as well as vertical circulation, is located within the single story volume, as well as locations on the warehouse’s second floor. The uninterrupted ground floor of the warehouse then becomes the school’s shared public space- a flex zone for a variety of uses. Pros 1. Systems concerns are limited, as structural members are usually built into the façade of the building. 2. Floor plates can easily be manipulated and removed to create double-height spaces. 3. Freedom to use open space allows for students to work on larger scale projects, opening up possibilities to work with new mediums of representation. Cons 1. The vastness of industrial buildings can create pockets of isolation. 2. The building’s shared space has potential to become an avenue of distraction and recreation, filled with loitering students focused on casual conversation rather than critical discourse.
32
(Fig. XX) School III: Shell Model Vignette
33
34
35
36
(Fig. XX) University of Arizona
37
(Fig. XX) Auburn Univeristy
38
(Fig. XX) California Polytechnic State University
39
(Fig. XX) City College of New York
40
(Fig. XX) Clemson University
41
(Fig. XX) Cornell University
42
(Fig. XX) Georgia Institute of Technology
43
(Fig. XX) Columbia University
44
(Fig. XX) Miami University of Ohio
45
(Fig. XX) University of Michigan
46
(Fig. XX) Rice University
47
(Fig. XX) Southern Californis Institute of Architecture
48
(Fig. XX) Tulane University
49
(Fig. XX) University of Southern California
50
(Fig. XX) Yale University
51