The FINAL Review

It's the day after our review. After a good night's sleep and some time to reflect upon our review, I thought I'd put up one last post summarizing our presentation and our feedback. We had to present twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Both were totally different conversations but brought up interesting ideas and feedback.


PRESENTATION:

An Introspective Learning Community

Site Analysis
We began by studying our site at the corner of Wabash and Van Buren in the heart of the South Loop of Chicago. We analyzed the shadow and light on our site by building a model in Digital Project that treated the shadows as three-dimensional forms. We studied the conditions throughout the school day on the summer and winter solstice in order to understand the extremes of light and shadow. Through this analysis we realized that light is especially scarce during the morning and afternoon. We cut plans and sections of our shadow model to understand the varying qualities of light across the site. This allowed us to place program according to the light requirements of each program type. For example, we placed the auditorium on the west side of the site because it is the darkest location due to the shadows of the CNA building and the other taller buildings surrounding our site. We placed the gym on the north side of the site, because this is also a location which does not receive much light. We felt it was important for the art, science and music rooms to have indirect northern light so these are located at the north side of the south building. The dining hall is on the east side in order to receive diffused light. The analysis also influenced the form of our building, which we will address later.

Four Buildings, One School
We designed our school as four separate buildings to recreate the urban environment on a smaller, more manageable scale. As a result our building educates students on how to live in the city. Students are required to travel vertically within each building, similar to the way a city requires its inhabitants to reach interior spaces. Four buildings surround a central atrium which serves as the playground and a communal place for all of the students to interact.

We considered a day in the life of a sixth grader as a way to present the various other students a child might encounter during the school day; it mirrors the life of a city dweller or commuter. In the morning, all of the students enter the ground level circulation space and filter up into their respective buildings and their individual classrooms. Here in the community circulation space all of the grades cross paths with one another. Upon entering his school, the sixth grader will encounter students of all ages: Pre-K through Eigth graders. Around noon, he would leave his sixth grade classroom to eat lunch in the dining hall with 6th, 7th and 8th graders. Then he would attend recess in the courtyard with 5th and 6th graders. Then they would travel back to their classrooms and later, at the end of the day, exit the school through the ground floor circulation, again having the opportunity to interact with all grade levels.

Unifying through Form
The atrium of our building encloses the learning community and physically connects all four buildings. The form of our atrium reflects our experiments in fluidity and part to whole relationship of the individual buildings and the school. We used Digital Project as a tool to create flexible connections and a more fluid overall form. The atrium also shows our ideas about light by flattening toward the south end to receive more light and folding more on the north end; reaching up for light.

Responding to Light Conditions
Our design uses height variations to optimize the quality and quantity of light according to programmatic needs. The north building is the tallest and reaches up for light since this an area with dense shadows. The south building is the lowest in order to reduce the amount of shadows our building casts on itself; it also allows more light to enter our site and the central atrium where it will then diffuse and spread out to reach the other buildings. We also based the heights of the east and west buildings on our shadow analysis; the west building is taller to extend past the shadows of the CNA building. We used curves to create an even distribution of quantity and quality of light throughout the day in the classrooms. This way we were able to treat the classrooms equally with regard to light. At one point in the day each building should receive direct light but then also receive equal diffused light throughout the day. The terraces line up on the north side and peel away at rotating angles to bring more light into the classrooms and open up the middle of the building. These terraces provide opportunities for skylights, bringing toplighting into the darker classrooms, and create occupiable extensions of the shared program (ex. library has an exterior reading room).

Early Study Models

We experimented with Rhino and Digital Project in order to find ways our building could step back for light and achieve terracing without using rectangular blocks. These studies helped us understand the sheer volume of program.

Next we explored a diagrammatic method of creating four buildings and a central courtyard by using cones in digital project. These cones were guided by several sketches of overlapping circles. We used connect curve commands in Digital Project to connect these cones fluidly into one overall form. However, the circles did not work well with our program.

We decided to reorganize our site and our geometry. We used a larger radius for the curves, creating bands of classrooms and wrapped them around larger pieces of program on the ground floor. We also capped each building with shared program.

We created further study models using horizontal circulation before deciding that this method of circulation would not be very useful or economical.

Our work culminated with an urban inspired model using vertical circulation to mimic the movement within the city.

FEEDBACK:

Morning Critique:
-The interior courtyards in our project were under appreciated. Vivian pointed out that capping them with shared program blocks light from these courtyards. Jen said to allow those forms to relax, become thin, and extend up.

-We don't have to engage the building to the north of our site. It could pull away from that building, letting light in the back and creating a fourth bean-like building. Or this building could be deleted and could play with and rotate the other three buildings.

- We should engage the "L", although Lisa and I wanted to use the circulation as a buffer from the "L". We discussed the idea of switching the stairs from level to level, instead of having scissor stairs.

- Create "erasable" boundaries of shared program on the ground floor.

- Consider reflected light, and re-analyze the light within our building as we initally analyzed the light on our site. The atrium will change the quality and quantity of light within our building.

-Glen mentioned that we should have an entry level to playground connection.

-We could work in section more, for example allow the space overlooking the gym to be opened up.
-Show how lively the atrium is.

-Work on designing the courtyard space.

-Level 0 is very dark, perhaps pierce the courtyard to allow light to enter this circulation space.

-Inhabit the atrium skin. How can you get up there to experience the skin?

-Make the circulation flow more. For example, there should be a flow from the buildings into the atrium.

Afternoon Critique:
-Can form change the program? Attitude of the program does not relate to the extravagance of form. At the same time they said our building worked, but was missing a provocative element.

-Make the schools respond to the atrium. What is the interaction in this space? The void should be at a human scale.

-The void space could contain a tropical garden, or some other odd program.

-Could the building have connections across the atrium for a more spatial experience and allow the children to explore. Appeal to the children's curiosity. Lisa and I avoided this because we felt that it would create a mall-like feel within the building which we thought didn't fit well with the goals of our school.

-Reconsider the un-programmed collective spaces

-Auditorium could take advantage of terracing. The terraces create the seating. Lisa and I had talked about this in our initial terraced model.

-Re-engage the city

-Design the courtyard space, allow it to influence the form of the classrooms. This is something which Lisa and I had talked about earlier in our project and tried to re-visit. It still needed some work.

-There needs to be a better reason for raising the atrium up one level above the ground. Why not make it an extension of the city? Reason other than security? Lisa and I also thought of our widened ground floor circulation as an alternative playground which the kids start off and end their day it. However, it does need more light.
-We discussed both the "gold" digital project model and our current design. I agreed with Craig's comments that although we like the aesthetic of the gold model, there are no classrooms in it and there are problems with it that don't exist in our current model. He said that the gold model is not necessarily a better building. The current design has positive qualities that are not in the gold model, for example the interior courtyards within the east and west buildings. We felt that we can't really compare our building to the gold model since it is only a diagrammatic study and its geometry did not work in plan.

- New forms provoke new forms and relations. They felt that the gold model was a form as a “promise” for a new type of program.

Reworking plans, setting up DP, starting final model

It’s been awhile since I’ve written on my blog but we’ve been working night and day on our project…and it’s coming along.

We had a pin-up on the Tuesday after break. At that point, we had some rough plans and sections of our Rhino model. We expressed our concerns about finishing on time and Karl reassured us that he would stand behind our decision to further our experiments in Digital Project. What this means is that we are going to have plans, sections, a Rhino model, and a Digital Project model, which don’t all necessarily coincide. The Rhino model is what we based our first set of plans and sections off of. However, now that I’ve revisited the plans, we are redesigning spaces in plan. Lisa has been working on importing curves and stairs from our Rhino model into Digital Project. Once it is all set up we will experiment with connect curve and the formation of an all inclusion form and surface.

Designing in Plan:

The plans are still a work in progress; however I’ve been working on them every day and reviewing them with Lisa. Based off of feedback from our desk crit last Thursday, I’ve been manipulating the depths of the hallways. We are trying to steer away from too many boring offset curves. As of now, the exterior curves are still offsets of one another, but the interior walls are starting to narrow near the stairs and widen toward to middle area in front of the classrooms. This makes it the social hub of each band.

I’ve also been working to smoothen out curves to better accommodate the program. Funky, sharp, curvilinear corners would impede usability. It’s not perfect, but it’s getting better.

We are also trying to figure out how to divide up the bigger spaces like the auditorium, dining hall, administrative center, and health center. I’ve taken first stabs at it, but it still needs refining.

Another tip we received in our desk crit was to play with the wall thicknesses. I think this is a great suggestion and will really add depth to our plans. All the walls, in general, need to be thicker: 12-16” for interior walls, 12-18” for exterior walls, 12-16” for lockers, 6” for glass, etc. The variance of thicknesses will make our plans more legible from any distance. Karl talked about the levels of legibility in a floor plan. From 10 feet away one should be able to clearly understand the building and its layout. From 5 feet away one should be able to understand how the overall form is broken up into individual spaces. From 1 foot away one should be able to read text and understand details like doors, stairs, etc. Makes sense.

I can’t wait to add posche and tones to our plans. But we want to make sure that we are happy with everything spatially before we begin the final touches.

Beginning the Final Model:

Lisa and I talked with Karl about building our model out of wood and then using some sort of intricate method to build the atrium. The inspiration comes from a Sauerbruch and Hutton physical model of the Federal Environmental Agency.

We were really psyched about this idea and took numerous trips to the hardware stores to look for and pick up materials. We bought birch hardyboard for our bands and aluminum screening for our Digital Project surface. We cut out and sanded down all of the bands today; however, we are still trying to come up with an efficient way to do the slanted courtyard. We figured the flexibility of the mesh would allow us to create the organic surfaces/atrium which we design in Digital Project. Hopefully, it will all come together! We’re really excited about everything.

The return to the "Gold Model"

Last night Lisa and I had a desk crit with Karl. We discussed our current "Four Schools" Rhino model - what did and did not work about it. Most importantly we talked about the "Gold Model," our old cone model which all the critics loved so much. We brainstormed about how we could integrate the logic of our Rhino model with the intriguing surfaces of the Gold Model. As of now, we are taking the Rhino model, exporting parts of it as IGIS files and bringing it into Digital Project. The goal is to create a surface in Digital Project that ties together the building's four bands as one whole. Basically, we are no longer relying on circulation to tie the bands together, but using the form to link it all together.

Karl mentioned the possibility of different exterior and an interior readings of our school. For example, the outside might have one language, that of the organic surface, and the inside might have a different language, punctuated by the terraces. We talked about narrowing the corridors and widening the terraces so that they may before occupiable. That has been one of our goals for a while. We really want the terraces to become an "exterior" extension of the classrooms, library, playground, etc. In order to come up with a systematic way of narrowing the halls and widening the terraces, we are going to try to set up some parameters in DP. This means that the width of the halls will directly (or inversely) relate to the width of the terraces; changing one will automatically change the other.

I think we have a lot of work ahead of us, but I do think integrating the Gold Model with our Rhino model will result in a better, more cohesive building. Just have to get back into the Digital Project mindset. Can't wait to see what happens!

+

=

???

Regularizing the terraces

Lisa and I took a look at our Rhino model and tried to imagine it as four separate buildings. If we deleted the circulation between the four bands, and only connected the top floor of each band (shared program) we would create a new experience for our students, reduce circulation, and add space to our central courtyard. We shifted some of the shared program around on the ground floor to free up some more space for the courtyard. We switched the dining hall with the administrative center; we did this not only to free up space but also for daylighting reasons. We thought back to the obnoxiously bright dining hall at ITT and decided that we didn't want the dining hall to get too much direct light from the south. By placing on the east side, it would receive more diffused light. The administrative center might want more direct light in the offices. We also changed the proportions of the auditorium to make it longer and skinnier, freeing up space for the courtyard above.

We also worked on alligning the northern end of each band and rotating the curves off of that. The north side is rotated the least, only 5 degrees, because it does not need more toplighting in addition to the direct southern light it will be receiving. The east side is rotated the most, 10 degrees, because it needs the most extra toplighting since it is covered in shadows most often. The west side is rotated 7.5 degrees because it needs a little more light than the north end but does not need as much help as the east side.

The connections between the top floors of each program will give us an edge for our atrium. However, we are having trouble figuring out how to connect these top bands because the height differences are too steep (up to 28 feet).

(Top view of my Rhino model showing the overlay of the bands)

(Axon view of my Rhino model showing the angled terraces)

Stepping, Circulation, Atrium...

Lisa and I had a desk crit with Karl yesterday and came up with some good ideas on how to move forward with our project.

STEPPING IN PLAN AND SECTION:
We plan on stepping our entire building to the North. This means each band will (be coplanar) line up vertically on the northern edge, and the terraces will then peel away from this edge. For example, if we say that the shared northern edge is 15ft wide on all floors, we'd have an arch which extends out from this shared edge. On the next floor, we would copy that edge and that arch and then pivot that arch about 5 degrees inward to form the terrace of that floor. This system would repeat up throughout that band. Each band may have a different angle of rotation based on its position on the site and the quality of light which it will receive; for example, a room which wants more light, will have a greater angle of rotation, wider terrace, and more space for skylights. These rules will step up a more interesting and elegant geometry than our current irregular curves.

We may also figure out a way to have our building step vertically to the North. Basically this would mean dramatizing our current section.

ELIMINATING CIRCULATION:
The next big alteration: eliminate some of the circulation. The majority of our current building is circulation. In order to cut down on some of this inefficient space, we are going to remove some of the connections between the separate bands. However, the top floor of each band, which houses shared program, will still be linked via stairs or ramps. This way, a student in the upper western band can still access the eastern library from the western band without returning to the ground floor and then traveling up the eastern band. This should create more interesting sections throughout our building.

COURTYARD BECOMES ATRIUM:
Another big decision: the courtyard will be enclosed. It will become an atrium with operable louvers which can open up at an angle in the summer, letting the hot air out and shading the courtyard from receiving more sun. In the winter, it will help trap solar heat gain and provide an overall envelope for our building. [If the ground and the surrounding classroom walls have a high thermal mass, this will help cut down on energy usage and heating costs.] The edges of the atrium will begin at the top levels of classrooms on each band. The top floor of each band (the shared program) will remain above the atrium and look down into the courtyard. The stairs which link each top floor will help create the remaining edges of our atrium.

We also want to experiment more with the shape of the courtyard? How can we make it push against the bands instead of a result of the bands?

Lisa and I have a lot to think about, but we are excited to move forward. We plan to have new Rhino models for Thursday which build off of these ideas.