Post-desk crit developments

When Lisa and I met with Karl yesterday, we talked about the origin of our form and the importance behind it. Besides having curves derived from rectangular construction lines (dimensions of programmatic spaces), we tried to pull away from the "L" which surrounds our site. By creating four separate "cones" or band of classrooms, we created C-shaped spaces. These C-shaped spaces offer introspective courtyards to be shared between the band of classrooms. However, by creating these four C-shaped bands, we created a extroverted or shared central space. This central space will become an exterior courtyard/playground accessible to all grades. The four bands face inward towards this "public" central courtyard, making the building analogous to 4 buildings and a shared street or plaza in between.

In these models, I put the circulation on the interior of the C-shapes. The hallways would be bright and also bring sunlight into the classrooms. These corridors act as a protective sheath between the exterior urban environment and the interior learning environment. The circulation on the outside perimeters of the building nearly mimic the street, pedestrian, and train traffic, giving the students a feeling of connection with the exterior environment during passing periods; however, the outside traffic will not distract the students in their inward facing classrooms. The classrooms should get plenty of light due to the central courtyard.

Lisa is working on a model where the circulation responds directly to the sun. This means that the circulation is always on the darker side of the bands of classrooms. The idea is that this would maximize the amount of sunlight in the classrooms. Although, this switch in circulation would completely trash my logic about the perimeter circulation.

I know that my current circulation scheme is still a little complicated, yet lacking details (ie. stair placement), but I hope to continue working on that in the coming days. There are some other messy areas which I also plan to address.

(Video showing the stacking of the floors [light blue] and the circulation [grey] on top of larger programmatic spaces [dark blue] on the bottom. The white volume is underground)

Updated version before desk crit

Circulation, Control Points, and Courtyards

After meeting yesterday, Lisa and I decided to revisit our Rhino models with a few things in mind:

Circulation: We wanted to experiment with circulation, whether it be in front of or in back of the bands of classrooms. If the hallways were in front of the classrooms, then the entire center of the building would have to become an atrium...which we want to avoid. However, putting the circulation in back of the classrooms gets tricky. We may have to find a middle ground.

We also talked about the circulation peeking through the facade at times. (Rules: North - no exterior circulation here because of neighboring building; East and South- the circulation could only come out slightly because of the "L"; West- could only come out above the 2nd story because of trucks passing by in the ally way). In my studio project from last semester, I had circulation weave its way in and out of the building's facade, creating an interior space which seemed to be exterior.This creates a strong connection with the outside and makes the hallways a social and visible space.

Control Points: Lisa and I decided to revisit the extruded, stepped curves. This time we would use control points to alter the spaces inside and outside of the classrooms. For example, if circulation is in front of the classrooms, the widdening and narrowing of the hallways would create an interesting and dynamic space to walk through. The classrooms, although not a perfect curve, will still be offset the necessary 25ft.

Central Courtyard: If the circulation can be placed in back of the classrooms, we can create a total central courtyard with steps up to certain accessible terraces created by the classrooms. The steps could be climbable, like a play area, or seating for an outdoor classroom or performance. The other benefit to this would be that all classrooms would receive the required light, and it would create an inward facing, visually connected school. It's true that there would be few outward facing windows, but we don't really want people from the "L" looking into our classrooms, so this may work.

Other Courtyards: There may still be opportunities to created smaller more private courtyards to be shared between selected grade levels. After looking at Lisa's newest model, it got me thinking about how to recreate our open yet private courtyards from our early study models...As long as a courtyard is surrounded by three walls it seems closed off to certain people, but open to its inhabitants. In Lisa's newest model she used the curves and just pinched one end of it creating a small tear-drop-shaped courtyard accessible to the surrounding classrooms. That courtyard may still be cut off at the pinched end, creating an interesting manipulation in the facade (something we talked with Karl about earlier).

Here are some of my newest, yet unfinished Rhino models. Still have a lot of work to do.

(Filling in the programmatic spaces, and seeing what is left over)

(Filling in the programmatic spaces, and seeing what is left over)

(Starting on the 1st level: Playing with control points, slightly changing the terraces)

(Starting on the -1st level: Playing with control points, dramatically changing the spaces)

One more thing which I was thinking about with this last model, was the required spaces and volumes of the bigger programmatic elements (ie. gym, auditorium, dining hall, library, etc). In this last model, the big voids, starting from the top and moving counterclockwise are: gym, adminstrative center, dining hall, and auditorium. The auditorium and the dining hall may have more interesting and less rigid shapes since their program is more flexible. The administrative center, however, must house several repetitive offices. The gym, as you can see in plan view, has extra space between the rectangular court and the curvilinear for of the classrooms; this space may be used for the required single office and storage space.

Terraced Rhino Model

Here are screen shots of my latest Rhino model. I started off with (red) construction lines of programmatic elements; starting from the top and going clockwise: gym, administrative center, art/music/science rooms, and auditorium. I then offset these rectangles by 25ft. Using these outer boxes, I constructed curves which I then offset 25ft inward.


Next, I extruded the curves, offset the curves by 15ft on the next level, and so on. The banded curves are classrooms and the 15ft offset allows room for circulation in front of the rooms. The gym, administrative center, art/music/science rooms, and auditorium are tucked underneath the classrooms. The space between the classrooms becomes extremely open and social, relating to the idea of the flaneur (to see and to be seen). In this more open space, there will be circulation, perhaps dining, and reading areas...


The problem with this idea is that the banded classrooms are facing inward and therefore not directly linked to outside light. However, many of the classrooms will be at the level of the "L" and perhaps that's a bad thing; therefore, inward facing classrooms may help protect the kids from the public eye. If we keep the classrooms inward facing, this means that the central/circulation space MUST be an atrium. It still seems risky to have classrooms with no external windows. I'll have to go back to my design and see how this could be changed. Another thing I'd like to point out is that the building extends one level underground in order to provide appropriate ceiling heights for the gym and auditorium. In the unused vertical spaces above the gym, administrative center, etc...I was entertaining the possibility of raised exterior courtyards or play areas. This would also let light into the banded classrooms.

Lisa and I are about to meet and go over our Rhino models and revise.

A non-architectural perspective

One of my previous American Cultures professors posted this link. It's not directly related to our project, but it's a great article revisiting urban history, architectural design, and the social relations between the three within a single city. It's an article from the New York Times and therefore not the typical DF articles which we are used to reading. It's from a different perspective...one of the people...not the architects. Got me excited and thinking about how our school is going to relate to the people, its surroundings, and the city as a whole. How can we justify the costs of our "arrogant" design (as the critic would probably call it) and make it worthwhile? Why should more money go into the building instead of purchasing school books? Isn't that usually the main reason why we get the bare-bones cinder-block materials? Priorities? We need to make sure that our school does not become an "arrogant" design but reaches out to the people and gives them something to be a part of...a building which energizes kids and makes them excited about learning. We need to create a creative environment in order to encourage creative thinkers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25ouroussoff.html

Infinite sketches and new inspirations

Here are the sketches which I meant to post last week. Since Lisa was sick and we were not able to meet up and make some design decisions before studio on Thursday, I found myself sketching endlessly. I started out with digrammatic plan sketches but then realized that the base the the top of the building will have to be somewhat different in order to fit in all the program. An extrusion of curvilinear bands of classrooms would not give us enough common space in which to place the gym, auditorium, administrative centers, etc. I noticed that the Guggenheim in New York has a different base and top and they blend together just fine. As long as the two halves don't read as separate halves and use the same language, I think we should be fine.

As I was thinking about this, I came across the Dolphinarium and Wellness Center (MER) on big.dk. It reminded me of our first hollowed out terracing model. It got me thinking...What if our classrooms were offset, stacked bands which surrounded some larger piece of common program (i.e. the gym). The auditorium and the gym could definitely be placed behind and under the classrooms, while the more social programmatic elements could be in the common space between the hills of classrooms.We are currently working on Rhino models.

(Dolphinarium and Wellness Center, big.dk)

(Our model from the first review)

Part to Whole Relationships

Synthesized DP Model

Last night Lisa and I met up and synthesized our DP models and knowledge. We wanted to make one model that we could both work on and produce plans and sections from. We experimented with various bounding boxes on the bottom floor. The bounding boxes are bigger than the site and allow the bottom circles to overlap more. We stuck with the rules I mentioned in my last post. We decided that the cones are most interesting when they expand outside the site and then get cut off at the edges. This creates interesting opportunities for windows, non-curvilinear programmatic spaces, etc.

The connect curve command allowed us to play with connections between the cones, creating unique common spaces, and links between floor levels. We are imagining the gym in the NE corner of the site, originating on the lowest level, underground. The auditorium would be placed between the cone connection between the NW cone and the SW cone, where the curve drops from 2 stories to 1 story.

(East Elevation; View 1)

(View 2)

(View 3)

We're going to continue on our model now, turning the surfaces into solids and creating thickness in the walls and program. I'm excited to see how it turns out. We're also going to fill in the floors to get an idea for how our building is acting in section. Should be interesting.

Updated versions

In response to my last post and Karl's comments, here are two updated versions of my model. In version three I experimented with "Connect the curve" and thought about wrapping a ribbon around the building. It starts at the first level and works its way up to third level on the north end. This could help organize program; for example, the gym could be placed in the three story-height area on the northern portion of the site. The auditorium could be placed on the west side of the site where the ribbon drops from two to one stories. The ribbon can also fold out on the east side and begin to form an overhang over a carved out entrance. The ribbon can also thicken and become circulation between schools and levels.

(Version 3)

In the next version (four), I took Karl's suggestion and thickened the cones to 25ft in order to imagine how classrooms could fit into the thickness of the cones. Although I didn't get as far with this model, it was a good exercise to start thinking about where to place program. The voids in the center could become atriums, courtyards, or other programatic elements such as dining areas, etc.

(Version 4)

Still working on the cone idea

(Brainstorming Sketches 1)

(Brainstorming Sketches 2)

We're still experimenting with the cone idea, but working on refining it more and more:

- 4 upright cones make up the 4 individual schools
- 1 central inverted cone makes up the minimum common space between the schools
- All 4 circles (corresponding to schools) are tangent to 1 central circle (corresponding to common space)
- All 5 circles must be within the bounding box, our site, (ex. Variation 1)
- If the circles are not within the bounding box, the edges must be split, causing an interesting flat 2D arch (ex. Variation 2)
- Areas of overlap = common space
- Bottom plane does not correspond to ground level, but is actually underground
- Ground level starts at plane 2, maybe 3
- Tilted cones should respond to the sun: either direct the sun in or act as an overhanging shading device for something below (ex. entrance)


Tonight, I'm going to keep working on variation one. I'll experiment with the connect curve command, fill in floor planes, possibly give the surfaces a thickness and make them solid. The goal is for me and Lisa to present a couple variations of this idea, showing the wide range of possibilities and the effect of changing overlaps on the size and volume of commonspace within our building.

(Variation 1)

(Variation 2)

Cones, cones, cones

Throughout the week, Lisa and I have been developing our idea of "cones." Each "cone" is one of four small schools. The cones hold program specific to those individual schools. At the bottom level, the basement, the cones start off as overlapping circles. The overlaps are areas of common space. As the circles shift and get smaller higher up in the building,we will bridge the gaps between the schools. These spaces between the circles or "cones" become the common and shared space. Therefore, the higher up you are in the building, the more open common space there is. It becomes more open, social, and public. The center space acts as an inverted cone, starting off small at the bottom and getting bigger at the top.


When we discussed these ideas with Karl, two references came to mind: the Guggenheim in New York by FLW and the Mercedes Benz Museum in Stuttgart, Germany, by UNStudio. Both were helpful references.

(Guggenheim, New York, NY)

(Diagrams of Merecedes Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)

(Section of Merecedes Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)

(Exterior photo of Merecedes Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)

(http://www.unstudio.com/nl/unstudio/projects/country/0/739/3110/mercedes-benz-museum#img1)

After our desk crit with Karl today, he went down to the BT Lab with us and helped us work through some problems and methods in DP. He showed us how we could pursue our cone idea using parameters, which we were having trouble figuring out. I asked him to explain how we could begin to "bridge those gaps" between the cones; he kindly showed us the "connect curve" command which would allow us to begin to play with varying levels in section. We all became pretty excited and enthusiastic when thinking about all the possibilities. After discussing our new skill set, me and Lisa decided that we are going to come up with some variations for Saturday and then synthesize our ideas into one model and proceed from there.

36-Hours in Chicago

Our studio had our site visit this week...in Chicago. On Tuesday morning, we all made our way to Chicago in order to make the 2pm architectural boat tour. Unfortunately it rained during the entire boat tour and it was my 2nd or 3rd time doing it. However, I still learned some new architectural tid-bits and two of Lucien Lagrange's buildings were pointed out, which was exciting (I worked at LLA 2 summers in a row).

After the boat tour, the weather cleared up and we headed to the Aqua building, Millenium Park (Gehry's band shell, UNStudio pavilion, Zaha Hadid pavilion), the new Modern Wing of the Art Institute by Renzo Piano, the Monadnock, a bunch of Mies buildings, and eventually our site. Our site was an extreme location: loud (the "L" is located on both the east and the south sides of our site), windy (in a low spot creating a sort of wind-tunnel), and fairly dark (surrounded by large buildings, including the huge red CNA building, and the "L"). It's definitely going to be a complicated site to work with, not to mention that both streets which access our site are one-way streets. I think we are up for the challenge though.

Wednesday morning, we made our way to the Near North Montessori school where we met with an incredibly intelligent woman. This woman covered nearly every detail of the building and program and could talk in the terms of engineers, architects, children, adults, and so on. She gave us a two and a half hour tour, which really got me thinking about our program in a new and more dynamic way. Suddenly I was able to think about the programmatic elements as loose titles placed on active educational spaces with blurred boundaries. The way in which she talked about the hallways as workable surfaces and extensions of classrooms was really intriguing. Every space in the building, title or no title, was an occupiable space which could be used for any activity as the child saw fit. I think me and Lisa forgot what it was like to be kids with imaginations and flexibility (in terms of learning environments) and were thinking about our program the way we experienced it in high-school and college. As Ken Robinson mentions in his TED video, education teaches us to grow out of our creativity and our bodies and into our heads. We need to revisit those early ages and remember how to foster that creativity and create an open environment in which kids can learn in their own "childish" yet advanced ways.

The Montessori school tour was really helpful, not architecturally, but ideologically. It freed up my ideas of program and the creation of successful learning environments. She even mentioned simple things like the importance of diffused florescent lights versus direct florescent lights; diffused light does not bounce off of a child's paper and impair their seeing and therefore focus. Another interesting concept which was brought up, was the concept of urban vertical schools. I feel like we are afraid to build tall schools because they don't seem kid-friendly, however, our tour guide mentioned the fact that children living in the city are used to moving vertically and don't think twice about it.

After the Montessori school, we headed to IIT to see the Student Center by REM Koolhaas and of course the famous campus by Mies. The Student Center was an interesting example of the architecture which teachers seem to focus on at Michigan - very design based, but not necessarily the most functional - interesting yet awkward spaces. One thing which I found particularly interesting was how the building dealt with its context. The "L" runs just about the building; REM included it in the design by wrapping the "L" in steel and concrete. This creating a sound barrier but still included it in the mesh of the design. Just down the street, the dorm buildings tried to distance themselves from the tracks by building and extending a sound-proof glass wall off the facade. Seeing these two ways of dealing with the "L" got me and Lisa thinking about how we are going to include or repel the tracks surrounding our site. (We are thinking of creating a folding surface out and over the tracks, not unlike the loading dock in the back of the Student Center, therefore including yet distancing our building from the public transportation. We'll see what we end up doing.

(Intersection on the SE end of our site)

(Joiner COMING SOON)

Increasing the surface area of sun-seeking elements

Just a quick note to give you an idea of what direction we are headed in:
How to increase the amount of light in a classroom? Increase the ratio of the surface area of the exterior, sun-seeking wall, to the interior, sun-fearing walls. Example: Marina City Towers, Chicago, IL. The Marina City Towers, have a petal shape, stemming from a dark center, the rooms reach out and therefore, the exterior walls have the greatest surface area. The rooms do not have to get sun on more than one side, but by enlongating the exterior surface and shortening the other three surfaces, more sunlight can enter the space. It's almost like a sun scoop in plan.

(Floor plan of Marina City Towers, Chicago, IL)

Thinking about it programmatically...and then trying to get away from that

To pick up where I left off, Lisa and I did meet up and synthesize our Digital Project and foam core models. However, we were thinking of the building as blocks of program; therefore, we kept getting stuck and found ourselves uninspired and frustrated. We did what we could with our DP model, but also felt restrained due to our novice skill level.

(Foam core study models)

On Tuesday, we had a desk crit with Karl. We started with our foam core models, describing our terracing ideas and inclusion of courtyards. The high areas of the building, like the NE corner, were reaching for the sun, while the low areas, like the courtyards, were pulling in the sun. He seemed to like these conceptual models much more than our literal programmatic DP model. I would have to agree. Lisa and I hit a brick-wall with our blocky classrooms and auditoriums and we were the first to admit it. It seemed like a lot of the other groups were having similar issues and Karl kept telling us all to "forget program" because it was ruining our buildings. Easier said than done.

(Courtyard of our DP model)

Lisa and I had an inspiring conversation with Karl about contouring the terraces in a more fluid form. We talked about one level's wall being divided into a few ribbons which meander off and then come back together at certain points. We talked about digging into the ground to create contours below grade and the possibility of using that downward slope as seating for the gym or auditorium, like Greek ampitheaters which work with the terrain. Karl also brought up a project my Morphosis, the United States Courthouse, which sets up a simbiotic relationship comparable to the one set up between our four schools. We also explored the possibility of pulling in more light through the creation of more courtyards and penetrations. One more thing which Karl hinted at, was the possibility of setting up a patched surface in Rhino, which we could then contour.

(Plan of U.S. Courthouse by Morphosis)

(Ribbons of U.S. Courthouse by Morphosis)

Lisa and I went in this direction. With only 36 hours until our first review, we revisited our Digital Project model, deciding that we had focused too much on the volumetric properties of the program. We brought our DP model into Rhino and began experimenting with choosing points off our programmatic model and creating a flexible patched surface to rest above the original model. We ended up with a curvy surface floating above and resting on our DP model. The idea was that this surface would help us broaden our ideas of how to fit program into our site without it becoming too blocky, while still considering our knowledge gained from the site analysis.

(East elevation of combined model)

(Axon view of combined model)

We then contoured the surface, laser cut those lines, and hand built the rest of the model. As we were putting together the model, we began to notice the relationships between the solids and voids which we were creating. The interior of our model was almost more interesting than the exterior of the model. The interior helped us imagine the auditorium seating, digging into the ground.

Using the combined DP and Rhino models, we took plans and sections. If we had had more time, we would have erased and redefined the edges of the program to compromise with the contours of our new building design. However, major time constraints left us with confusing plans and sections, which had different linear and curvilinear languages. I guess we thought it'd be better to have blocky plans and sections showing our consideration for program, than none at all. The review proved differently.

Lisa and I were the first of our group to present. It seemed like Ellie, our critic, had trouble bridging the gap between the different languages of our models. It is understandble, but considering the time constraints, I felt like Lisa and I did the best we could to show our change in thought. It wasn't a complete change in thought, but rather another extreme of our same terracing ideas which we've had from the start. Yes, the languages were conflicting, but we are working to close that gap and continue synthesizing everything.

The review was mediocre. I say that because I left not knowing exactly what to think. It seemed like the majority of our review was spent clarifying our ideas or technicalities, so we must not have presented them clearly. There were a few interesting ideas brought up during the review: such as increasing surface area to the south, and decreasing it in the north, but overall I felt confused at the end. I definitely did not have the same enthusiasm as I did after our desk crit on Tuesday. I felt like we were stuck again.

Lisa and I have been talking through our ideas, impressions of the review, and possible next steps. We have a direction we want to pursue, but are having technical difficulties moving in that direction. I'll scan in some sketches soon of our revised ideas.