skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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!
+
=
???
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)
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.
(Current model in the site)
(Model facing North)
(View from circulation into central courtyard)
A few things which were brought up in our critiques [and our take on the issues]:
1) Our building should step back (to the North) both in plan and section, adjusting to the desired quality of light
[We did lose the stepping on the South facade of the building, and I do think having a complete stepping Part-to-Whole relationship would strengthen our project. We did TRY to step it up in section, having the S be the lowest, then E, W, and N as the highest. However, the difference was apparently too minor to notice. The reason why we did not make it more dramatic came down to the required length of ramps and number of landings...not to mention time. Maybe this sectional difference is something we can revisit and work through.]
2) Connect our ideas full circle
[Both sets of critics, and Karl, seemed to emphasize our cone model, saying that we lost something in between there and now. That was an interesting comment for us; me and Lisa talked a lot about what we thought they meant. What did we lose? When we initially made that model, we were incredibly excited about its possibilities (similar to the critics). However, once Karl made us take plans and sections through it, we hit a wall. The geometry was holding us back and seemed impossible to work with in terms of program and plans. Me and Lisa discussed the differences between that model and our current model, trying to find the gap in our project. It seems that the geometries set up in the cone model were much more interesting because they were much more dramatic: the predictable cone shapes were contrasted with the unpredictable organic connect-curve shapes. Our current model is irregular, but the irregular curves have a predictability to them, such as stacked circulation, which takes away from the irregularity of those curves. If we have enough allotted time, Lisa and I want to revisit our Digital Project model and revamp our design to negotiate between "cone" and "terrace."]
3) Issue of "Envelope"
[The critics wanted to know how the building would be dealt with as a whole. Would it make more sense to have the central courtyard covered and the whole school connected in that sense? Would it cut down on circulation? When do our lengthy circulation paths become a problem? But how WOULD you cover our building in a "Foster-esque" way? Would it just become an added expense?
4) Make sure we are not cramming program into the "gaps"
[There were very few areas where Lisa and I felt we were cramming in program. Despite our first critique, we did put a lot of thought into placement. There were a few pieces of program which we actually left out because we did not want to cram them into an inappropriate space; we would rather leave them out until we could make space for them. I also didn't think that the critiques understood that the first floor contained no classrooms but were equally considerate of lighting conditions. This discussion may have been a result of our poor first presentation. However, the second set of critiques also pointed out the need to maximize classroom space when possible and eliminate awkward instances caused by our geometry. I completely agree 100%. Me and Lisa tried to modify our model to reduce the number of awkward spaces and maximize the usability and convenience of a space. We still have a lot of work to do.]
5) Geometry, geometry, geometry
[They said don't let the geometry get in the way of the fluidity. For example there's a moment when a band of classrooms seems to impede the flow of the hallway. We were both aware of this moment and dissatisfied with it but due to time constraints, left it and moved on. I'm glad they brought up this point because it seemed essential to our flowing curvilinear hallways and means that they understood our circulation the same way we did. They also suggested loosening up on the geometry at times - widening the hallway in the busy areas, etc.]
Those were the main critiques of our project and now we are wondering how to move forward. How much time do we have to revisit our design? If we have until the end of the semester, Lisa and I want to go back as far as our DP Cone model and redesign it to fit our current knowledge. However, we may not have enough time to go that far back and may have to make smaller changes to our current model. Hopefully our desk crit tomorrow will give us some feedback and direction.
I'll post our plans, sections, and diagrams soon. Blogger won't upload them right now.
Lisa and I worked all through the week and weekend. After our pin-up on Tuesday, we were told to experiment more in section. We re-drew our Rhino model using new curves based on programmatic requirements, but keeping the same fundamental form of the "Introspective Learning Community." In our current model, the program on the first floor has subtle differences in ceiling height: the N (gym) has a height of 15', the E (admin. center) has a height of 13', the S (dining hall) has a height of 12', and the W (auditorium) has a height of 14'. On the next floor, 12' classrooms are stacked on top of this; each band is connected by slight ramps. The top level of each band houses a piece of shared program which has the same height as the shared program on the ground floor. This helps ground and cap our building, with the classrooms secured inbetween the shared program. Now, our building should read both horizontally and vertically.
We still have a lot of work to do before the review, but I'm hoping that even with a few setbacks, we'll get there and be ready to go on Thursday.
(Overlay of major programmatic spaces;
the circulation snakes its way between and around)
+
???
