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.