Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Plummet
Maria Guest gave me good advice on reorganizing towards more effective circulation by moving my emphasis from the eroded corners towards the central atrium/orangerie, and by adding an east-west scheme to my dominant north-south scheme. I also appreciate Pari Riahi’s comparison of the floors of my building to filters such as that found in the Bialletti coffee makers.
My first priority is to address my roof scheme. I’d like a blend of skylight, greenhouse and photovoltaic planes, and some curves to emphasize the emergence of this style of agriculture from a building originally purposed in a very different way. At the same time I need to create sections that clearly illustrate my vertical emphasis for growing surfaces, screens and trellises as well as the aforementioned circulation.
[images to come]
Monday, April 27, 2009
In the two weeks following the mid-review, I plan on revising and refining the current proposal. I feel as though the project became quite muddled-up, rather quickly, towards the mid-review and as such I am hoping that the next steps I take will help towards clarifying the architectural manifestations of my initial concept. That isn’t to say that the project will be reinvented; as Anastasia pointed out at the end of my critique, the final leg of this project should be used as an (re)investment.
Based on some of the criticisms I received, I would like to reconsider my building’s relationship to its surrounding context—are there ways for the building to relate back to its surrounding that goes beyond its visual cues? I do think some of the visual cues proposed are quite important as a way to bring people from the outside in, but perhaps there are other ways that perform on a level beyond the superficial—i.e. how the spaces within embody the same qualities that the visual cues try to accomplish.
Internally, the subtractive method previously implemented will be refined and will hopefully become reciprocal with both program and human inhabitation. I am trying to discover how this can be accomplished at moments where the two grids intersect/interact with each other; or if moments where one program transitions into another will begin to generate these intersections.
Because much of the concept was generated from the outside in (sunlight from the outside piercing internal structure), I think that all 5 facades should be able to relate to the incisions made on the interior—the facades need not directly reveal components beyond them, but that incisions or openings made on the facades are able to be traced back (perhaps through projections) to incisions made on the inside.
Light Apertures
Thoughts, midterm review 4.23.09
I want to further explore the idea of correspondence – to push the current architecture proposal so that the language of subtraction is not only that of terracing of each floor according to the sun as it travels throughout the day and year. I want to consider the exterior facades and the roof (the skin of the building) and how that language of the segmented arched windows and the brick pilasters relates to the light entering the space of the building on both a horizontal and vertical plane. I want to define a language of subtraction AND addition to create an architecture suited for growing – that there is a strong correspondence between all floors of the building, northern and southern facades, and ground to roof floor levels such that the architecture manifests/reflects the particular mannerisms of sunlight.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tiffany Mid-review
I have approached this project with the concept of a heat exchanger, applying that idea to adjacencies of different programmatic elements. By increasing the surface area of these adjacencies, there is more opportunity for the systems within this building to feed off of each other. I have also been considering this increased surface area idea in regards to bounced light entering the building as well as protruding volumes. Many of the critics encouraged me to try to go back to the richness and dynamism of the earlier concept models and diagrams to deal with the program more appropriately. They advised me to address differences in the building/program and get away form the rigidity of the system I had designed. I liked Aaron's analogy that the column grid is like the armature of the building and everything else is like this soft material that can be washed away, so that what you are left with is dynamic volume with a variety of different spaces and ins and outs. So, maybe my intervention doesn't just lie within the existing structural grid, but maybe the new skin is weaved in and out through the column grid (like Olga said), creating a secondary limit to the building. What I plan to do next is shortly return to diagramming to break-up the rigidity of my current proposal. And, I plan to address more specific needs of the programmatic element, while keeping the spacial qualities, looseness, and sectional richness of my earlier models in mind.
The Growing.
Midterm Crit
One of the things that I have to focus greatly on now is program and the different lighting conditions that are necessary for each program. From this I can begin to create more meaningful relationships between programs based on these light conditions and the transitioning from one condition to the next. Since my project is very much about the spaces between two membranes, the physical and experiential transitions between the programs and areas of the building are very important. What these membranes become, whether they are permeable and impermeable boundaries, openings or enclosures based on the programmatic needs and the relationship between adjacent programs becomes a major part in structuring the decisions that I will now make. These different areas of transition and communication through membranes can begin to become unique to specific moments and thus create a fragmentation of the building into individual parts. A lot of the divisions among the building I was making were in plan, but the sectional relationships that occur and how the light filters down through the building is very important for me to investigate. All of the moves that I make from one program to the next directly relate to and will inform my buildings circulation.
Mid-Review Thoughts
Another topic I'm considering more now is thinking of the program in in more real terms and trying to design with a restraint that will lead to a feasible proposal. How can I create a building that not only "works" as a good vertical farm but also be interesting and thought provoking. The hard part, of course, is designing pragmatically without becoming mundane.
More specifically I'm going to try and create more than one growing climate in the building, with the smaller vertical growing pores having its own microclimate. I'm also going to let the skin of the building not only respond to the program on the inside of the building but also to its external surroundings in a more economical way. Right now, the ground floor is completely stripped of bricks and filled in with glass and new columns in an attempt to bring in the community that walks by. I think there is a more subtle (and economical) way of expressing this that doesn't include shedding the entire floor of its current skin. It only needs a trim, not a full shave.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Midterm Review 4.23.09
Crit Thursday April 23
Monday, April 20, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
91 Hartford St., Now in 3D!
Updates since the last version:
-Wall thicknesses (different on each floor)
-More accurate elevations (i.e. blocked off windows, etc.)
-Better alignment of parts (actually, everything lines up now)
-All surfaces covered to prevent light leaks, in case anyone's rendering.
About the model itself:
-Locations of things are fairly accurate (within 1" I hope), but little details like window frames, sloped window sills, etc. weren't modelled
-All wall surfaces aren't joined together--they meet, but just not joined to form one continuous surface. I thought it may be easier to modify things since we're going to remove parts anyways. Otherwise you can select everything and type in "join".
-Walls are separated by floors and are put into different layers accordingly (A-WALL-1st FLOOR, A-WALL-2nd FLOOR, etc.). This means that if you're outputting the model as line drawings, you'll have to clean up these seams (between each floor) in AutoCAD or Illustrator--otherwise the building will look like 4 stacked boxes on the exterior.
-Floors are done the same way
-Cores are placed in their own layer, except that they're not detailed--i.e. no stairs, no elevator car, just the voids and walls that surround them
-The roof I actually modeled on Nick's laptop and forgot to transfer it to mine, so it'll come after we get back from Nantucket
If you've been using the older model, I think it's worth it to just copy and paste what you've done into this model--it's much better and less fussy.
I've included some renderings below.
Good luck,
JT
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Inaka-de-hatarakitai: We want to work in the countryside!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Site Photos
I've uploaded some photos of the site + park from our second visit. They're on our PBWiki under the folder "SITE PHOTOS 2." I know this is a little overdue... OK, a lot overdue.
Enjoy,
JT
P.S. My pictures are more detail-oriented--I don't have pictures that encompass a more general area, so if anyone has those, please feel free to upload them. Thanks.