Intra-relationships/Inter-relationships

Project #2 prompts you to consider architecture as a system that can mediate between two distinct, and perhaps oppositional, spatial conditions. In this project, your architectural proposal for a shared residence (for resident A and resident B) will provide a means to negotiate between a zone of public character and a zone of private character. Further, the proposal will negotiate between a public zone designated for resident A and a zone designated for resident B. Architecture will be conceptualized not simply as form, but simultaneously as form’s negative: space. Various systems of order (circulation, enclosure, apertures, thresholds) will be integrated with form and space to encourage systemic thinking. Architecture’s conventional sets of elements (doors, windows, walls, ceiling, floor) will be articulated through an a language of devices which favors abstraction as way to unhinge and interrogate our status quo understandings of the built environment. Rich inter-relationships between Residence A and Residence B will be developed through processes of spatial negotiation, while the intra-relations of each residence—their domains within--will be scrutinized and calibrated as semi-independent dwellings.

‍

Zones

You will designate specific spatial environments for each of the three “zones” by answering the question, “What is the unique spatial character of: (1) Residence A? (2) Residence B? and (3) the space between them?” The studio’s method will underscore the significance of this third zone, the space between Resident A and Resident B, as the generative component of the set. We will push the limits of this “zone” to incorporate ideas about polarization, ambiguity, gradation, and interpolation. It is possible that our zones have sub-zones, sub-sub-zones, or meta-zones. Whereas Project #1 asked students to express an idea through filling up a space with circulation devices such as stairs, ramps, and bridges, Project #2 posits an alternative: to approach conceptual architectural design not as the distribution of elements in space, but rather the distribution of mass and void.

‍

Negotiate

You will define for yourself the word “negotiate” by developing an attitude toward each zone. What does it mean to move from public to private, or from the zone of resident A to the zone of resident B? If the three zones are adjacent, yet distinct parts, imagine interpolation as the harshness or softness of their edges. The transition may be abrupt (like a delineated boundary) or gently (like a smooth gradient). You are to consider the full “spectrum” of what negotiation can mean before developing your own spatial narrative.

‍

Exercise 01: Figuring Ideals, Dialectical Residences

Students will begin by developing two ideal residences. Each ideal residence will be formulated based on three criteria: user, geometric primitive, and orientation. Students will begin integrating these concepts using the diagram as a tool for representing the idea(l). The ontology of the user – their mode of being – will provide the geometric primitive with a program of inhabitation. The orientation (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) of the primitive will provide our  “site.” The residence is not a place of work for the user, but a strictly a place of dwelling. It is assumed that in the process of tailoring the dwelling to the needs of the user, the geometric primitive can be judicially transformed (scaled non-uniformly, sheared, rotated, moved) and articulated through architectural devices (apertures, circulation elements).

The two residences will be developed in parallel as polarized elements. If we are to discover the richness that the process of negotiation can yield, it is critical to construct a dialectical, oppositional relationship between the two residences. It is precisely the degree of contradiction between the two elements which establishes the limits of the project’s potential. Thus the focus on this exercise is in developing intra-relationships (each residence’s internal relationships, the logic of its constituent parts) in a way which sets up a high-tension inter-relationship (the relationship between the two residences).

‍

Users (select 2):

Astronomer

Geographer

Oceanographer

Pyromaniac

Geometric Primitive (select 2):

Cylinder

Cube

Pyramid

Orientation (select 2):

Horizontal

Vertical

Diagonal

Notes: The residence footprint may not exceed 900 square feet.

‍

Deliverables:

Element A_Model 1/4”=1’-0”

Element A _Iterative diagrams, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element A _1 Plan, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element A _1 Elevation, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element A _2 Sections, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element B_Model 1/4”=1’-0”

Element B_ 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element B_1 Plan, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element B_1 Elevation, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

Element B_2 Sections, 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17” vellum

‍

Exercise 2: Casting Voids, The Space Between Two Ideals

Residence A and Residence B, formerly site-less, will be brought together onto a site of 30’ x 49’ x 48’. This will necessarily require that the residences be unified, intersected, and/or differentiated in strategical ways, such that their datums of orientation correspond with each other and form a spatial dialogue. The space between the two residences will then be drawn and built as a solid. That is, Residence A and Residence B—brought together onto a site—now become the formwork for the casting of a new negative space: element C.

Deliverables:  

Element C_Model (chipboard) 1/4”=1’-0”

Element C_2 Plans,1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17”

Element C_2 Sections , 1/4”=1’-0”, 11” x 17”

Exercise 3: Articulating The Void, Negotiation / Integration

Element A (Residence A), Element B (Residence B), and Element C (the space between) are transposed to the site located on Ware Street. The full set of site conditions come to bear upon the negotiated residence. Whereas Exercise 1 and Exercise 2 involve ideal forms (based purely on geometrical constraints and users’ needs), Exercise 3 transforms the architectural set along the criteria of site and access requirements. Students will investigate circulation, context, and public and private gradients through conceptual diagrams and axonometric technique. Two verbs will act as the students’ guide for specifying how they engage Thresholds, Passages/Circulation, Apertures, and Enclosure. The void should be re-designed to heighten the users’ perception of threshold: it should transition between the two user zones, as well as between the public and private realms. The spatial quality of this “negotiation” will be decided by each individual student. Students are encouraged to consider a wide arrange of negotiation types by analyzing negotiation verbs and by studying different types of 2D and 3D gradients. Ultimately, strategies of spatial negotiation should be selected and evaluated based on their ability to complement the intra-relationships defined in Exercise 1.

‍

Negotiation Verbs (Select 2):

Gradate

Discretize

Juxtapose

Consume

Subsume

Weave

Add

Subtract

Multiply

Metabolize

Stretch

Concatenate

Stitch

Merge

Unify

Translate

Reflect

Deform

Blend

Blur

Fray

Obfuscate

Contract

Expand

The exercise will be evaluated based on its ability to negotiate many aspects of passage. The void itself should be understood as a volumetric threshold that choreographs the passage of light, views, and bodies. It should therefore incorporate a system of circulation, a system of apertures, and a system of enclosure: these are the tools with which the two negotiations verbs will be developed, realized, and experienced.

Thresholds = Transition between to experiences of two spaces. Devices: something marking entrance (like doors, objects, spatial manipulation)

Passages/Circulation = The way through or along which one may pass. Devices: stairs, ramps, hallways, spatial sequences, etc.

Apertures = Device that controls the amount of light admitted and view permitted). Devices: windows, skylights, light monitors, etc.

Enclosure = As mediating between inside and outside, can respond to both internal order / spatial logic and external forces (site relationships).

‍

Deliverables:

Model 1/4”=1’-0”

Circulation Axonometric diagrams ,1/4”=1’-0”

Aperture Axonometric diagrams approximately 1/4”=1’-0”

Enclosure Axonometric diagrams  approximately 1/4”=1’-0”

Thresholds diagrams approximately 1/4”=1’-0”

2 Plans  1/4”=1’-0”

2 Sections  1/4”=1’-0”

‍

Exercise 4: Site Model

Notes: to be built collectively by studio, with tasks and costs distributed accordingly.

Deliverables:

Site Model_(Chipboard) 1/4”=1’-0”

‍

Final Review

June 27, 1 Pm

Deliverables:

Conceptual Diagrams – illustrating conceptual underpinnings

Comprehensive Model at 1/4”=1’-0 (2-3 materials)

Site Plan / Ground Floor Plan at 1/4”=1’-0” showing adjacent buildings, streets, common parking lot

1 Floor Plans (all other floors) at 1/4”=1’-0”

2-4 Building Elevations at 1/4”=1’-0” showing adjacent buildings

2 Building Sections at 1/4”=1’-0” showing adjacent buildings

Collage of Model in Site (Photoshop or manual)

‍

Project Schedule

Monday, June 16: Exercise 1, Launch

Tuesday, June 17: Exercise 1, Residence A

Wednesday, June 18: Exercise 1, Residence B

Thursday, June 19: Exercise 2

Friday, June 20: Mid-Review

Saturday, June 21 - Sunday, June 22: Site Model

Monday, June 23 - Thursday, June 26” Exercise 3, Production

Friday, June 27 Final Review