THESIS LAB

Saturday, April 21, 2012

The Organic Apparatus For Sustainability: Nature's Architecture

Thesis Statement

As precedent, nature provides a self-sustaining framework showing how the integration of many natural occurrences works together through an organic process of evolution. To initiate a sustainable community there needs to be a clear depiction of how systems work within their surrounding environment. The people who inhabit this community will become inspired to participate by seeing systems of sharing spaces, sharing knowledge and interacting with the buildings as a whole integrative system. The haptic components constantly act as the apparatus in which participation with the buildings exercise each individual to understand the world around them and their role in it.

Research Methodology

The methodology of research started in the realm of how studies of nature have been incorporated into architecture through material cycles and biomimicry. The human ability to design has become a burden on this planet because suburban formations in architecture have only degraded from the natural world by separating each individual into their own world at home. With the correct analysis and proper experimentation, Buckminster Fuller has shown us that there has been designers who have revolutionized the way things are built and designed resulting in positive impacts on the world. Researching the deeper meaning of a design such as these designers go through is critical for understanding how to solve for a sustainable design and how we can implement them affectively.

Design Methodology

The design methodology of the thesis started with investigating five aspects of biomimicry and trying to draw out elements that would derive a sustainable design. The further research on sustainability through the influences of Bill Reed have led to investigations on the integration of systems. The implementation of a design will ultimately affect many naturally occurring cycles that occur in a community and it becomes a critical point in a design to understand these considerations. In this step I constructed models and diagrams to look at how biomimicry could be used to form the structural make-up of a building through the investigation of bubbles and the arches. To integrate biomimicry into the functionality of the building I started to look at how the form of the building could serve it’s purpose as a structure but also integrate with other functions such forming in a way that responds to climatic conditions. The investigation of these systems led me to the conclusion that sustainability is not in the object but the foremost important element above all is that those who inhabit the environment need to be enlightened in a way as to show them the importance of their participation in a community.

Design Concept

Everyone thinks of changing the world but nobody thinks of changing themselves. In order for a sustainable community to evolve, the most important thing The idea in organizing the program on the site expresses the community as a whole and activates a strong participation or sharing aspect to occur amongst the people. The way that people will interact with one another, the responsibility they acquire from the haptic elements, shows people that there are many systems in motion and they need to work with those systems. The atmosphere on the site is expressive of the haptic elements and are clearly visible and displayed to the public on the southern sides of the buildings. The relationship amongst the buildings are arranged in a way that they all clearly display their importance in the community and roles they possess on the site as a whole. Along with the people understanding their role in sharing spaces, the buildings themselves also play a part in teaching people that they have a role and responsibility with the interior of the buildings condition as well.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Catching Up: An Overview of Process

This blog Post will be a brief description of the process up to the final product. Over the last month the project that developed defined a method, and created a system of "softscape" interventions.

There was a definition of problems to be addressed, Problems include:

Over Paved Spaces
Lack of Shade Space
Overwhelming Scale of Buildings
Lack of Identity to the site
Lack of Connectivity to/ through site
Lack of functioning/ Useable Public Space

Once the Problems were identified a Series of different interventions were developed based on their ability to intervene and benefit the site.

Test Schemes Included:

Permeate:Break the site by creating many through roads an d address 6 problems

Focus: Divide buildings and create clustered groups

Sight: Rework all roads to create site lines that travel all the way through the site

After developing these ideas in plan, section and perspective, it became clear that they could all be combined to create one optimum master plan.

From there the master plan was developed and one idea that addressed all 6 problems, and the three test schemes.

The Next Step: Describing Intervention in Section

Site Sections: These early sections collage the ides that are to be addressed in the master plan

These section are describe the methods of softscape intervention that begin to address the 6 problems identified. The were extremely useful in creating both the materials and landscaping matrix, and the typology matrix.

Creating a Descriptive Master Plan:

First Pass Master Plan

This is the first pass at the master plan, it begins to describe the layout for the new buildings, softscape interventions and the different zones.

The Matrix:

This early Materials and Landscape Matrix Begins to show how the final Matrix will describe the site interventions, and explain the methodology.

Materials and Landcape Matrix: The describes the intervention, the zone and the reasoning behind each move

There will be a matrix for materials and landscaping, and materials and one for typologies. Both will be used to describe method of intervention, purpose of intervention, and zone location on site.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Master Plan

I'm now in the stage of developing a master plan, where everything so far will be consolidated into one design. So far I have spent the most time on on of the three "experience anchors" (the grocery store).

The design isn't perfect, but it embodies everything from the functional aspects addressed earlier to the recent experiential ones. The most important aspects are the direct and indirect routes. The direct routes are apparent from this view, and I've chosen not to alter the ground plane on them. Everything in between buildings, however, works like the previous models (not too visible in this image). Inside the big building is a grocery store, with spaces similar to the outside spaces linked together inside. This allows for an experience where the visitor sees other people doing different things, allowing for a greater sense of community, and less isolation (as opposed to the car > store > car mentality).

Transitions

The following images are of models I've created to demonstrate how a person can move from one branded space to another.

In this first model, I focused on places to sit, gradual slope changes, interventions, and making sure each building got an "area" that became a part of its brandscape.

The second model was a little more detailed, and demonstrates the interconnectivity between spaces, multiple paths, and a much more engaging path that pulls the visitor through a series of spaces.

Both of these models are actually physical models, based on the computer models you see above.

What's important in both of these models is that there is no branding. Some of the spaces engage the people in actions that have nothing to do with the brand at all. This was not the intent when I started these models, but proves how important architecture is to how the whole shopping experience works. Were these to to just be boxes on a flat plane with nothing connecting them, there would be no reason for visitors to travel through the space unless they were looking for something in particular. With the spaces in these models, it is apparent that the transitions between experiences work fine without being in the context of a brand, and that the spaces that the brands should be are merely nodes (or destinations) connecting different paths.