epilogue

There was no "done" in architecture, and this review again was a reminder that things never get completed. The recent couple of weeks were not a finishing process but stopping at what we have now.

Due a lot to lack of sleep I wasn't able to remember/summarize thoughts we have had for the semester. Yet through presenting at least what we want to say about our project, I think we had good conversations about what we should do next.

Overall the review (both morning/afternoon) asked some questions in common.

: what is the rule that enables the field condition happen in our building? now the school look like maze (which has lots of walls in it). Isn't the space has to be almost without walls?

: plan and form of the building which doesn't clearly conveys constantly moving field condition

The focal point we had in our plan was mainly about making classrooms arranged in order to have hangout space in between. Yet I agreed that the overall arrangement should have been coordinated with other elements of building as well. I regret the thinking process didn't continue up until yesterday as we had to produce things for reviews.

To me it has always been such a big burden and effort to "create" something, however at the same time it is a true gesture in which I can express myself in different ways: and it seems as I repeat the process the outcome gets better.

Life with architecture will go on :)

12/12/09 Toward final

Final renderings of the plan view: shows the light condition of each space.
(context buildling should be poched)

1F










2F










3F









In each plan, the floor right above was treated as an invisible object but still affecting the light condition.

11/28/09 "Rocky" plan

Below are "rocky" version of our final plan.

Mainly it explains both program and structure at the same time. Fixed programs are all poched, and among those fixed programs there are rooms that work as structure system- these are shown by thicker walls.

The reason we had all doors to room look like small pathways is that it's better to show how program can spill out: Fixed programs don't actually have completely closed part, but still can be pretty secluded area by having small pathways.

The plans are going to be rounded up (or be smoother) as it is being settled.

11/17/09 subtraction

Three types of spaces are now defined by one another. It's a subtractive way to think of space.




Thermal Bath is showing this idea well. By thinking certain programs as solid blocks, the rest of space is formed. The benefit of doing this is that it generates an "clearly-recognizable" design. Without having one to one relationship between space type and its apperance. (i.e. fixed for circle, fluid for triangle, program+circulation for square)



I treated this model as jello again, in rhino version. After removing all floor plans, I made a box and perforated with cone-shaped columns: which is going to be void space in the end.
And then in order to keep the floor slope, I created two big planes with same slope from the webbing circulations. so the floors are the result of subtracting columns from those planes.





The work is better shown in plan view. I like the point that the size of void space slightly changes between floors. And overall it looks as if the void space is actually subtracted. However at the same time it doesn't look right to me, still. Fixed space are shown as solid, program+circulation as gray, void as white. ( Not sure if we need to mark fluid space with orange color.) I think it is because all types still have their own shapes (rounded corner rectangle and cone)

I still need to consider structure and light matters as well.
(Yet they are not a one-way progress but an interactive concerns)

11/12/09

space: adjusting(organizing) itself to constantly changing field condition

At review, we were at the first trial of delivering the concept to actual space. After placing our general agreement ( auditorium on north west, cafeteria on south, library at front, administration center on center, etc) we added webbing surface in order to create circulation as well as light hole. By doing this we intended to combine our former light analysis and design concept.




Overall I satisfied the fact that Laura and I have been trying to convey idea through various diagrams and materials - which made the project more fascinating to ourselves and also to critics. Even though we had two groups of critics and some of the questions were different, I think both groups of critics were trying to ask us a couple of points in common: How this space actually works, and how we can express this concept better in drawings.

One thing which I am still questioning myself was also how this space would be like eventually.
We sorted out fixed/fluid/circulation+program , yet I thought there should be more descriptions - we can possibly use a time table to show the morphing usage of space in each time period.

Also by changing thickness of walls, width of corridors, and rounded corners the space would look much more dynamic. In addition, I hope we can create several images for plan - fixed as poched space and fluid as white space- showing change of plan even within physically determined condition.

One interesting point was that every team was using sun diagram as a form generator, though the analysis part was pretty much same for everybody. It was good to see every team's idea gradually forms in diverse ways from such similar beginning.



need to improve!
- be more specific, how could that work actually?
- conventional drawing is not sufficient for us, find other strategies for doing this
- lighting strategy, where to put hole on the roof top?

11/07/09 architectural interpretation

The concept of three different types of space is settled, now the question is how we can translate that to architectural words. It is still hard because, even though the space is being classified, there are still many overlaps which we cannot define either as Fluid or Program+circulation



.


At this point we had a promise like above: Fixed program as a solid box, Fluid program as a box with at least one side open, and Program+Circulation as a plane.

11/05/09 actualizing diagrams to real space

Through having pin-up I was able to see several distinctive approaches of design suggested by each group. While Laura and I were dealing a lot with setting concepts and making diagrams, some other teams were making actual interior space, or analyzing site condition more deeply. I guess open-ended condition of our project we had at the beginning enabled all of us to search for different ways to think about.

Other than having nicer layout- making printouts bigger to easy to recognize, utilizing both printed and ppt slide at the same time- I think until Tuesday we were still up on the air, not having certified space arrangements yet.





The pie chart and detailed grouping of given programs eventually enabled us to realize how much space are actually going to be "fluid". Realizing that there are many fixed space (i.e. office, storage, workroom), we tried to maximize area for both "circulation-program" and "fluid".

Classroom, in fact, has lots of potential to be overlapped with other space, by clarifying activities going on inside. If it's a room for cooking class, it might easily be mingled with dining hall area.

We are now searching examples for these fluid space, and at the same time constructing rhino model with these three categorized space - fixed, fluid, circulation+program.

Tate Modern Gallery in London has big void space without a certain program. Instead, people pass through to get to other room, sit down and talk, listen to lecture. This is a good example of space which has circulation and fluid program simultaneously.