runteddyrun

On Wednesday we gave our last presentation before our final presentation for thesis.  Instead of the normal jury format we only presented to one other instructor.  The idea was that by presenting to those familiar with our projects already we could save time and effort from preparing standard presentation type graphics and use that time for designing instead.  I also like the change of format because the presentation is really more like an extended conversation where both parties can be candid and have a dialogue as opposed to the more formal setting of a juried presentation.

The boards below were just a few of the ones I used for my presentation.  I also used parts from the final review at the end of last quarter but I’m not going to repost them here.  You can find them a few entries down.

In alot of the massing shots I’m basically showing a unit represented by a box.  The unit will not take that form nor will it even necessarily be that size but I needed a place holder to roughly represent a unit.  It would have been too labor intensive at this point to show units in detail and the emphasis for this presentation was mostly on the site anyway.   I still need to work out a few things - standardizing the articulation of openings (doors/window), developing the feel of the south side entry courtyards, the roofing, and the billboards and a couple of other things.  Other than that I plan on starting on the layout for the final presentation – from here on out I’m not working on anything that won’t end up as part of my final presentation.

Most of the feedback I got was concerning materials.  Since labor is cheaper in Mexico it was suggested I may want to look into using a concrete structure instead of a steel one, which would probably be more expensive.  Also instead of bolting the wood framing to the steel the instructor suggested using SIP’s.  I’m still looking into it but the more I work out the details the less feasible it seems to make the switch.  The advantage of the steel structure is that when it is bare it has less of a presence than the thicker and seemingly heavier concreter column and beams – but he was right, it would be cheaper.  What initially appealed to me about the SIP’s is the same reason now that they seem unlikely to work.  The SIPs seemed simpler than wood framing since it was essentially just a panel and did not need to be faced or insulated.  But SIPs are not entirely structural, that is they require a material along their lengths to attach to like wood studs.  So instead of being simpler, they require an additional structural component to work.  The wood frame is entirely structural by itself.  It seems they are heavier which would make them harder to put in place.  Also they are difficult to cut into or alter to insert windows or doors.  I still need to look at it closer before I move on. 

d

                                                                                                                                                                 It was obvious that the first thing I needed to do this quarter was address the landscape of my project.  To place the emphasis solely on landscape would be too narrow in scope because what was really necessary here was to tie my project and site in with the surroundings.  That is the whole project needs to be sensitive to the context and this can primarily be done through site interventions or creating new infrastructure that taps into the existing infrastructure – especially the canal.  The buildings were beginning to do this but it is important to have the landscape and infrastructure complete the gesture. 

I’ve scanned in some sketches that I’ve done over the last week or so.  The second sketch (above right) is an elaboration of the first (above left).  In the second sketch the shaded area was going to be excavated and slope down towards the canal, both of which would be separated by a proposed highway.  I was going to excavate right up to the cement canal and use its steep slope to provide a back wall for the marketplace with structure strong enough to support the eventual highway over the top of it and parking just on the side of the road.  The marketplace would have been facing the massing with a promenade leading from the original ground level, down in front of the marketplace vendors and back up to ground level running parallel to the parking.  Small slits would separate the highway from the canal edge and provide skylights for the marketplace stalls below.  Pathways would have extended from the fingers of the buildings across the excavated area to the parking. 

I abandoned this proposal pretty quickly because it involved creating to much structure to support the highway and the marketplace would have been dark and somewhat unneccessarily confined.

s

The three sketches above (in order from left to right) are all variations on an idea a little less invasive than what I just mentioned.  Here I’m not excavating as deeply (maybe 6 feet maximum) but incrementally terracing the earth.  The terraces basically triangulate the sloping ground and point towards the closest low point.  From here the ground drops a few more feet and steps lead to a large drainage pipe below the ground that leads under the future highway and comes out through the side of the canal.  People already cross the canal – in aerial shots you can see tire bridges strewn together.  With the paving of the new highway people will need a way to safely cross.  Preserving that connection is key.  These tunnels are not only for people to use but also will provide much needed drainage since the neighborhood towards the south slopes towards the site which is almost totally flat.  So the people and the water take the same path.   

I’ve decided to remove the parking entirely from the road side and situate it on the sides of the site.  A sidewalk runs along the highway and is terraced by a retaining wall that houses the beginning of the tunnel.  The sidewalk turns toward the site at the high points of land created in between the low points.  The sidewalks will meet the fingers of the buildings and join a market promenade that weaves in an out of the buildings.  Market stalls will occupy the ground floors of the fingers with residential units just above that.  In the future the sidewalk on the high points can extend across to bridges that span the top of the canal to create a more substantial crossing. 

I’m making an attempt to show more of the process for this part instead of just the finished project (hence the title).  Showing the steps that lead to a final decision will help explain why I did one thing and not another.  You can also see the changes in direction that results from discovering and creating new problems.  I’ll post the drawings from my last review next so that you can see the more formalized site plans.

This was the site model that I used for the latest presentation.  I explain the form below, in part.  Additionally, the massing remains more dense towards the south side of the site (closest to neighborhood and subsequent utility connections).  The massings are placed a fixed distance apart – the same distance as the length of a unit so a unit can actually span across the gap on the second and third floors.  Moving northwards the massings change angles so that the gap between them widens preventing units from spanning across.  This allows the negative spaces to remain open and eventually transition into open gathering spaces. 

I’ve been recycling the site model, building on it, stripping it off and rebuilding.  It might be time to mill a larger one out of foam.

We had our final presentation for the quarter last week – still catching up on my sleep.  Normally I do my boards first and then whatever time I have left over I will make a physical model – which means my models are normally rushed if done at all.   In this case I felt like it was necessary to make a physical model that would be able to show some of the more complex relationships among units, it was probably the most effective way to get my point across.  So I started my model well in advance (its no work of art but it gets the job done) and then did all of my boards.

There are a few things that just did not get done…my circulation plan is almost non-existent and the building mass is not integrated with the site the way it needs to be, but then again that’s why we still have next quarter - to finish the project (and yes, the jurors pointed out these two deficiencies). 

Overall I’m happy with my progress, that is, I am happy with what I have so far but there is still much more to be done.  Overall the jurors more-or-less “liked” my project.  3 out of the 5 jurors were from Tijuana (or currently live there) which is always a scary situation since I am not from Tijuana and do not live there they will automatically know more about the appropriateness of any project in that city (see comment: “It is not ‘Mexican’ enough.”).  But I long ago realized that in order to have the most effective project that I would need the insight of those that know the people, the politics, the needs etc. of the area. 

One juror also felt that the structure of the project was too redundant which could be solved by adding a different programmatic element to the project or by differentiating the larger collective spaces.  Most of the jurors agreed there needs to be another programmatic element, for the reason above and also to mediate between the northern canal/proposed highway area and the southern grouping of housing units.  My original intention was to have the massing of the housing units taper off in a sort of gradient as they moved northward eventually giving way to a series of green collective spaces. 

Its my impression that there is a lack of green/collective spaces in Tijuana, many of which I observed took place near or in between roads (I saw a woman on a blanket reading on the grass in the median while I was there visiting – because this is where the green spaces are).  With the green spaces I’m maintaining the proximity with the roadway but also allowing it to serve dual purposes by giving the housing units collective areas and providing a transitionary area.  Basically the jurors thought this would be more effective if the program also mediated the spaces by introducing a market, a laundromat, a library or something besides just housing.  I agree and had envisioned all along the housing units that border this collective area to be turned into informal shops/storefronts run out of their homes.  To take it one step further I could create the setting for a marketplace – this seems like the most natural programmatic addition at this point but I need to think it over.  I also don’t want to make too many drastic changes that fundamentally change the nature of my project – I just have to remember what my project is and what it is I’m trying to achieve. 

Again, I’m not going to post all the boards I have because not much has changed on a few of them.  Here are the one’s that have significant changes:

We had a mini-project due today, just one 11×17 explaining the systems in our projects.  Mine does not call for as many complex systems as some of the others - its just not the nature of this type of project.  Things I did need to address were structure, utilities and the articulation of specific components.  I had fun making this graphic…all it took was 20 layers, 6 thousand lines and a really, really late night.  We have our final project of the quarter due in just one week from today.   

Although the midterm presentation was over a month ago I never posted an entry for it.  Some of it was actually pretty similar to the schematic design presentation that I posted on Jan. 23 - the first two boards so much so that I won’t bother reposting them.  There were a couple of changes so I’ll just post the new individual graphics.  The second two boards are markedly different so I’ll post them in their entirety.  Chronologically, since this entry should appear a few down, the massing is now totally different (see previous post).  Also I’ve changed the unit prototypes a bit to make more workable spaces.  I never managed to get a model completed at any rate. 

As far as feed back, we had two good jurors, one is an architecture teacher at a local school and the other is a structural engineer (structure was the focus of the presentation).  I had met with the structural engineer the week before so I had the structure pretty well worked out.  There was some concern that my massing was manifested in bars across the site.  One juror pointed out that if my unit/framework system was truly responsive and flexible enough then expansion could happen “isotrophically” instead of just along the bars.  He’s right so I’ve been trying to rectify that.  The reason I hadn’t done that before is because I didn’t want this structural framework covering the site, in some places where it would not be used/necessary, but the point was that there is a compromise somewhere in between.  The framework doesn’t need to be linear nor should it be nondiscriminately applied across the site.

I came across a book by Frei Otto called Occupying and Connecting: Thoughts on Territories and Spheres of Influence with Particular Reference to Human Settlement, or, as I like to call it, OCTTSIPRHS – catchy right.  The title is pretty self explanatory but he goes into depth in certain parts about path systems.  There is the “direct path” system which is just that, every point is connected with every other point by the shortest route, a straight line (#2 diagram in the picture).  No forking routes or detours occur in the direct path system.  Another type is the “minimal path” system (#3 diagram).  The path is less direct but the overall network of paths will be connected by fewer routes, involving detours, but the total length of paths will be less.  The path system that is the compromise between the two, and perhaps the most efficient, is the “minimising detour network,” (#3 diagram).  It utilizes the directness of the direct path but also consolidates paths where possible. 

path networks - Frei Otto

minimal path network model - Frei Otto

The reason I’m talking about this is because these principles can be used in several places throughout my project including the  massing strategy (which I’m probably totally revamping), utilities and circulation.  Since costs must be kept at a minimum in my project using the efficiency of the path networks will allow me decrease distance of utilities running across the site as well as decreasing amount of circulation while maximizing their connection potentials.  I’ll also orient my massings with this in mind locating them close to areas where utilities connections and access points to the site occur.   This is an idea I’m just now beginning to work out but here are a few sketches out of my sketchbook.

I’m going to pair this idea with striating the building mass allowing for future development between the striations connecting them.  The striations will run more or less perpendicular to the north and south roads, as opposed to the typical parralel street frontage response.  The site will serve as a filtration system mediating the relationship between the neighborhood to the south and the busy highway slated to be built soon to the north.  Most of the mass will be situated on the south side closer to the neighborhood where the utility connections are located leaving the north side to house more of the open gathering spaces, which are so infrequent in Tijuana.

I just revised the introductory explanation of my thesis - thesis intro.  I’m trying to rework different parts of the thesis book as I go along so I don’t have to do the entire thing at the end.

Here is an updated version of the Operational Framework previously known as the theoretical framework and the Statement of the Problem. I renamed the theoretical framework because it really isn’t based on true architectural “theory” per se.  These two documents should contain the majority of my writing for the thesis book.  These aren’t the finalized versions but they are much more complete than the previous postings.  The content is there but I need to work on the formatting.

These are the three books that currently hold my interest.  Planet of Slums and Informal City are investigations into the deep-seated causes of the global housing problem (to give it an oversimplified label) and not just a commentary on the symptoms, which seems to be the focus of most speculation regarding the subject.  Algorthimic Architecture basically has nothing to do with the problem, but may offer a solution in a round-about way.  To quote from the book:

“An algorithm is a process of addressing a problem in a finite number of steps.  It is an articulation of either a strategic plan for solving a known problem or a stochastic search towards possible solutions to a partially known problem.  In doing so, it serves as a codification of the problem through a series of finite, consistent, and rational steps.  While most algorithms are designed with a specific solution in the mind to a problem, there are some problems whose solution is unknown, vague, or ill-defined.  In the latter case, algorithms become the means for exploring possible paths that may lead to potential solutions.”

Could not have said it better myself.  Although computers are useful for this type of computation, they are not necessary – algorithms were around long before computers.  I see it as way to manage a problem and/or a solution that is complex enough that it would be beneficial to approach it on an incremental level.  Time permitting I would like to use an algorithm to produce all possible arrangments of defined unit types given a fixed set of guidelines via grasshopper in Rhino or some other scripting interface.  Sounds simple enough but I’m cringing as I type thinking about the amount of time involved in an undertaking like that.

Since I’m on the subject of references, here’s a link to my updated thesis reading list: Thesis Reading List.  It’s much more comprehensive than the last one I had up here.

Technically this presentation was supposed to mark the end of the schematic design phase of our thesis projects but its hard to mark the definite end of one phase the and the start of the next.  The good thing about presentations is they get you to focus on areas that were previously neglected even if they are temporary solutions…they get you into a production mindset.  Since this phase is concerned primarily with design I didn’t include alot of the background/research material.  

We ended up switching professors for the presentation which allows us to get a fresh point-of-view from someone other than the teacher who has been staring at our projects since we started.  I would contend that such advice might be more effectively communicated over an extensive desk crit – as opposed to a 15 – 20 minute max. presentation.  For the most part I got positive feedback followed by the obligatory and perhaps obvious, “but you have a lot of work to do.”  I did also manage a “congratulations” and “I’m curious to see how it will turn out” also.