Studio Final: Model and Perspectives

Here is the model and the perspectives as presented in Boston. These show the inside-outside flow of space.

Model Progress

Here are a couple of images of the model in progress.

First some parts...

Then some assembly...

A view in the site...

As I am working on the physical model and the packaging, I also am looking at some presentation views, and thought I would share this preliminary one...

Back on the Ground...

Over the weekend, I decided that the front part of the design needs to meet the ground despite the advantages stated in the earlier post. As Ted so astutely pointed out, this was "avoiding" the issues regarding how this should interact with the ground instead of working to resolve those issues. It was too easy just to remove the enclosure from the ground level. So I am back to working this out. These drawings show progress so far...

The Truncated Lozenge Progress

Some progress plans:
1st Floor:

2nd Floor:

3rd Floor:

4th Floor and Green Roof:

A view from the corner:

Snooze Alarm Inspiration & the Truncated Lozenge

It occurs to me... If I am trying to "get out of the way" of the "flow of Boston", why don't I create a design that really allows the flow as if the building were not there? If the smaller section did not come to the ground, it would really get out of the way. It would instead create a canopy of structure (I hope this isn't Eddie's umbrella), define the entrance, define passageways, create the arteries for the flow. The upper levels could take whatever form is most in keeping with the concept, without interfering at the pedestrian level. The sketch below shows several possible upper floor shapes, but I think the one that works best is Ted's "Truncated Lozenge". (in green) It will create visual interest from all directions, create implied indoor/outdoor spaces, and allow for more green space - bringing a little of the square into the corner perhaps - at the ground level.

This is a quick study of the approach from the library corner....

And from the North on Dartmouth...

The lozenge...

Another attempt at the separated portion's form. The "lozenge" or "eye" shape works (but starts to create another "repellent corner") on the SE side but it blocks the subway entrance on the NW side... I will keep working on it.

Testing some design decisions

I have decided, before building this into the final presentation model, to test some of the design decisions so far and look to my cohort for some input.
I made the decision to cut the building in two at the ground floor level to allow the "Flow of Boston" to circulate through as if the building were not there. I did a quick sketch to try to get a feeling for occupying that space between the two parts of the building.

Cutting the building at a 45 degree angle did a few things. It freed the pedestrian flow as expected. It created two separate and unequal structures at the ground level and beyond. The smaller part has greater visibility and therefore importance where the larger part is more hidden, an interesting paradox. It also began to set up a geometrical language of 45 and 90 degree angles.

My first resolution for the form of both parts the building worked off of this now established relationship. This creates some strong forms which work with pedestrian flow and create an ordered expression. It steps into the sidewalk - the realm of the pedestrian - without being too oppressive. It serves to create some inviting exterior spaces and concave entrances to the pass-through.
I decided to look back to a couple of other options which were considered but rejected to see what everybody else thinks about them.

The first introduces a second geometry - a semicircle. This works to further differentiate the two different building parts formally, and it further softens the buildings "intrusion" into the pedestrian space. Do these two geometries conflict with each other too much or do they somehow work together to differentiate the parts and strengthen the whole?
I also considered a more of a "truncated square" approach, slicing parts out of the square form and shifting the smaller part of the building somewhat to interact with the pedestrian flow. This has strong formal continuity, and visually expresses the effect of the "slice". The weakness is that it presents a real "repellent corner" with its acute angles on the north and east approach. Do you think this factor is strong enough to reject this plan or does it deserve further study to soften that corner?
I would appreciate some thoughts on this - either to push me down my current path or to send me down a new one.

Intensive Photo

I found this cohort photo while looking for something else. It needed to be shared. I also uploaded it to Matt's FTP site if you would like a copy... It is IMG_5422.JPG in the Photos Directory.

Massing with Glass

I have added a glass dominant envelope to the earlier massing to see what it would look like. (I think it looks a little like some kind of a bug from this view from the corner by the library)



This view is through the diagonal passage arising from the question in the circulation studies "if the building were not there" This seems to be the most significant design element which came about as a direct result of thinking about circulation.


Where this view is from sidewalk level approaching from the East on Boylston Street. This shows how the building engages the sidewalk area and announces itself from to people even on this approach.

I am still struggling with trying to incorporate some Le Corbusier principles into this project. I think that the influence which Frank Lloyd Wright has on me is so strong that it may be interfering with that process. However, I found a wonderful book today which may help me to better appreciate Le Corbusier. It is titled "Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier - The Great Dialog" by Thomas Doremus. Mr. Doremus contends that the two master's works while very different, are the results of many shared principles. For instance, he compares, and finds many similarities in, Fallingwater and Villa Savoie. Ted, were you making that same connection when you encouraged me to explore "Corb" and his Carpenter Center? Perhaps if I work to incorporate Wright's principles, I will be incorporating Le Corbusier's as well? I need to focus some energy on Theory Class now, perhaps that work will "cross-pollinate" into this project.

Massing

As I am struggling to incorporate something more from the circulation studies into my design... Thinking about Corbusier, ramps, articulating levels, but no breakthroughs so far...

I have started to look at the massing which I have in mind for the building. These SketchUp drawings are not nearly complete but they have given me a better idea of what this "mass and glass" building might look like. I know that the floor plates on the second and third floor need to be pulled away from the envelope in order to release the space.

Another Sketch and More Circulation

This is a new sketch looking through the inside-outside pass through part of the building. This sketch shows the multiple entry possibilities

This is the back of one of the circulation studies... I thought it looked just as good on the back!

These are the actual circulation studies. If they are not the full circuit of the store, the variation is noted.

On Design Process...

I believe that we are pursuing our education in design in order to learn essential Design Principles and to develop our own, personal, unique Design Process.

Principles can taught effectively in the classroom and in design studio situations. Design Principles need to be learned and incorporated into designs for them to be successful. The basic Principles of Architectural Space, Human Scale, Natural Light and Functional Order must be sensitively applied to every design problem.

The Design Process is a very individual thing which cannot be taught effectively. Every student of Design must explore the various processes and fill their own "tool-bags" with the tools that work for them. The design Process for Conceptual Design may include Design in Plan and Section, in Perspective Sketching, in 3-D massing models, in 3-D spacial models, in virtual 3-D models or in visual 3-D imagining. While it is vital that students explore and investigate the full range of processes, it is just as important that they find what works effectively for them and to incorporate those processes into their own, individual Design Process.

I have developed my own design process through years of exploration in design studios. My process involves research to fully understand the problem and its unique needs and conditions. I fill my mind with that information and then develop the design using 3-D visualization and thinking. I may sketch important details which I do not want to forget, but for the most part, I do not do any drawing or model building until I can inhabit the design in my mind. The unfortunate product of this process employed in a studio situation, is that in the early stages of the conceptual
design phase, I have "nothing to show" for my efforts. This has been a cause for concern for some professors in design studio. I sometimes will do simple sketches of a design in process, like the one attached to this thread, in order to have something to discuss with the professor during studio. However, I believe that what is important is the final result - the design - not the process I used to get there.

Mandating process in advanced studio situations can be either useful or limiting. If it leads to the discovery of a valuable design tool or element, then it is certainly beneficial. If it is time consuming and does not lead to any useful discovery then it merely a distraction.

I was asked, "would Le Corbusier (Corbu) design in plan?" I have focused some research effort on that question perusing several books on Corbu including Album La Roche*. I have found that Corbu was an accomplished artist as well as an ground breaking architect. It appears that he expressed his design concepts mostly in perspective sketches. I would be a fool to think that I were to fully understand his design process and if I were to emulate that process, that I would be able to design like he did. I must follow my own process through and in the end, succeed or fail, produce a design that in uniquely my own.

The sketch above shows a possible envelope for my store based on the circulation study of "if the building were not there". This design would allow pedestrian flow through "the building" without entering the actual building and would provide multiple opportunities to be drawn into that building proper. I am currently working out massing and structural details in order to create free flowing space demanded by my concept statement.

* Album La Roche / Ch.-E. Jeanneret, Le Corbusier ; edited and with an essay by Stanislaus von Moos, New York, N.Y. : Monacelli Press, in collaboration with the Fondation Le Corbusier, Paris, 1997