Stewart Gohringer

Stewart Gohringer Selected Work MArch I, Harvard GSD BS Arch, SUNY Bualo

Stewart Gohringer Contents

Inequity and Escapism Knowledge Center Austere Depth Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” Triple Dormer Surgical Center Proposal Housing in Urban Africa Drive-In Model Resume

2 8 22 34 44 50 54 58 62

Inequity and Escapism: Public EducaĆ&#x;on in America

Harvard GSD Advisor: Ingeborg Rocker Fall 2011

Inequity and Escapism Public Education in America

Stewart Gohringer Harvard GSD

2 Stewart Gohringer

A 350 page book, Inequity and Escapism discusses the K-12 educa on system within the United States. This five-month research project covers the historical, social-poli cal and architectural context within which today’s schools and school districts exist. The book serves as the intellectual framework for a subsequent architectural thesis project, culmina ng in a proposal for a new public school archetype - a school building/site strategy which a empts to bring metropolitan regions and diverse student groups together rather than spli ng them apart.

Inequity and Escapism 3

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

STATE

fall, forc forcing cing property tax rates to increase in order to collect the sam same me amount of revenue.16 This creates a vicious cycle that can n work wonderfully for districts on the rise, and disastrously disastro ously for districts in decline. It is a system that pits districts s against against one another, competing for taxpayers and afÀ fÀuentt h homebuyers, omebuyers, neglecting to serve families trapped in poor dis districts. stricts. How can such a system exist? A system that encourages encoura ages district A to bene¿¿t at the expense of district B?

1/10 1/ /10

authorize autho orize o ove oversee ersee e

Elementary School taxes

elect Superintenden Superintendent nt one for every ten schools

Aldermen three for every county

elect

1.1 1.12 12 “M “More More than one in ten U.S. schools are “Drop Out Factorie Factories” es” where no more than 60% of students who start as s freshman make it to their senior year.”

- Cente Center er for Research on the Education of Students Placed a att Risk Ironicall Ironically, ly, the institution designed to unite American society is now w widening idening its divisions. But instead of giving up on it, privat privatizing tiz zing it, or escaping from it, the United States must rebuild iit. t. It is true that only a quality public education system

Regional Districts (composed of county Aldermen)

compose

WARD (TOWN)

Public Board of Visitors

elect

14,000

Because of district-level property taxes and district-level district-levvel school boards, families are naturally concerned with the the educational standards and school quality of their own local local district. An intra-district focus can make it easy to ignore igno ore the quality of schools in the district next door. School district distrrict performance, property values, and property taxes are e all all interrelated and based upon one another.15 When school sch hool districts perform well, property values go up and tax revenue re evenue increases. As district performance worsens, property values values

Grammar School taxes + tuition

COUNTY

State Legislature

elect

oversee

School districts districts acknowledge each other through competition not through thro ough cooperation. Each district is its own bubble, with its own own successes and its own failures, trying to make itself the e best and most attractive bubble it can. These bubbless are a failure in American citizenship. The fact that a municipal municip pal boundary is all that separates one voter’s concern for anot another ther is absolutely unpatriotic. Students attending a high sch school hool containing 75% or more low socioeconomic studentss are three times more likely to be taught by an uncerti¿¿e ed d English or science teacher than students attending attendin ng an afÀ fÀuent school.17 Across the nation, 50% of African American American students’ peers live in poverty, compared to just 18% 18% of white students’ peers.18 These ¿gures would startle many many families who live in districts unaffected by noticeable noticeab ble levels of poverty. But when the facts are made available, availablle, they become much easier to tolerate when they are someone som meone else’s problem.

g grade rade levels le evels

Public education will never be able to make up for a quality home environment and good parenting, but as as a function of society, public education has the respons responsibility sibility to acknowledge that such inequities exist. As it stands, stand ds, we do not have a truly public system of education, instea instead, ad, we have systems of public education that deal with increasingly homogeneous pockets of the public inst instead tead of the public at large. We have high-performing scho schools ools for high-income families and low-performing schools forr lowincome families.

1.10 The United States has more than 14,000 public school districts. - U.S. Census Bureau

MULTI-COUNTY REGION

appoint

seconds se econds

3

1.11 1.1 11 “E “Every Every 29 seconds another student gives up in school,, resulting in more than one million American high school s students tudents dropping out every year.”

- The S Silent ilent Epidemic

elect Board of Visitors

best stu students udents u

29 2 9

1.09 “Fourth graders growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind d their peers in high-income communities.”

- National Assessment of Educational Progress

oversee Public University tuition

all children

Through no fault of their own, these children enter the e public school system by default, whether or not they a are re intellectually/psychologically prepared. Manufacturing g choice, in the form of charter schools or voucher prog programs, grams, do help some students ¿¿nd nd better educational settings, setting gs, but this inevitably leaves others behind and handicap handicaps ps the schools it draws from. What does it say about a scho school ool when families feel unlucky to be attending it? How ca can an new choice be invented when it fails to serve the entire pu public ublic and actually detracts from those who do not participa participate? ate?

best students stu udenttts

parents, a parent, or just...born...into a world that is u unaware naware or incapable of making informed decisions on their be behalf. ehalf.

100 Free Citizens tax payers

Jefferson’s Plan forr 1779

I: Introduction | 19

5.. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems 5

intimate schools of 50 students to factory schools of several thousand students, it failed to recognize the importance of the individual student and one-to-one connections.

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

N

0

5

10

N

20 Miles

5.02 “High School – What’s In It For Me?”

The high school (or the latter half of secondary school) was once for only the best and brightest students.9 Through the Common School movement and into the beginning of the 20th century, states implemented compulsory attendance laws up to age 16 or 18, making at least some high school education mandatory.10 The goal of high school has changed as well. This 1954 illustration shows that just 20% of student were expected expecte ed to attend college after graduation; 60% were expected to become “sales girls,” “elevator operators,” and “mechanical workers.”11 Today, post-secondary education educatio on is fast becoming a minimum requirement for the dwindling middle class. Clearly, times have changed…but have our our high schools changed enough?

Even in the 1990’s 1990 0’s and 2000’s, 2000’s, white Àight still occurred when a school district’s non-whi non-white ite student stude ent percentage reached approximately 20%. The rate of white Àight is g greatest reatest a as s district student move from 20% to 50% nonwhite. Nearly 60 years af after fter Brown, school districts still lack effective tools to racially integrate e schools schools. s.23 – American Metropolitics: Metro opolitics: The The New Suburban Reality

High School Prep Preparation parration

150

82

7 167 37

68

3

85 30

116

113 257

35

93

98 179

110

64

49 160

130

420 20

294

-3,245

156 58

141

13 6

20 0

11

53

40

3

44

105

39 58

48 142

24

SCHOOL SCHOO OL DISTRICT CHOICE

50

66

Within G Greater reater Boston, two interdistrict programs exist to give pub public blic school students the choice of attending a school district other other than their local district. Both programs are voluntary, voluntar ry, and open up available seats in the participating school d district istrict to students from outside the municipality.

METCO O is a state-funded program that allows students of color wi within ithin the Boston school district to attend the schools of a par participating rticipating suburban district. In the 2004-2005 school year, 3,245 3,2 245 minority students voluntarily left Boston’s schools to attend d one of 32 different suburban school districts.

METCO O is a highly desired program for Boston students, with an active active waitlist between 10-15,000 students. The other voluntary vo oluntary interdistrict choice program is Massachusetts School Choice, Choice, which allows any student of any district to attend tthe he schools of any participating district (provided there is a seat available). According to state law, student aid trave travels els from the “sending” district to the “receiving” district. While While voluntary choice programs provide unique opportunities opportu unities to students dissatis¿ dissatis¿ed ¿ed with their home district, critics argue argue that choice programs drain the sending districts of fundin funding ng and committed students, giving resources and diversity y to already desirable districts.10

26 49

6.06 SCHOOL DISTRICT CHOICE: Students Enrolled in METCO and/or and//or Massachusetts Massachu usetts School Choice.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education (SY 2004-2005)

-3,245

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: Number of students in ME METCO ETCO

6 - 420

METCO

3 - 150

MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL CHOICE

6 - 420

BOTH PROGRAMS

School District C Choice ho oice

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

60% - 80% 40% - 60%

$36,500 - 53,725

20% - 40%

$23,500 - 36,500

< 20%

< $23,500

No Data

School District Boarders

“Prro “Providing ov viding equal equal resources to unequal groups will never close the achievement gap. gap p. In Instead Instead,, funding formulas must go beyond mere comparability to provide substantial sub bsta stantial funds in addition to leveling the playing ¿ ¿eld.” eld.”59

School District Boarders

8.19

Adults (25+) without High School Diploma or G.E.D.

8.16

Minority Min nority Population

< 6.3%

< 20%

6.3% - 14.7%

20% - 40%

14.7% - 26.4%

40% - 60%

26.4% - 41.8%

60% - 80%

> 41.8%

> 80%

No Data

School District Boarders

School District Boarders

8.20 8.17

Adults (25+) with Bachelor’s Degree or Greater

Families Fam milies in Poverty < 4.9%

> 69%

4.9% - 15.3%

49% - 69%

15.3% - 30.2%

33% - 49%

30.2% - 50.9%

18% - 33%

> 50.9%

< 18%

No Data

No Data

School District Boarders

School District Boarders

9.01 The Military-Industrial Complex The Education-Residential Complex

III: Reality | 217

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Arkitema Arkit a Copenhagen, Denmark 2002 Program / Pedagogy: Elementary School, Open-Plan

46,574 students

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 18.5% LOW: 1.1% (Littleton)

0

Low Income Perc Percentage cen ntage

10.10 Francis Parker (1837-1902) An educational egalitarian, Colonel Francis Park Parker ker believed that education, not economics, was what separated se eparated the social classes. Parker taught that “there is no rea reason ason why one child should study Latin and another be limit limited ted to the three R’s.”19 A shortcoming in education allows on one ne to be exploited by others and alienated from society. Se Serving erving as the Superintendent of Schools in Quincy, Massach Massachusetts, husetts, Parker had the opportunity to test many of his progre progressive essive education beliefs within his own schools. Parker remo removed oved “spellers, readers, and grammar textbooks” from the E English nglish language curriculum, which resulted in teaching stude students ents “words and sentences, not the alphabet.”20 Lessons ffrom rom different subjects were integrated into a single curricu curriculum, ulum, allowing students to use math, history, and reading skills simultaneously. Finally, Parker’s “Quincy System System” m” was based on the belief that different children posses possess ss different abilities, attributes, and preferred learning st styles; tyles; a philosophy that would inÀÀuence progressive reform reformers mers in subsequent generations.21 10.11 John Dewey (1859-1952) America’s most proli¿¿c progressive education reformer, refformer, John Dewey published 40 books, 500 articles, and taught tau ught at multiple universities over a 60 year career. Trained in in philosophy, Dewey objected to the “drill-and-recitation “drill-and-recitation” n” practices that were so common (and still are) to publicc education during the Industrial Era. Dewey believed that th hat students could only ¿¿nd nd true motivation from within, no not ot from external rewards or punishments; education should sho ould therefore be based on the interests of each student, not not on the prescribed facts found in a textbook. Dewey also alsso stressed that education should connect students with real real life experiences found in the real world. As a building, the e school should become a democratic society in miniature.22

Progressive Era Educators

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

The Hellerup School is the ÀÀagship agship of the new Danish educatio education on teaching practices and standards. A newly built school, sch hool, Hellerup was not forced to renovate existing conditions conditio ons to meet new standards. Instead, the Hellerup School was was designed to exceed the new legal standards and developed develop ped a new educational culture to match.

Recent Hist History isto ory y of o Classroom mT Technology echnology chnology

4 Stewart Gohringer

Title I (of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) is the largest funded program for aiding disadvantaged children. Its goal is to help “level the playing ¿¿eld,” eld,” assisting children with services that are too expensive for a weak tax base to provide. Title I’s funding formula attempts to equalize the amount of funding across various services, so that all necessary services are available to every child. But the premise of the funding formula is ÀÀawed. awed. Adding services to students ill equipped to make the best use of them can waste time and money.60 A simple example of this is Nicholas Negroponte’s “One Laptop per Child” initiative which aimed to equip every child in the developing world with a $100 laptop.

Negroponte’s theory was that the inability to afford the laptop was what prevented poor children from utilizing the laptop’s educational potential. But after a three-and-a-half year test, the poor students showed no academic improvement.61 Similarly, a six-year study of technology use in local public libraries showed that public computers actually contributed to growing g the gap between af afÀ fÀuent users and low-income users. Poor children used the computers to watch movies, spending less time on their academics. The money spent to “equalize” technology may have actually contributed to greater inequality.62 Title I targets the economically disadvantaged with $13 billion per year; it has the right intensions but the wrong strategies.63 No Child Left Behind d also targets a speci speci¿¿c group, directing “supplemental services” to children who attend failing schools.64 These programs acknowledge the fact that students should not be held responsible for their circumstances; whether it is parents in poverty or struggling schools, a disproportionate ¿nancial compensation should be directed towards the students in challenged circumstances.

Again, this is the right intension, but it is not executed with the full ¿nancial commitment that is necessary to prove effective.

FLIPPING THE CLASSROOM Computers, wireless communication, and online collaboration have profoundly changed the world but they have had a relatively weak impact on the organization of curriculum and schools.

Personal computers, educational software, and the internet have been in classrooms for a decade or longer, but using new tools to perform the same traditional strategies has mealy updated education instead of innovating it. This is beginning to change.

Within just the past few years, a small number of American schools have allowed the 21st century to signi¿¿cantly inÀ inÀÀuence uence education. Affordable personal computers (desktops, laptops, tablets, and handheld devices), broadband internet, and digitally-recorded curriculum now allow the classroom to be “À “Àipped.” Àipped.” This means that the rehearsed/pre-scripted lesson plans that are traditionally taught during class are now assigned as homework, while the problem solving and implementation of the material that is usually assigned as homework, can now take place in class with the help of classmates and a teacher. Instead of spending valuable class time delivering the same lecture to 20 students, a pre-recorded lecture or lesson plan is viewed by 20 students as homework, allowing class time to be devoted towards questions, problem solving, and individual attention, both from students who fully grasp the material and from the teacher who is now freed to work with students individually or in small groups.10

In 1993 1993, 3, Denmark passed one of the most progressive public school llaws aws in recent history. Among other requirements, the law required required that all subjects be taught to the “abilities, developmental develop pmental level and potential” of the individual student.4488 The newly required space for teaching needed to accomm accommodate modate both large and small groups, team teaching, and mo modern odern audio-visual equipment. This rendered the tradition traditional nal classroom inadequate, forcing most schools to renovat renovate te two or three classrooms into one single space.49

12.05 Language-Lab Headset c. 1950

12.06 12.0 06 Educational Television c. 1958

12.07 Hand-Held Calculator 1972

12.0 12.08 08 Scantron 1972

11.54 (opposite) pp Communal Com na Activit Activityy Space S Helle Hellerup School S

12.09 Plato Computer 1980

12.1 12.10 10 CD-ROM Drive 1985

11.55 Exterior Elevati Exte Elevation E on Hellerup School Helle S

12.11 Interactive Whiteboard c. 1999

12.1 12 12.12 iClicker 2005

11.56 Playground Play n Hellerup School Helle S

12.13 XO Laptop 2006

12.1 14 12.14 iPad 2010

IV: Change | 295

99th

50th

III: Reality | 235

Space eM Made ade by Students

Hellerup Helle p School S

Low Income Inc come Studen Students nts (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 81.9% (Chelsea) BOSTON: 73%

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

x By age six, high-income children have spent 400 more hours of time on literacy activities than their low-income peers, an average difference of 1.5 hours per week.58

> 80%

$53,725 - 87,200

6.21 LOW INCOME PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of enrollme enrollment ent who meet ANY ONE of the following definitions of Low-income: the student is eligible for free or reduced price lunch; the student student receives Transitional Aid to Families benefits; the student is eligible for food stamps.

Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Selected Selected Populations Po opulations Report)

III: Reality | 133

8.18

> $87,200

20 Miles

75 41

28

27

Students Enrolled in Private School

8.15

10

64

II: History | 105

Income Inco ome Per Capita

5

62 100

RESPONSE TO RACIAL SEGREGATION: MANDATORY INTEGRATION 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling of¿ f¿cially made racially segregated schools illegal.16 Through the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s, courts and school districts used different school attendance policies to legally integrate their schools. Pairing, attendance rezoning, and mandatory busing were various changes that districts used to capture a legally balanced student population.17 To various degrees, these changes threatened the traditional and idealized notion of the neighborhood school. Black students attended “white schools” and, for the ¿rst time, a small percentage of urban whites were mandatorily assigned to previously “all-black” schools.18 Integration efforts, particularly mandatory busing, were very unpopular among the majority of Americans. But since the court-ordered integration policies only affected individual districts instead of entire metropolitan regions, white Americans had an escape option; white Àight from urban districts to suburban school districts was a legal way of keeping schools segregated.19 The white exodus from urban school districts has been so thorough that the schools of many cities are more racially unbalanced than they were before desegregation began.20 A 1975 study found that desegregation measures, while legally necessary and well-intentioned, were ultimately self-defeating since they lead to even greater levels of legal segregation.21 Because of white protectionism and school district Balkanization, a debilitating cap was placed upon the effectiveness of school desegregation. Since an effective, legal, and popular solution still does not exist, urban school districts face the challenges that suburban districts can avoid.22

0

87

“All “Al ll to together, togethe r, more than 12 percent of U.S. students did a signi¿ ¿cant por portion rttio ion of their their learning online, with a higher percentage in high schooland d a much higher higher percentage if we included all the online learning that hap happens ppe pens outs outside ide of school.”11 The ÀÀipped ipped classroom is a new name (with new technology) for decades-old ideas that were not able to make system-wide innovations. The ÀÀipped ipped classroom takes advantage of increasingly ubiquitous technologies that can ¿¿nally nally make mastery learning a much more feasible reality.

Online course content allows students to access lesson plans recorded by their own teacher, a teacher from another school, or a teacher from across the world. Students watch the lessons when it is best for them and in the setting that is best for them, and because they can hold the material in IV: Change | 313

The Role of the S School ch hool and its Architecture Today’s public schools have become castles; it is time that they become bridges. brid dges.

Instead of concentrating local differences, differen nces, schools must position themselves within wiithin the gaps of today’s society. Schools must be designed to negotiate student stude ent inequities, integrating different abilities abilitie es instead of segregating them.

At the scale of the city fabric and at tthe he scale of the individual learner, schools schoo ols must engage the interstitial spaces that that are keeping Americans apart.

2. De¿ ¿ning the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

Coram’s beliefs went so far that he proposed eliminating all schools requiring private tuition, replacing them with entirely public schools. For better or worse, Coram’s vision was and never has been realized.

But it was Jefferson, this time at the state level, who proved most inÀue inÀÀuential. ntial. In 1778, his clearly-titled Bill for the More G Generous enerous Diffusion of Knowledge claimed that people must be e well educated in order to protect their natural rights. His proposal for the state of Virginia required all children (of free citizens) to be included in public education for at least three years of elementary school, without regard to wealth or status. This bill put into writing many of the beliefs shared by all. Jefferson’s model of schools included elementary schools that would teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and history...not religion. Grammar schools would be available to the best elementary students, and free college tuition for the best student from each grammar school.14 Although Jefferson’s bill was not of¿ f¿cially accepted by Virginia, it roughly forecast the model that most states would adopt.

2.07 Thomas Jefferson

JEFFERSONIAN ERA Through the 1800’s, the United States grew at an impressive rate. The 1800 Census revealed a population of 5.3 million.15 Within 50 years, the population had reached 23.2 million,16 and by 1900, the U.S. population had reached 76.2 million: a 1400% increase in 100 years.17 With greater modernization, came more immigrants and poor workers in the established cities.18 It became clear that the existing Agrarian Age model of education, the one-room schoolhouse, would not be suf¿ f¿cient in an increasingly industrial country. The one-room school had been the perfect method of delivering basic lessons to almost every city, town, rural village, and even the open frontier. Holding between 50 and 100 students within a single room, a sixyear curriculum accommodated various ages and learning abilities. Moving from small group to small group, a direct teaching style allowed the teacher to address and asses each student individually.19 With the addition of trained student monitors, the Lancastrian model of schooling pushed the single-room school to hold and teach hundreds of students within the same room.20

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.17 Bill Gates The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Operated by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded social improvement programs all over the world, including several inÀÀuential education reform programs in the United States.

Over $250 million has gone towards funding Small Schools, a program designed to create schools-within-schools and reduce student-to-teacher ratios.81 The New Schools fund provides money to start up charter schools in under-served areas.82 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believes that social philanthropy can provide the innovative spark that conventionally-funded public schools cannot.

3.20 Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers The former president of New York’s United Federation of Teachers and the current president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten is a politically powerful supporter of unionized labor. Unlike opponents of teachers unions, Weingarten believes that the AFT can lead education reform efforts without getting in their way. Weingarten acknowledges that teachers must be accountable, but stresses that unions can foster professional improvements while also ¿¿ghting ghting for fair and digni¿ digni¿ed working conditions.86

3.18 Michael Bloomberg Mayor, New York City

3.2 3.21 21 W Waiting aiting for “Superman” Documentary Docume entary Film, 2010, Director Davis Guggenheim

After taking of¿ f¿ce, Bloomberg successfully took control of the New York City public schools. Assuming the power of the disbanded school board, Bloomberg appointed an education chancellor - not a superintendent who operates beneath the authority of a school board.83 Whether or not the district improvements seen under Bloomberg’s watch are replicable, other struggling urban districts (such as Washington, D.C.’s) are looking for fast and bold changes that only mayoral control can implement.

In 2010, Davis Guggenheim’s documentary ¿lm Waiting for “Superman”” helped bring the conversation of American education to pop-culture status. Through compassionate storytelling, upsetting statistics, and accessible graphics, Guggenheim illustrates the contemporary challenges in public education. The movie follows several students who try to leave their conventional public school in favor of a charter school. The movie was praised for bringing the public’s attention to a national issue, but many have criticized the ¿lm for its selectively favorable portrayal of charter schools.87.

3.19 Michelle Rhee Fmr. Chancellor, Washington, D.C. School District In 2007, Michelle Rhee was installed as the new Chancellor of Washington, D.C.’s troubled school district. Making dramatic changes in her ¿rst year, Rhee closed 23 school, ¿¿red red 36 principals, and cut 121 of of¿ f¿ce jobs.84 A year-long suspension of tenure allowed her to ¿¿re re 241 teachers in 2010. Rhee brought extreme and unpopular changes that only her ¿¿at-like at-like Chancellor position could deliver. A critic of teacher tenure and an advocate of performance based teacher pay, Rhee’s StudnetFirst organization challenges the positions of most teachers unions.85

3.2 3.22 22 Geoffrey Canada President and CEO, Harlem Children’s Zone In 1997 1997, 7, The Harlem Children’s Zone Project was created to improve e the educational and life-long outcomes of children living within witthin a speci¿¿c zone of Harlem. The program provides a comprehensive compre ehensive set of educational enrichment and social supportt programs programs for both students and parents.88 Costing about $ $5,000 5,000 per child per year, the HCZ is a privately funded program program that is available for free to residents within the zone zone’s e’s boarders.89 It remains to be seen if the bene¿¿ts of the Harlem Harlem Children’s Zone, and its private funding apparatus, apparattus, can be replicated elsewhere.

In 1 1965, 965, at the suggestion of Ed Logue, Operation Exoduss gathered private funding to bus 4,000 black students to Brookline Brook kline and Newton in an effort to relieve overcrowding for one year. year.46 This lead to METCO (Metropolitan Council for Education Educcation Opportunity), a federally funded program (with private a assistance) ssistance) that allowed Boston’s black students to ¿ll vaca vacant ant seats in participating suburban school districts.47 In it’s ¿rst yyear, ear, METCO bused 240 students to three suburban school d districts. istricts.48 The Boston School Committee viewed these voluntary vo oluntary transfers as an adequate solution.

In 1 1968, 968, the assassination of Dr. King and the rise of the Blac Black ck Panthers encouraged reactionary violence by the black co community ommunity against white businesses and teachers in predominantly predomin nantly black neighborhoods. The few Jewish families remaining remainin ng in Dorchester and Roxbury, the strongest supporters of schoo school ol desegregation, chose this opportunity to leave.49 Despite De espite a court order to implement a more effective desegregation desegre egation strategy, political actions and the School Committee Commit ttee blocked progress. In April 1974, Mrs. Louise Day Hicks, the the most vocal member of the School Committee and kno known own as the “Hitler of Boston,”50 organized a 15,000 person anti-busing anti-busing rally in Boston Common.51 A Boston Globe p poll oll showed that blacks favored busing 2:1 and whites o opposed pposed busing 3:1.52 II: History | 91

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

C Controlled C Choic Choice ce

Two-Way B Busing us sing

Interdistrict

Interdistrict

Suburban School [20% minority students]

District Boundary

Urban School District

Urban-to-Uban Controlled Choice Transfer

Suburban School District

Suburban-toSuburban Controlled Choice Transfer

Boston Students Sttude ents Who Do Not Attend dB BPS PS (18,040)

1%

Other/Multi(180 students)

4% % Asian (722 students)

Asian (722 students)

Urban School [50% minority students]

1%

Other/Multi(180 students)

Neighborhood [85% minority students] Neighborhood [10% minority students]

Suburban-toUban Controlled Choice Transfer

Urban-toSuburban Controlled Choice Transfer

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

Boston Students sW Who ho Attend BPS (57,0 (57,050) 050))

Non-Participating Suburban School District

9% 9 % 13%

White (6,675 students)

Hispanic (2,345 students))

13% 13 13% % Hispanic (2,345 students))

41% 41 1% %

Two-Way Busing [mandatory]

White (6,675 students)

37% % 46%

36%

Black (8,298 students))

Black (8,298 students)

Interdistrict two-way busing trans transports sports stu students udents across district lines to break up municipallysegregated populations. Interdistrict Interdisstrict two-way two--way busing is the closest thing to a metropolitan school district short of combining g all school scho ool districts into one.16 Interdistrict controlled choice allows parents to rank their favorite public school, scho cho ool, including the the e public schools of near-by districts.15 PRO’s x gives more school/district choices to x parents x adds diversity to districts who accept x incoming students

CON’s x does do oes not offe er an incentive for most suburban x offer stu udents to a ttend urban schools students attend x limited lim mited by em mpty seats in participating districts x empty x does do oes not give e everyone their preferred choice x

PRO s PRO’s x can overcome overcom deeply de ee eply engrained engrained urban x segregation regation segregation x makes kes desegregation deseg desegr dese eg gat ation impossible impossible to x ape – wh white Àig ight would require moving escape white o another nother ccity i to x busing ng levels levels directly directly correspond to dire direc x in ntegration gr level e s integration levels

CON’s x very controversial and politically unfeasible x requires lots of busing – expensive x x forces some students to leave the x “neighborhood” school

8.10 Source: BPS Communications Of¿ Off¿ce

III: Reality | 163

8.11 Source: BPS Communications Of¿ Off¿ce

III: Reality | 197

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.13 M Maria aria Montessori (1870-1952) The Th he ¿¿rst rst women to enter an Italian medical school, Maria M Montessori ontessori reacted against her own experiences in conservative conserv vative Italy and traditional schools to form a teaching method of of her own. As a young doctor working with mentally retarded d children, Montessori came to believe that retardation would b be e best treated pedagogically rather than medically.

Montessori Montess sori developed a teaching method that allowed her retarded d students to pass the regular state exams. Her method was was then applied to “normal” students and became so popu popular ular that over one hundred European schools were using th the he Montessori Method within just eight years.25 Based on the b belief elief that students are “innately self-motivated,” Montessori Montess sori teachers serve as organizers of the classroom environment, environm ment, providing students with physical tools and objects that that engage the ¿¿ve ve senses. Teachers present the problem, problem m, provide the object, and allow the child to ¿nd the solution n themselves. themselves. Montessori teaching allows students to become e self-directed, con¿ ¿dent, and capable of working with children n of different ages. Although Montessori’s teachings were we well ell known among U.S. educators in the 1910’s and 20’s, Montessori Mo ontessori schools have become popular only recently.

It is estim estimated mated that the U.S. now has over 5,000 Montessori schools schools, s, almost all of which are privately operated.26

4.45 (right) “The Hitler of Boston” Louise Day Hicks Boston School Committee Member

4.46 15,000 Person Anti-Busing Rally South Boston

District Boundary

10.12 R Rudolf udolf Steiner (1861-1925) In 1 1919, 919, Austrian philosopher and architect Rudolf Steiner founded founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Wa Waldorf aldorf approach educates the “whole child” (spiritual, mental, psychological, psychological, and physical).23 Early childhood education educatio on does not include “academic subjects”; instead, young children children are taught by example and then allowed to experiment, experiiment, create, and explore sensory-medium on their own. ow wn. Teachers “loop” with their students, staying with the e same class for several years. Middle childhood incorporates incorpora ates “academics” through the arts, music, and other creative crreative methods. Later childhood (adolescence) emphasizes emphassizes conceptualization, abstraction, and ethical judgment. judgmen nt. Academic subjects are allowed to exist on their own, ind independent dependent of creative mediums, however the arts are still present pressent as subjects of their own. Waldorf education also includess nature into every day’s curriculum.24

4.44 (bottom left) Two White Students Leave for School First Day of Mandatory Busing Sept. 12, 1974

II: History | 59

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

The per percentage rcentage of low income students is heavily clustered in Bosto Boston on and the communities immediately to the north.

Across the entire region, 18.6% of students are considered low income. inco ome. If distributed evenly across all the districts, 2/10 students student ts would be a low income student. But since poverty is so he heavily eavily concentrated in relatively few districts, 8/10 students student ts in Chelsea and Lynn and 7/10 students in Boston, Everett,, Revere, and Somerville are considered low income.

That is th the he large majority of their entire district. Schools have programs prrograms designed to help students and families in need off ¿¿nancial nancial assistance. But for several districts, nearly the entire e school community is in need of assistance. While most off G Greater reater Boston’s students do not face the life challenges challeng ges of poverty, low income students must deal with povertyy iin n addition to school curriculum. Schools with high concentrations concenttrations of low income students have lower levels of academic acade emic achievement across all students, regardless of socioeconomic socio oeconomic status. Fewer highly quali¿ed quali¿¿ed teachers, lower national na ational test scores, higher dropout rates, lower college attendance attendance rates are all more common among “poor” schools. schools.19

4.43 (top left) “Whites Have Rights” Anti-Busing Rally South Boston

Recent Reform Agendas Age endas

II: History | 33

LOW INCOME IN NCOME PERCENTAGE

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston’s R Refuses effuses to Integrate 1965-1974

III: Reality | 211

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

sub-buildings by age.40 Similarly, the cluster-plan also o breaks down the scale of an entire school by grouping (clustering) (cluste ering) classrooms by age or by subject area (often called “houses”). The separate groups are connected to a shared sh hared zone of common programs and social spaces.41 The more innovative modern schools also implemented implem mented changes within the classroom. The open-classroom, connected/shared-classroom, and the slit-level-classroom slit-level-classrroom were introduced into some U.S. schools during this tim time. me.

Within each of these new rooms, the idea of a “À “Àex” Àex” sspace, pace, an unprogrammed or multi-programmed space used for for group or individual work was introduced as an extension extensio on of the classroom. Flex spaces were either incorporated in into nto or added-on to more conventional classrooms. Flexibilityy was also applied to school programs besides the classroom. classroom m.

By sharing some of the most expensive and soughtafter facilities, some public schools tried sharing (during (durin ng certain hours) some portions of the building with the larger la arger community. These schools attempted to gain community commun nity support (and tax-payer dollars) to deliver greater serv services vicces to both the students and the local residents.42 The Civil Rights / Integration Era School | 1960 – 1 1980 980 America’s baby boom students began to tail off in n the 1960’s, marking what would become a three-decade decline decline in student enrolments.43 As boomers left K-12 educati education, ion, many architectural ¿rms specializing in school design shifted shifted their attention to facilities for higher education.44 The Civil Rights movement, and subsequent Supreme Sup preme Court decisions, generated social unrest, forced racial racia al integration, and an increased concern over school safety. saffety.

The nature of urban demographics and the limited extent exttent of new laws meant that most suburban schools saw relatively rela atively few changes. Urban schools were the site of student integration and were therefore given architectural attention atte ention once again. Unfortunately, the architectural “solution” to to the challenging social environment has left this era off school buildings with a bad reputation.45 The “window “windowless wle ess school”” was introduced as a method of providing a safe sa afe and protected interior environment that could attempt tto o ignore the social strife that existed outside. The windowless windo owless school and the windowless classroom were “justi¿ “justi¿ed” ¿ed”

10.19 / 10.20 Cluster-Plan School Heathcote Elementary (1953) Perkins and Will

10.23 / 10.24 / 10 10.25 0.25 Forum-Plan School Southside Junior High School (1969) Eliot Noyes

10.21 / 10.22 The “Windowless Classroom” Before and After Renovation

10.26 Open-Plan Teaching Space Royal Wanstead Junior School Bryan Westwood

on educ educational cational terms as ways of eliminating distractions from the e educational environment. These schools undid the phys physical sical and psychological gains achieved by modern schoolss in the prior decades. Additionally, the argument of reduced d distractions was undercut by experimental teaching methodss that also emerged in the 1960’s.

Team-teaching Te eam-teaching required classrooms to open up to one another, another r, making the open-plan school more popular. One type, the e loft-plan, organizes many separate school functions (different (differen nt classes, different subject areas, different activity types) under under one roof with far fewer dividing walls than most conventional convent tio onal schools.46 A less open arrangement, the forumplan, places pla aces classrooms around large multi-use / shared program m space often two or more stories tall (essentially a programmed program mmed atrium) that was a combination of circulation space, ssocial ocial space, and programmed space.47 New school layouts were were direct challenges to the traditional classroom; open lay layouts, youts, movable partitions, video-based instruction, and carpeted d Àoors all contributed to much less formal settings.48 Through Th hrough the 1970’s, open schools and the “opening” of existing existiing schools were widely implemented, so much so that they the ey became impractical. A philosophy of self-directed and self self-motivated f-motivated students promoted spaces that allowed children n to have greater choice in their setting. But class environments environm ments became so free that they made teaching dif¿ f¿cult.. Teachers and students had dif¿ diff¿culty adjusting to the lack of formality formality and increased visual/acoustic distractions.49 By the late la ate 70’s and through the 80’s, most open-plan schoolss were were subdivided into traditionally sized classrooms with sou soundproof undproof walls and often with no windows or connection connect tion to the outside.50 The Th he 70’s raised additional challenges to school architecture. architec cture. A greater interest in the environment and an oil/energy oil/energ rg gy crisis demanded that many existing schools, especially especia ally the modern schools from the 40’s and 50’s that featured d large expanses of single-pane glass windows, receive renovations. renovations. In many cases, glass windows were replaced re eplaced with solid walls, reducing energy bills, but nega negatively atively impacting (if not destroying) the bene¿¿ts of natur natural ral light and ventilation. The ineffective use of windows, window ws, in terms of energy combined with improved HVAC technology. technolo ogy. Schools began to rely on centralized heating

IV: Change | 253

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Hallway as Communal ‘Street’

Sectional Shifts and User-De¿ned User-De¿ ¿ned Space

“Corridors do not belong in schools…Completely eliminating corridors and adding corner areas, making the space suitable for communal use by diverse groups of pupils, created greater social cohesion and more places for smaller groups, while whole-class instruction could continue to take place in classrooms.” - Herman Hertzbergerr37 To Hertzberger, the conventional school corridor has the potential to become an urban street, a devise not just for public circulation but a devise that becomes a place in itself.

By treating the “hall” as a “space” a range of programs can exist within a communal setting (from semi-private individual instruction to public group assemblies). Only by adding “extra,” “inef¿ f¿cient,” and “un-programmed” spaces can such a range of potential activities exist. By including nooks, steps, depressions, and window walls, small and large activities are allowed to take place without isolating them from the school’s greater community.38

11.37 (above) bo Hallway Podium Hallw P Delft Montessori nt School Sc ch 11.38 (top p right) Elev Elevation n Diagra Diagrams ms Sketchess Sket 11.36 Ground Floorr Plan Pla Plan Delft Montessori Montessor sori School Schoo o

11.39 (above bove right) Clas om Steps Classroom Delft Montessori nt School Sc ch

Like many of Hertzberger’s schools, the Delft Montessori Schools de¿¿nes spaces not in plan but in section. Open and connected plans unite different zones, while steps in elevation and shifts in section set the zones apart from one another. Within the middle of the communal street is a simple square podium, extruded up from the otherwise continuous ÀÀoor. oor. By “being in the way” the podium demands to be used, appropriated, and gathered around.39 It is intentionally unspeci¿ unspeci¿ed ¿ed in its function, allowing it to be “claimed” by different users at different times to perform a host of different tasks.

“We therefore ensure that each school design includes a central square...to produce a single spatial entity. This becomes a space that everyone can use, space in which the different sections are confronted with one another in a natural way, thus merging with one another. What each contributing section relinquishes in terms of territorial claims is amply offset by the bene¿ ¿t of having a far larger collective area at their disposal, which provides scope for confrontation and meeting ‘others’. This reinforces the association with the city to such an extent that it is unlike to escape anyone’s attention.”- Herman Hertzberger40

IV: Change | 257

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

IV: Change | 285

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

14.12

Students Enrolled in Private School > 80% 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40%

Proposal Pro oposal

< 20% No Data

This project project will propose America’s next urban urban school. It will challenge existing existi ing district identities instead of reinforcing reinfo orcing them.

Using g mastery learning techniques, this school school will challenge gradelevels, levels s, academic tracking, and traditional tradit tional school conventions of spatial organization organ nization and hierarchy.

This school school will propose an education gradient gradie ent to replace an education system based d on Industrial-Age models of standardization, stand dardization, resource-ef¿ f¿ciency, and repet repetitive titive procedures.

School District Boarders

1%

Home School (470 students)

3%

Spec. Education (non-BPS) (470 students)

METCO (Suburban Schools) (3,080 students)

1 % 17%

Parochial Parochiial Schoo Schools ols s (5,790 0 students) sttudents)

32% 3 2% 2%

14.13

Alternatives to Boston Public Schools

21% N

0

.5

< $23,488 $23,488 - $36,492

13.06 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

1 Mile

$22,350 Threshold Poverty Threshold (Familliyy of Four) (Familiy

N

0

.5

1 Mile Mile

13.07 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

Attend Private Schools (3,770 students)

26% 6% 26%

TARGET AUDIENCE: THOSE WHO EXIT

Charter Public cC harter Schools Schoo ols s (4,730 0 students) sttudents)

< $152,257 $152,257 - $320,675

$36,492 - $53,721

$320,675 - $495,598

$53,721 - $87,191

$495,598 - $757,423

> $87,191

> $757,423

41 82 116 93

167 7 37

68

8 85 5 30 0

113 3

257 98 179 179

64 130 160

420

20 58 6

156 141

20 2 11

294 294 -3,245

14.14

METCO Program

40 44

39

53 58 -3,245

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: Number of students in METCO

6 - 420

METCO

50

This will will be a 21st century school for students stude ents born into the Information Age. V: Conclusion | 337

66

Income Per Capit Capita ta

Median Ho Home ome e Value

49 N

V: Conclusion | 345

0

5

10

20 Miles

In addition to the students already enrolled in Boston Public Schools, this new school will attempt to re-capture the students and families who live in Boston but choose to exit its public schools. Across the entire metro region, there are large numbers of private schools and private school students. This school will try to give private school families a reason to reconsider public education. There are also thousands of students who exit Boston’s school system while still remaining in public schools. Every year, over 3,000 minority students take part in METCO.2 Some of Boston’s best students leave the city every day to attend suburban schools. This new school will attempt to provide a demographically balanced setting to welcome students of all ethnic and ¿¿nancial nancial backgrounds, something that too many existing public schools in cannot provide.

V: Conclusion | 351

Inequity and Escapism 5

excerpt from page 354: THE FINAL ARGUMENT: Good Enough for Someone Else? dŚŝƐ Ŭ ŚĂƐ ĂƌŐƵĞĚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐ ƉƵďůŝĐ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ ŽŶ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ƚĞƌŵƐ͗ ŝƚƐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ƚŽ ĚĞŵŽĐƌĂĐLJ͕ ŝƚƐ ĞīĞĐƚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĞĐŽŶŽŵLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝƚƐ ƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉ ƚŽ ƐĞŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĚ ƵƌďĂŶ ƌĞŐŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚŝƐ ĐŚĂƉƚĞƌ ;ƚŚŝƐ ƐŝŶŐůĞ ƉĂŐĞͿ ŵĂŬĞƐ ŽŶĞ ĮŶĂů ĂƌŐƵŵĞŶƚ ďLJ ĂƐŬŝŶŐ Ă ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞǀĞƌLJ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ͗ If a disadvantaged school isn’t good enough for your child, is it good enough for someone else’s?

WĂƌĞŶƚƐ͕ ŝŶĐŽŵĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ƚŚƌĞĞ ŵŽƐƚ ŝŶŇƵĞŶƟĂů ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ŝŶ Ă ĐŚŝůĚ͛Ɛ ůŝĨĞ͕ ĂŶĚ Ăůů ƚŚƌĞĞ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJ ŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ ŽĨ Ă ĐŚŝůĚ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘ dŚĞ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞ ŽĨ ƚŽĚĂLJ͛Ɛ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ďĞ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĞīŽƌƚ ĂŶĚ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ ŽĨ njŝƉ ĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͘ ĞŝŶŐ ďŽƌŶ ůƵĐŬLJ ĂůƌĞĂĚLJ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŽŽ ŵƵĐŚ͕ ŝƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ŶŽƚ ďĞ ƚŚĞ ďĂƐŝƐ ŽĨ ƉƵďůŝĐ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ ĂƐ ǁĞůů͘ 6 Stewart Gohringer

Inequity and Escapism 7

Knowledge Center

Harvard GSD CriƟc: Ben van Berkel Asst. CriƟc: Imola Bérczi Spring 2011 This semester-long design studio asked students to move from found inspira on, to diagram, to archi-prototype, to fully-programed building. At its core, this studio demanded an ini al design intension to be maintained over ever-increasing scales. The semester was broken into three phases, each with its own design challenge and scale: a small campus pavilion (100 sq.m), a building’s central lobby ( 10,000 sq.m), and an en re “knowledge center” or adult educa on building (unlimited area). A singular design intension – delamina on – was challenged and modified with each phase, but by being forced to maintain that ini al intension across different scales and programs, inven ve and unexpected architectural responses were generated.

8 Stewart Gohringer

Knowledge Center 9

ZEBRA STRIPES Ŷ ŝŶŝƟĂů ͞ŽďũĞĐƚ ŽĨ ŝŶƚƌŝŐƵĞ͕͟ ƚŚĞ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟŶŐ ďůĂĐŬ ĂŶĚ ǁŚŝƚĞ ƐƚƌŝƉĞƐ ŶĂƚƵƌĂůůLJ ĨŽƵŶĚ ŽŶ njĞďƌĂ ŝŶƐƉŝƌĞĚ ƚŚĞ ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͗ What exists in between the stripes? ďƐŽůƵƚĞ ĂŶĚ ŚŝŐŚůLJ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂƚĞĚ͕ njĞďƌĂ ƐƚƌŝƉĞƐ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ŝŵĂŐŝŶĞĚ ŶŽƚ ũƵƐƚ ĂƐ Ă ƚǁŽͲĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶĂů ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ ƉĂƩĞƌŶ͕ ďƵƚ ĂƐ Ă ƚŚƌĞĞͲĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶĂů ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟŶŐ ůĂLJĞƌƐ͘ /Ĩ ĞĂĐŚ ďůĂĐŬ ĂŶĚ ǁŚŝƚĞ ƐƚƌŝƉĞ ǁĂƐ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJ ĂŶ ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚ ůĂLJĞƌ͕ ƚŚĞ ůĂLJĞƌƐ ĐŽƵůĚ ďĞ ĚĞůĂŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ͕ ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐ Ă ŶĞǁ ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ƚŚĞ ůĂLJĞƌƐ ƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐ͘

ZEBRA PAVILION /ŶƐƉŝƌĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ njĞďƌĂ͕ ƚŚĞ ƉĂǀŝůŝŽŶ ďĞŐŝŶƐ ĂƐ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟŶŐ ůĂLJĞƌƐ ŽĨ ƐƚĂĐŬĞĚ ďůĂĐŬ ĂŶĚ ǁŚŝƚĞ ƉůĂƚĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ƉĂǀŝůŝŽŶ ĐƌĞĂƚĞƐ ŽĐĐƵƉŝĂďůĞ ƐƉĂĐĞ ďLJ ƉƌLJŝŶŐ ĚĞůĂŵŝŶĂƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂƚĞƐ ĂǁĂLJ ĨƌŽŵ ĞĂĐŚ ŽƚŚĞƌ͘ LJ ĐĂƌĞĨƵůůLJ ůŽĐĂƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĂdžĞƐ ĂůŽŶŐ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƚŚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ĚĞůĂŵŝŶĂƟŽŶƐ ŽĐĐƵƌ͕ Ă ǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ŽĨ ŝŶƚĞƌůŽĐŬŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ŝƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ͖ ƐŝƫŶŐ͕ ƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ͕ ůŽƵŶŐŝŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƉĂƐƐĂŐĞ ĐĂŶ Ăůů ďĞ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ůĂŵŝŶĂƟŽŶ͘ LJ ĚŝƐŐƵŝƐŝŶŐ ŝƚƐ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ ƵƐŝŶŐ Ă ŐůŽƐƐLJ ĮŶŝƐŚ͕ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƉůĂĐŝŶŐ ĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐ ĐƵƌǀĞƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ƉĂǀŝůŝŽŶ ŝƐ ŐŝǀĞŶ ĂŶ ĂďƐƚƌĂĐƚ ĂŶĚ ĂŶ ŝŵŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͘

AXES OF DELAMINATION 10 Stewart Gohringer

UNIQUE LAYERS

CURVED FOLDS

ZEBRA PAVILION RENDERING Knowledge Center 11

SEVEN

SIX

FIVE

FOUR

THREE

TWO

ONE

GROUND LEVEL

INDIRECT DIRECT EVENT

DELAMINATED STAIR USERS

STAIRCASE DELAMINATION

DELAMINATED STAIR The second phase introduced a lager program and scale - the public lobby of an unspecified building. The stair and its ability to both move people through space and concentrate and collect them was chosen as an exis ng architectural device upon which to operate. By delamina ng the mul ple users of shared staircase, paths for direct circula on, indirect moments of pause, and spaces of public events could be accommodated within the same ver cal void occupied by the stair. But even the most interes ng stair case cannot address users incapable of climbing a stepped incline. By delamina ng the stair even further, a spiraling stair was stretched to a 1:20 accessible ramp, crea ng a exci ng and truly public architectural element.

12 Stewart Gohringer

STAIR / RAMP HYBRID

STUDY MODELS

Knowledge Center 13

1. USER PATHS

2. PUBLIC PLANE

5. FLOOR PLATES

6. CORES

Main Auditorium

Digital Media

Café Digital Media

ůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵƐ ĂŶĚ KĸĐĞƐ Computer Hall

Library

Test Areas Discussion Rooms

Academic Programs

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

RAMPS STAIRS DELAMINATED CIRCULATION. SHARED EXPERIENCE. dŚĞ ƐƚƵĚŝŽ͛Ɛ ĮŶĂů ƉŚĂƐĞ͕ Ă ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ĂŶĚ ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ͕ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ƚŽ ĞŶŐĂŐĞ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ ůŽďďLJ͘ tŝƚŚ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝŶ ƐĐĂůĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂŝƌͬƌĂŵƉ ŚLJďƌŝĚ ǁĂƐ ƉƵƐŚĞĚ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ͖ ƚŚĞ ůŽŶŐ ƉĂƚŚ ŽĨ Ă ƐŝŶŐůĞ ƌĂŵƉ ǁĂƐ ǁƌĂƉƉĞĚ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƐŚŽƌƚ ƉĂƚŚ ŽĨ Ă ƐŝŶŐůĞ ƐƚĂŝƌ͕ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŶŐ Ă ƐůŽƉŝŶŐͬƐƚĞƉƉĞĚ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƌĞĂůŵ ƚŚĂƚ ĚĞĮŶĞƐ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƟƌĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ DĂŶŝƉƵůĂƟŶŐ ƚŚŝƐ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƉůĂŶĞ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƉĂƵƐĞ͕ ĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞŶƚƌLJ ƚŽ ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ŝŶƐĞƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌ ĐŽƌĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ĂŶĚ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ƐŚŽƌƚͲĐƵƚƐ͘ 14 Stewart Gohringer

Roof Garden ĂŶĚ WĂƟŽ

Cafeteria

Social Programs

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

3. EXTERIOR PATH

4. ROOF/CEILING PLANE

7. PROGRAM INTERFACE PORTALS

8. EXTERIOR ENVELOPE

Roof Theater

Café

Main Auditorium Roof Garden ĂŶĚ WĂƟŽ

Roof Garden ĂŶĚ WĂƟŽ

Core*

Core* Parking

Parking

Public Programs

PUBLIC PROGRAMS

Gallery

Library

Service Programs

Mechanical

Core*

*Elevator, Emergency Stair, Toilet Rooms, and Storage

SERVICE PROGRAMS

Knowledge Center 15

PHYSICAL MODEL [1:500] 3D printed pieces (Polyjet), plexiglass, magenta cardstock (scale figures), painted plywood base 16 Stewart Gohringer

Knowledge Center 17

10

10

3 4

7

3

8

6 2 1

5

1. Computer Hall 2. Computer Servers 3. Lounge 4. Assorted Classrooms 5. Tech. and Print Shop ϲ͘ KĸĐĞƐ 7. Auditorium Storage 8. Main Auditorium ϵ͘ ZŽŽĨ 'ĂƌĚĞŶ ĂŶĚ WĂƟŽ 10. Elevator/Stair/Toilet

9

6. COMPUTER HALL / CLASSROOMS / OFFICES / AUDITORIUM / ROOF PATIO

11

10 11 10. Elevator/Stair/Toilet ϭϭ͘ dĞƐƟŶŐ ZŽŽŵƐ

4. TESTING AREAS

25 12

10

23

24 13 22 20

6 18

21

14 19 15

17 10

16

ϲ͘ KĸĐĞƐ 10. Elevator/Stair/Toilet 12. Library Entrance ϭϯ͘ ŝƌĐƵůĂƟŽŶ ĞƐŬ ϭϰ͘ DĞĞƟŶŐ ZŽŽŵƐ ϭϱ͘ ^ƚĂĐŬƐ ;&ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚͿ ϭϲ͘ 'ƌŽƵƉ ^ƚƵĚLJ ĞƐŬƐ ϭϳ͘ ŽŵƉƵƚĞƌ ^ƚĂƟŽŶƐ ϭϴ͘ /ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ĞƐŬ ϭϵ͘ /ƐŽůĂƟŽŶ ZŽŽŵ 20. Sea of Carrels 21. Group Chambers 22. Light Well 23. Reading Area 24. Carrel Wall Ϯϱ͘ ZĂŵƉ ƚŽ ^ƚĂĐŬƐ

2. LIBRARY: UPPER LEVEL D

C

31

10

10

B

B 28

29 27

30

A

A 10

D

G. ENTRANCE LEVEL / PARKING

0

C

18 Stewart Gohringer

10. Elevator/Stair/Toilet 26. Main Entrance 27. Grand Lobby/ DĞĞƟŶŐ ƌĞĂͬ Event Space Ϯϴ͘ ŝĐLJĐůĞ ZĂĐŬƐ Ϯϵ͘ ^ĐƵůƉƚƵƌĞ 'ĂƌĚĞŶ ; ϮͿ ϯϬ͘ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ 31. Rear Entrance 5

10

20m

Knowledge Center 19

SE ELEVATION

1 9 10 8 4 11 5 6

12

13

^ d/KE ͳ

1 14

2

2 17

15

2

3 16

3

4

9

18

4

11

5 12

^ d/KE ͳ

6

1 14

15

16

2 3

1

8 4

4 4

4 5

5 12

6

^ d/KE ͳ

^ d/KE ͳ

NE ELEVATION

SW ELEVATION

20 Stewart Gohringer

7

6 1. Public Roof 2. Gathering Space ϯ͘ ůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵƐͬKĸĐĞƐ 4. Library 5. Bicycle/Auto Parking 6. Gallery 7. Sculpture Garden ϴ͘ dĞƐƟŶŐ ƌĞĂƐ 9. Computer Hall 10. Discussion Rooms 11. Grand Lobby/ DĞĞƟŶŐ ƌĞĂͬ Event Space 12. Cafeteria ϭϯ͘ DĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůͬhƟůŝƚLJ 14. Outdoor Theater 15. Main Auditorium ϭϲ͘ ZŽŽĨ 'ĂƌĚĞŶ ĂŶĚ WĂƟŽ 17. Digital Media Rooms 18. Tech. and Print Shop

0

5

10

20m

Knowledge Center 21

Austere Depth

Harvard GSD CriƟc: Anton Garcia Abril Fall 2010 A project devoted to the innova on, educa on, and public display of civic infrastructural projects, the design response proposes a clear and simple interplay between structure and light, carried across the en re building.

With an “austere depth,” two-meter-deep precast columns and beams are spaced and oriented in response to the sun. Direct solar rays are blocked while indirect light is allowed inside. The result is an austere and abstract facade that is scale-less from an angle, but transparent and penetrable when viewed from the east or west. Light and shadow define space and structure.

An economy of means and concept developed a repe ve and serial method of assembly. Austere Depth provides a reduc ve solu on to simultaneously answer numerous issues.

22 Stewart Gohringer

Austere Depth 23

RE-ACTIVATING THE RIVERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S EDGE The site, along the Manzanares River in central Madrid, is the result of a recent and massive infrastructural eďŹ&#x20AC;ort; above-ground highways that once lined the river have been buried underground and replaced with new river-front parks, housing, and public venues.

24 Stewart Gohringer

Austere Depth 25

SITE STRATEGIES: 1. URBAN EDGE + BOUND LANDSCAPE dŚĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĂĐƚƐ ĂƐ Ă ĨŽƌŵĂů ĞĚŐĞ͕ ŶĞŐŽƟĂƟŶŐ Ă ƚŽǁͲƐƚŽƌLJ ŚĞŝŐŚƚ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ůŝŶĞĂƌ ƉƵďůŝĐ ŽǀĞƌůŽŽŬ͘ dŚĞ ůŽŶŐ ĨĂĐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĚĞĮŶĞƐ Ă ŶĞǁ ƌŝǀĞƌĨƌŽŶƚ ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͘

2. THE KING’S PATH A perpendicular axis (in plan) includes a long public ramp, allowing the public ƚŽ ĚĞƐĐĞŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƌŝǀĞƌ͛Ɛ ĞĚŐĞ ĂůŽŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ƌŽLJĂů ĂdžŝƐ͘

3. CIVIC BEACON Sited much lower than Madrid's historic core, a tower axis (perpendicular in ĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶͿ ĚĞĐůĂƌĞƐ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƟƌĞ ĐŝƚLJ͘

4. PROGRAM AXIES ĂĐŚ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ŝƐ ŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚ ĂůŽŶŐ ŝƚƐ ŽǁŶ ĂdžŝƐ͘ dŚĞ ŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ĞĂĐŚ ĂdžŝƐ ůŽŐŝĐĂůůLJ ƐƵŝƚĞƐ ŝƚƐ ƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ 26 Stewart Gohringer

SITE AND MASSING ITERATIONS

Austere Depth 27

CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION / CONCEPTUAL PLAN

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛Ɛ ŵĞƚŚŽĚ ŽĨ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ǁĂƐ ŝŶƐƉŝƌĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ƉƌĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚĞĚ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ĞĸĐŝĞŶƚ ĂƐƐĞŵďůLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂdžŝĂů ĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŵĂũŽƌ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐ ŚŝŐŚǁĂLJ ďƌŝĚŐĞƐ͕ ƐĞǁĞƌƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƐƵďǁĂLJ ƚƵŶŶĞůƐ͘ tŝƚŚ ƌĞƉĞƟƟǀĞ ƉƌĞĐĂƐƚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ Ă ƐŝŵƉůĞ ĂƐƐĞŵďůLJ ƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĞƌĞĐƚĞĚ ƋƵŝĐŬůLJ ĂŶĚ ĞĸĐŝĞŶƚůLJ͘

ϭ͘ ƉƌĞĐĂƐƚ ĐŽůƵŵŶƐ ͬ ĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚ ĮŶƐ ŽŶ Ϯ͘ ƉƌĞĐĂƐƚ ďĞĂŵƐ ͬ ĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚ ůŽƵǀĞƌƐ site-cast slab and retaining wall

ϯ͘ ƉƌĞĐĂƐƚ ŇŽŽƌ ƉĂŶĞůƐ

ϰ͘ ƉŽƐƚͲƚĞŶƐŝŽŶĞĚ ƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĂƟŽŶ ďůŽĐŬƐ

5. window units

6. completed assembly

28 Stewart Gohringer

14

14

B

A

Storage

9

Waiting Area

9

D

Resturant

D

G

G

Kitchen Bar

6

6

4

4

Leve

LEVEL 14: PUBLIC RESTAURANT B B

+ 61.5 m 1:500 N

A A

Internal Balcony

Desks

D

Reception

Printing

D

Offices

2

2

Desks

G

G

Lounge

Leve

LEVEL 9: OFFICES

+ 41.5 m 1:500 N

B B

G

G

B1

B1

A A

D

D

Library

Cafe Seating / Study Area Cafe

B2

B2

G

CROSS SECTION B-B

G

Kitchen Reading Room

Leve

LEVEL 6: LIBRARY / CAFE B B

G

G

B1

B1

+ 29.5 m 1:500 N

A A

Offices

D

Classroom

Classroom

Classroom

Classroom

D

B2

B2

G

G Lounge

CROSS SECTION C-C

Lounge

Leve

LEVEL 4: CLASSROOMS B B

G

G

B1

B1

+ 21.5 m 1:500 N

A A

D D

Auditorium

D

B2

B2

G

CROSS SECTION D-D

LEVEL 2: AUDITORIUM B

G

G

B1

B1

B2

B2

CROSS SECTION E-E 0m

50

G

Digital Lab D

Leve + 13.5 m 1:500 N

A

14

14

9 9

9

6 6

6

4 4

4

2

2

14

14

9

6

4

2

2

G

G

B1

B1

B2

B2

B2

B2

F

E

D

E

D

C

LONGITUDINAL SECTION A-A B

C

A

B Parking D

Equipment A

Work Bay A

Equipment B

Work Bay B

Equipment C

Work Bay C

Equipment D

Work Bay D

Mech.

Mech.

D

A

A

G

G

C

History Exhibit

D

C

LEVEL B2: WORK BAYS / EXHIBIT B

0m

Base -8.5 m 1:500 N

A

50

Oversize Exhibit

Gift Shop

Ticket Counter

E

F

D E

Austere Depth 29

TOWER, EAST FACADE

30 Stewart Gohringer

TOWER, WEST FACADE

Austere Depth 31

A RAMP CONNECTS THE STREET AND THE RIVER’S EDGE

A WORK BAY ALONG THE INVESTIGATION AXIS 32 Stewart Gohringer

A VIEW FROM THE NORTH LOOKING INTO THE PUBLIC DIFFUSION GALLERIES

THE EDUCATION TOWER’S ORIENTATION ALLOWS THE GENTLE LIGHT OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET TO PENETRATE THROUGH THE BUILDING Austere Depth 33

Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” Occupying the Territory of the Urban Expressway

Harvard GSD CriƟc: Florian Idenburg Spring 2010 The urban expressway has given New York City speed and connec vity but has le Willets Point, Queens with depreciated property values and intense pollu on. It’s me to confront the problem head on. Instead of cowering from the city’s massive automo ve infrastructure, we will use its space and its latent atmospheric poten al to construct a new iden ty for Willets Point; in the confines of the expressway itself, we will build a community, recrea on and aqua cs center, giving Willets Point the poten al for a future community.

34 Stewart Gohringer

Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” 35

MUST WE FEAR THIS? It’s me to address our forsaken urban realms. Let’s take advantage of this abandoned land. The city’s disregard is our opportunity. We will take the given condi on and make it our own. The ac vity of Willets Point, Queens will no longer be oppressed by the elevated highway.

36 Stewart Gohringer

Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” 37

SITE RESTRICTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ĞĮŶĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ƚĂŶŐůĞĚ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ tŚŝƚĞƐƚŽŶĞ džƉƌĞƐƐǁĂLJ͕ ƚŚĞ 'ƌĂŶĚ ĞŶƚƌĂů WĂƌŬǁĂLJ͕ ĂŶĚ EŽƌƚŚĞƌŶ ŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐ present within Willets Point are a direct response to the limits and ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ĂƵƚŽŵŽƟǀĞ ŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘ ^ĞŵŝͲůĞŐĂů ĂƵƚŽͲďŽĚLJ ĐŚŽƉ ƐŚŽƉƐ ĞdžŝƐƚ ǁŝƚŚ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŝƐĞĚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ĂůŽŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĂƌĞĂ ƵŶƉĂǀĞĚ ƌŽĂĚƐ͘ dĂŬŝŶŐ ĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĞdžŝƚƐ ƌĂŵƉƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƌĞŚŽƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ĂďůĞ ƚŽ ƌĞĂĐŚ ĂŶLJ ĐŽƌŶĞƌ ŽĨ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ ŝƚLJ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϰϱ ŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ƐƵďǁĂLJ͕ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ǀĂƐƚ ĂĐƌĞƐ ŽĨ ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀĞ ŵŽŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ ŝŶŇƵdžĞƐ ŽĨ ƐƉŽƌƚƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚ ĂĐƟǀŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ DĞƚ͛Ɛ ďĂƐĞďĂůů ƐƚĂĚŝƵŵ ĂŶĚ &ůƵƐŚŝŶŐ DĞĂĚŽǁƐ dĞŶŶŝƐ ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ ;ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚ ĂŶĚ ǁĞƐƚ ŽĨ tŝůůĞƚƐ WŽŝŶƚͿ͘ SITE HEIGHT CEILINGS

Ϭ Ō

12

24

36

48

UNLIMITED

tŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƚĂŶŐůĞ ŽĨ ďŽƚŚ ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ ƌŽĂĚƐ ĂŶĚ ƌĂŵƉƐ ĂƌĞ ďŽƵŶĚ ŝƐůĂŶĚƐ ŽĨ ůĂŶĚ ǁŝƚŚ ŽĨ ƵŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ŚĞŝŐŚƚ ďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͘ ƌĞĂƐ ďĞŶĞĂƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚ ŚŝŐŚǁĂLJƐ ŽīĞƌ ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ ͞ĐĞŝůŝŶŐƐ͟ ǁŝƚŚ ǀĂƌLJŝŶŐ ŚĞŝŐŚƚƐ͘ SITE ACCESS

ROAD ABOVE

DANGEROUS - HIGH SPEED ROAD

CROSSABLE

OBSTRUCTION

High-speed surface roads present dangerous barriers between Willets Point, ƚŚĞ ďŽƵŶĚ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĚĞĮŶĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚǁĂLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ͛Ɛ ĞĚŐĞ͘ KǀĞƌĐŽŵŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƐĞ ŽďƐƚĂĐůĞƐ ŝƐ ƉĂƌĂŵŽƵŶƚ ƚŽ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƉƵďůŝĐ͘ SITE SPEEDS

<20 mph

30s

40s

>50 mph

džƉƌĞƐƐǁĂLJƐ͕ ďŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚƐ͕ ĞŶƚƌLJ ĂŶĚ Ğdžŝƚ ƌĂŵƉƐ͕ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƵŶƉĂǀĞĚ ƌŽĂĚƐ Ăůů ĐĂƌƌLJ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƚLJƉĞƐ ŽĨ ƚƌĂĸĐ Ăƚ ĚƌĂŵĂƟĐĂůůLJ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƐƉĞĞĚƐ͘ 38 Stewart Gohringer

WILLETS POINT, QUEENS, NEW YORK CITY

Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” 39

automotive users

AUTOMOTIVE USERS

program figures

PROGRAM FIGURES

circulation

CIRCULATION

interior ground

INTERIOR GROUND

structure

STRUCTURE

40 Stewart Gohringer

DON’T PLAY IN THE STREETS. PLAY BENEATH THEM. Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” 41

GROUND FLOOR PLAN Ground Floor Plan 1/16” = 1’

N

N

0

ϭϬϬ Ō

Seating / Tables

Gar

Physical Therapy

North Entrance

Diving Pool

WC

Aquatics Offices WC

Aquatics Entrance

Spectator Steps

Community BBQ Pit

Children's Pool

Garden Boys LR

Courtyard Entrance A

WC

Storage

Pre-School

Pre-School

Pre-School

Afterschool Childcare Community / School Lobby

Nursery School WC

Afterschool Childcare

Afterschool Childcare

WC

Playground

b

Offices Storage

Afterschool Childcare

Nursery School

Pre-Teen Offices Pre-School

Pre-School

WC

Pre-School

Storage

Cafe

Kitchen WC

WC

WC Seating / Tables

Young Adult

Library Entrance Garden

Meeting Spaces Senior Center

Conference Room

Conference Room

Reading Room Conference Room

West Footbridge (above)

SECTION A-A

ƐĞĐƟŽŶ Ă Ͳ Ă

SECTION B-B

42 Stewart Gohringer

Offices

a

Garden S A N AA

Training / Therapy Pool

Warmup / Team Space

25m Competition Pool

Whirlpools

Whirlpools

Multi-Purpose

Multi-Purpose

Multi-Purpose

rden WC

WC

Indoor Track

Spectator Steps

Women's LR

Tennis Court

Men's LR

Storage

Fresh Air Basketball Court

Basketball Court

Fresh Air

Storage

Girls LR

Storage Storage

Handball Court

Climbing Wall WC

Squash Court

WC

Spectator Seating (above) Auditorium (above)

Women's LR

Courtyard Entrance C

JC

Concessions

Storage Squash Court

Handball Court Tennis Court

Tickets

Tennis Court

Fitness Offices Squash Court

Storage Girls LR Tennis Court

Squash Physical Therapy

b

Court

Squash WC

Court

Boys LR Nutritional Center

Storage Courtyard Entrance B

Squash Court Meditative Courtyard (above)

WC

Classroom Classroom

Classroom Storage

Alternative Medicine Men's LR

Classroom

Community Lobby

Computer Room

Garden

Classroom Counseling / Therapy Fitness Entance B Fitness Entrance C

Aerobics Tower (above)

Meeting Area

Weight Room

Counseling / Therapy Arts & Crafts Exhibit Space

a

Reclaiming “No Man’s Land” 43

Triple Dormer Project

Harvard GSD CriƟc: Daniel Lopez-Perez Fall 2008 The Triple Dormer Project asks students to locate ar st studios, galleries, a lecture hall, and a café, within the three dormers of an abandoned electrical turbine building in Boston’s South End. More specifically, the site of interven on is actually within and above the depth of the exi ng roof, almost 50 feet above the ground. The exis ng building’s masonry walls, early steel structure, and triple-dormer roof are typical of the early factory building type but more foreign to contemporary architecture’s current vocabulary. The primary challenge of the project is address the exis ng building’s dominant roof line, occupying it with new programs that provide an equally dominant formal response.

44 Stewart Gohringer

Triple Dormer Project 45

FORMAL PROGRESSION The site building’s ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ ƌŽŽĨ͘

The building’s intended/ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ƌŽŽĨ͘

/ŶŝƟĂů ůŝŐŚƚ ĐƵƚƐ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌŽŽĨ͘

>ĞǀĞů ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕ ĐůĞƌĞƐƚŽƌŝĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ůŝŐŚƚ ĐƵƚƐ ŝŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌŽŽĨ͘

ŝŐŚƚ ĐůĞƌĞƐƚŽƌŝĞƐ ĐƵƚ ĂĐƌŽƐƐ ƚŚĞ ŇŽŽƌ ƉůĂŶ ƚŽ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ ŵƵůƟƉůĞ ĂŶĚ ǀĂƌƌŝĞĚ ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ůŝŐŚƟŶŐ ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͘

46 Stewart Gohringer

B

A

C

C

B

A

LEVEL THREE

0

50’

RENDERED SECTION MODEL

LEVEL TWO

LEVEL ONE

SECTION A-A

REFLECTED CEILING PLAN

SECTION B-B

0

50’

Triple Dormer Project 47

STUDIO

GALLERY

STAIR TO STUDIO

STAIRS IN MAIN GALLERY 48 Stewart Gohringer

FINAL MODEL FROM BELOW

FINAL MODEL FROM ABOVE

SECTION C-C

0

50’

Triple Dormer Project 49

Surgical Center Proposal Perkins Eastman New York, NY Summer 2011 Project Leader: Duncan Reid, Principal In CollaboraƟon with: Dario Brito, Associate This project is a preliminary design proposal for an advanced arthroscopic surgical center and recovery ward. The large building proposal is sited along the East River of Manha an’s Upper West Side. The project’s necessary program area, height, and prominent river-side posi on guarantee that the building will contribute to the city’s eastern skyline. A careful massing strategy coordinates an orthogonal surgical base with a rotated office and recovery room slab above. The base creates a strong street presence while the rotated slab maximized views towards the river and into Manha an, avoiding the large adjacent buildings. Several itera ve studies were conducted to incorporate the curtain wall facades of both the tower and the base. A simple, clear, and contemporary façade solu on was developed to func onally express the state-of-the-art programs that will occur within the building’s skin.

50 Stewart Gohringer

Surgical Center Proposal 51

CURTAIN WALL STUDIES

52 Stewart Gohringer

EAST-FACING CURTAIN WALL STUDY 4.6

PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM ROOSEVELT ISLAND

Surgical Center Proposal 53

Housing in Urban Africa Rafi Segal and David Salazar Architects Cambridge, MA Summer 2010 Project Leaders: Rafi Segal, David Salazar In CollaboraƟon with: Chris Roach, Douglas Jack An eight week research, design, and documenta on project, Housing in Urban Africa addresses the huge shortages of middle-income housing in Dar es Salaam, and nearly all of Africa’s rapidly developing urban regions.

Acknowledging that the design of a single housing prototype is an inadequate solu on, this project researched the systemic challenges facing housing URBAN AFRICA (social, economic, environmental) to be er inform a sensi ve and intelligent planning and housing strategy. The result is a preliminary proposal for a mixedincome master plan that can be applied to different site condi ons, as well as a modular housing design that can grow and adapt with the needs of its users.

A PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN + HOUSING STUDY FOR DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA

54 Stewart Gohringer

Housing in Urban Africa 55

SUB-SAHARAN SUB-SAHARA AN AFRICA. AFR RICA.

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

TANZANIA

HISTOR HISTORY RY + DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGR RAPHICS

W -L9 -8?8I8E =I@:8 @J K?< GFFI<JK I<>@FE @E K?< NFIC; W -L9 -8?8I I8E ==I@:8 @J J K? K?< GFFI<JK I<>@FE @E K?< NF FIC; W .?< I<>@FE :FEK8@EJ DFJK F= K?< C<8JK ;<M<CFG<; W .?< I<>@FE :FEK K8@EJ D DFJK F= K?< C<8JK ;<M<CFG<; :FLEKI@<J @E K K?< N NFIC;

:FLEKI@<J @E K?< NFIC;

W '8C8I@8 @J 8 :?IFE@: @DG<;@D<EK KF <:FEFD@: W '8C8I@8 @J 8 8 :?IF IFE@: @D DG<;@D<EK KF <:FEFD@: ;<M<CFGD<EK

;<M<CFGD<EK K

W 'FI< K?8E F= K?< GFGLC8K@FE @E JL9 -8?8I8E W 'FI< K?8E

F= K?< < G GFGLC8K@FE @E JL9 -8?8I8E :FLEKI@<J @J PFLE><I K?8E P<8IJ FC; :FLEKI@<J @J P PFLE E><I K?8 8E P<8IJ FC; W F= =I@:8 @J ILI8C N@K? EF 8::<JJ KF <C<:KI@:@KP

W F= =I@: :8 @J J ILI8C N N N@K? EF 8::<JJ KF <C<:KI@:@KP P

W FE< ?8C= F= JL9 -8?8I8E =I@:8 J LI98E GFGLC8K@FE C@M<J W FE< ?8C= F= J JL9 -8?8I8 I8E 8E =I@:8 J LI98E GFGLC8K@FE E C@M<J FE C<JJ K?8E /FE C<JJ K?8E / /G<I ;8P W @E

F= JL9 -8?8I8E =I@:8 J LI98E GFGLC8K@FE W @E

F== JL9 -8?8I8E =I@:8 J LI98E GFGLC8 8K@FE N<I< C@M@E> @E JCLDJ N<I< C@M@E> @E E JCLD DJ @E=FID8C J<KKC<D<EKJ :FDG8I<; KF @E J@8 8E; @E=FID8C J<KK KC<D< <EKJ :FD FD DG8I<; KF @E J@8 8E; @E &8K@E D<I@:8 @E &8K@E D< <I@:8

W <JK8 W <JK89C@J?<; 8J 8E;8I <J -8C88D SGFIK F= G<8:<X 89C@J?<; 8J 8E;8I <J -8C88 8D SGFIKK F= G G<8:<X 9P 8E I89 JLCK8E 8E; I<M@M<; 8=K<I 9<:FD@E> G8IK F= 9P 8E E I89 JLCK8E 8E; I<M@M<; 8=K =K< <I 9<:FD D@E> > G8IK F= !<ID D8E 8JK =I@:8 !<ID8E 8JK =I@:8 W I8G@; >IFNK? 8=K<I I@K@J? F::LG8K@FE =FCCFN@E> 11## W I8G@ @; >IFNK? 8=K<I I@K@J? F::LG8 G8 8K@FE =FCCFN@@E> 11## 8E; G GFGLC8K@FE ?8J 98J@:8CCP ;FL9 L9 9C<; <M< <IP KK<E P<8IJ 8E; GFGLC8K@FE ?8J 98J@:8CCP ;FL9C<; <M<IP K<E P<8IJ =IFD 8IFLE;

@E KF

@E KF

=IFD 8I IFLE;

@E KF

@E E KF

D@CC@FE KF;8P

D@CC@F FE KF;8P

W GI<;FD@E8K<CP C8:B =I@:8E 9LK I89 8E; LIFG<8E W GI<; ;FD@E8K<CP C8:B =I@:8E 9L LK I89 8 8E; LIFG<8E FCFE@8C ?@JKFIP @EU LO F= -FLK? J@8E D<I:?8EKJ 8 FCFE E@8 8C ?@JKFIP @EU LO F= -FLK? ?

J@8E D D<I:? ?8EKJ 8 ?@>?CP :FJDFGFC@K8E D@O F= <K?E@:@K@<J I<C@>@FEJ 8E; ?@>?CP P : :FJDFGFC@K8E D@O F= <K?E@: :@K@<J I<CC@>@F FEJ 8E; :LCKLI<J

:LCKLI I<J

W J<>I<>8K@FE LE;<I !<ID8E ILC< 8E; I@K@J? G?PJ@:8C W J<>I< <>8K@FE LE;<I !<ID8E ILC< < 8 8E; I@K@J? G G?PJ@:8C GC8EE@E> @EU L<E:< K?< <K?E@: 8E; JF:@F<:FEFD@: GC8EE E@E E> @EU L<E:< K?< <K?E@: 8E; ; JF:@F<: :FEF FD@: D8B<LG F= I<J@;<EK@8C E<@>?9FI?FF;J D8B< <LG F= I<J@;<EK@8C E<@>?9FI?F FF;J

SOMALIA A

URBAN N GRO GROWTH OWTH TANZANIA.

KEN EN E ENY NY NY YA A KENYA RWANDA RWA R RWAND RW WA WAND W AND DA A

BURUNDI BUR BU B BURUN UR UR RU RUN UN U NDI N DII

Y

D Dod Dodo od doma d do m Dodoma 48 48EQ@98I 8 8

TANZANIA TANZAN ANZ NZAN NA NI

8I <J -8C88D J

CO CONGO ONGO O N

ZAMBIA BIA

Y

W JK@CC 8 GI<;F W JK@CC 8 GI<;FD@E8K<CP 8>I@:LCKLI8C JK8K< ;<JG@K< FECP FD@E8 8K<CP 8> 8>I >I@:LCKLI8C JK8K< ;<JG@K< FECCP ?8M@E> F= K?< C8E; 8I<8 :LCK@M8K<; ?8M@E> F F= K?< C8E; 8 8I<8 :LCK@M8K<; I< W ?8J M8JK G?PJ@:8C I<JFLI:<J @E:CL;@E> D@E<I8CJ <JG

W ?8J M8JK G? ?PJ@: :8C I<JF FLI:<J @E:CL;@E> D@E<I8CJ < <JG

>FC; C8B< 0@:KFI@8 'K %@C@D8EA8IF 8E; K?< -<I<E><K@ >FC; C8B< 0 0@:KFII@8 'K

% %@C@D8EA8IF 8E; K?< -<I<E> ><K@ 8E; N@C;C@=< W <:FEFDP J?@=K@E> KF I<JFLI:< <OKI8:K@FE @E;LJKIP W <:FEFDP J J?@=K@E E> KF I< <JFLI:< <OKI8:K@FE @E;LJKIP JF KFLI@JD <K: 9LK JCFNCP KFLI@JD <K: 9LK J JCFNCP P W GFGLC8K@FE ;<EJ@KP M8I@<J N@;<CP N@K? F= K?< W GFGLC8K@FE ; ;<EJJ@KP M8I@ I@< <J N@;<CP N@K? F= K?< GFGLC8K@FE C@M@E> @E ILI8C 8I<8J N@K? 8 ;<EJ@KP F= G<IJFE GFGLC8K@FE C@M M@E> @E ILI8C 8C 8 8I<8J N@K? 8 ;<EJ@KP F= G<IIJFE JH BD FI C<JJ JH BD FI C< <JJ W CFN C@=< <OG<:K8E:P I8K<J I<JLCK @E 8 M<IP PFLE> W CFN C@=< <OG G<:K8 8E:P I8K 8K< <J I<JLCK @E 8 M<IP PFLE> GFGLC8K@FE 8E; C@K<I8:P ELD<I8:P I8K<J 8I< M<IP CFN GFGLC8K@FE 8E; C@@K<I8:P P ELD<I8:P I8K<J 8I< M<IP CFN N W J<M<I< J?FIK8>< F= HL8C@KP ?FLJ@E> W J<M<I< J?F FIK8>< < F= HL8 L8C 8C@KP ?FLJ@E>

W GFM W GFM<IKP @J LI98E@Q@E> 8CK?FL>? 8I <J -8C88D @J FE< F= M<IIKP @J LI98E@Q@E> 8CK?FL>?

8I <J -8C8 88D @J FE< F= K?< =8JK<JK >IFN@E> :@K@<J @E K?< NFIC; 8 K8O 98J< IFLK<; K?< =8 8JK<JK >IFN@E> :@K@<J @E K?< N NFIC; 8 KK8O 9 98J< IFLK<; @E GFM M<IKP GI<M<EKJ >FM<IED<EK @E @E EK<IM<EKK@FE ==IFD 9<@E> @E GFM<IKP GI<M<EKJ >FM<IED<EK @EK<IM<EK@FE =IFD 9<@E> K?< JFC< JFCLK@FE KF @E8;<HL8K< ?FLJ@E> K?< JF FC< < JFCLK@FE KF @E8;<HL8K< ? ?FLJ@E> W K?< :@KP J JF:@8C J<IM@:<J 8E; @E=I8JKIL:KLI< J<IM@:< K?< W K?< :@KP J JF:@8C J<IM@:<J 8E; @E= E=II8JKIL:KL LI< JJ<IM@:< K?< ?@>?<I @E:FD< ;@JKI@:KJ N?@C< K?< D8AFI@KP F= :@K@Q<EJ ?8M< ?@>?< <I @E:FD< ;@JKI@:KJ N?@C< K?< D D D8AFI@KP P F= : :@K@Q<EJ ?8M< ;@=T :LCKP K8B@E> 8;M8EK8>< F= >FM<IED<EK GIFM@;<; LI98E :L LCKKP K8B@E> 8;M8EK8>< F= >FM< M< <IED<EKK GIF FM@;<; LI98E J<IM@:<J J<IM@: :<J W 8I <J -8C88D :@K@Q<EJ J@K<; SE<N JL9LI9JX 8J K?< KPG< W 8I I < <J -8C88D :@K@Q<EJ J@K<; SE E<N JL9L LI9JXX 8J K?< KPG< F= E<@>?9FI?FF; N?<I< :I@D< @J >IFN@E> K?< =8JK<JK F= E<@>?9FI?FF; N?<I< :I@D< @J > >IFN@E> K?< ==8JK<JK W F= 8I <J -8C88D :@K@Q<EJ JLIM<P<; =<CK J8=< W F F= 8I <J -8C88D :@K@Q<EJ J J J JLIM<P< <; =< <CKK J8=< N8CB@E> @E K?<@I :FDDLE@K@<J ;LI@E> K?< ;8P :FDG8I<; KF N8CB@E> > @E K?<@I :FDDLE@K@<J ;LI@ I@E E> K?< ; ;8P ::FDG8I<; KF N?F =<CK LEJ8=< N8CB@E> @E N N?F =<CK LEJ8=< N8CB@E> @E K?<@I :FDDLE@K@<J 8K E@>?K K?<@I :F FDDLE@K@<J 8K E@>?K

MALAW LAW LA AWI AW W MALAWI

SETTLE SETTLEMENT EMEN NT PATTE PATTERNS ERNS INDIAN OCEAN

DAR ES SALA SALAAM. AAM. W

! * W

! * .J?J D@CC@FE F= K?< .J?J

D@CC@FE F= K?< E8K@FE8C ! * F= .J?J ! * >IFNK? @E E8K@FE8C ! * * F= . .J?J

! * >IFNKK? @E

W ! * G<I :8G@K8 =FI 8I <J -8C88D @J .J?J N@K? W ! * G<I :8 8G@K8 =FI 8 8I I <J -8C88D @J .J?J N@K? F= K?< GFGLC8K@FE <8IE@E> 8E 8M<I8>< CFN @E:FD< F= F= K?< G GFGLCC8K@FE < <8IE@E> 8E 8M<I8>< CFN @E:F FD< F= .J?J G<I 8EELD 89FLK .J?J

G<I DFEK?

.J?J G<II 8EELD LD D 89FLK .J?J

G<I D DFEK?

W @E

F= 8I <J -8C88D GFGLC8K@FE N8J LE89C< W @E

F F= 8I <J <J -8C88D GFGLC8K@FE N8J L LE89C< KF ><K 8;<HL8K< =FF; =FF; GFM<IKP 8E; LE89C< KF ><K 8;<HL L8K< ==FF; =F =FF F; GFM<IKP 8E; LE8 89C< KF ><K 98J@: E<<;J 98J@: E<<;J GFM<IKP KF ><K 98J@: E E<<; ;J 98J@ J@: : E<<;J GFM<IKP

/E@M<IJ@KP /E@ /E@M /E E@M<I E@M<IJ @M M<IJ@KP M<IJ@KP IJ@KP P

< E< FE FE< QQFE QF CC QF 8C Q 8C @8C KI@8C KI@8 JJKI@8 E;LJ @E; @E;L @E

%@KLE;8

0

5km

W K?I< W K?I<< FLK F= =FLI I<J@;<EKJ F= 8I <J -8C88D C@M< @E << FLK F= =FLI I<J@;<EKJ F= 8 8I <J -8CC88D D C@M< @E @E=FID8C J<KKC<D<EKJ @E=FID D8C J<KKC<D<EKJ W KNF FLK F= K?I<< ;N<CC@E>J 8I< 9L@CK N@K?FLK 8 G<ID@K FE W KNF F FLK F= K?I<< ;N<CC@E>J 8I< 9L 9L L@CK N@K?F FLK 8 8 G<ID@K FE C8E; EFK QFE<; =FI I<J@;<EK 8C LJ< C8E; E EFK QFE<; =FI I<J@;<EK 8C LJ< < W @E=FID8C J<KKC<D<EKJ 8I< K?< GI<M8@C@E> DF;<CJ F= W @E=FID D8C J<KKC<D<EKJ 8I< K?< GI< <M8@C@E> D DF; ;<CJ F= ?FLJ@E> @E 8I <J -8C88D ?FLJ@ @E> > @E 8I <J -8C88D W DFI< :<EKI8C LI98E 8I<8J 8I< KFF <OG<EJ@M< =FI DFJK W DFI I< :<EKI8C LI98E 8I<8J 8I< KF FF <OG<E EJ@M< < =FI DFJK I<J@;<EKJ I<J@;< <EKJ W K?< G<I@ LI98E FI G<I@D<K<I :FDDLE@K@<J 8I< N?<I< W K?< G< <I@ LI98E FI G<I@D<K<I :FD DDLE@K@< <J 8 8I< N?<I< DFJK CFN @E:FD< I<J@;<EKJ :8E T DFJK CF FN @E:FD< I<J@;<EKJ :8E T T E; 8==FI;89C< C@M@E> E E; 8==FI; ;89C< < C@M@E> :FE;@K@FEJ :FE;@ @K@F FEJ W G<I@ LI98E :FDDLE@K@<J 8I< K?< J@K< F= 8I <J -8C88D J W G<I@ @ L LI98E :FDDLE@K@<J 8I< K?< < J@K< F= 8I <J -8C88D J GFFI<JK 8E; C<8JK :FFI;@E8K<; ?FLJ@E> J<KKC<D<EKJ GFFI< <JK 8E; C<8JK :FFI;@E8K<; ?F FLJ@E> J< <KKC<D D<EKJ

Dar Es Salaam Project Site Location

1. RESEARCH: PLANNING

BACKGROUND 10

11

ORIENTAL MASONIC MA ASONIC C GARDENS Paul Rudolp Rudolph ph Connecticut New Haven, Con nnecticu cut ut (1968-1971)

GANDO O PRIMARY PRIIMARY SCHOOL SC CHOOL DiĂŠbĂŠdo DiĂŠbĂŠ ĂŠdo Francis KĂŠrĂŠ Gando, Gand do, Burkina Faso (2001)

community off adap adapted This commun nity o pte ted trailers provides heterogeneous housing options heterogeneo ous h ousing go ptions with the same homogeneous units.

Since units homogeneou us un nits. Sin Si nce it is only the number off u nits larger smaller that distinguishes distinguisshess the la arg rger homes from the smalle er entire similarities ones, the en ntire ccommunity ommu unity is linked by their similar ritties differences and not theirr diffe erences es s

generating By implementing im mplementing solar shading, g eneratin ng a heat-stack effect, effect t, and taking advantage of brickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thermal the erma al mass, example passive/energythis sschool ch hool is a tremendous exam mple of p ass sivve/energyfree cooling cooling techniques. A thoughtful thoug ghtful design des sign can can not needs, only rreduce educe a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy n eeds, itt can n actually produce produ uce resources of its own.

COMMON CORE, ADDITIONAL MODULES [CATALOGUE SCHEME]

A

Much like the precedent above, the Catalogue Scheme uses the same core components to build three distinct lot/house options. A (two modules + one small detached) is the most compact and affordable housing option. B (three modules + one large detached) adds a car port and bedrooms. C (four modules + one large detached) adds living and work spaces.

B 4.00

4.00

12.00

12.00

9.25

RAIN WATER COLLECTION [CATALOGUE SCHEME]

C

4.00

12.00

1 3.50 13.50

To reduce the dependence on the unreliable or expensive sources of water, the roves of the Catalogue Scheme were designed to collect and store rain water.

Once collected, the water is fed by gravity into the toilets and showers of the bathrooms below. A slightly more elaborate system could actually treat the rain water to make it potable.

16.50

JUNE 21

EXTENDING THE FRAME [FRAME SCHEME]

A

Each housing option (A, B, and C) is composed of a main â&#x20AC;&#x153;frameâ&#x20AC;? with a detached unit behind. The difference is achieved simply by extending the frame an additional â&#x20AC;&#x153;bayâ&#x20AC;? (to create B) or an additional two bays (to create C).

B

14.00

14.00

15.50

A

Like the Frame Scheme, each of the Lattice Scheme options (A, B, and C) are slightly larger versions of each other. Option B extends the width of the living â&#x20AC;&#x153;barâ&#x20AC;? by two meters, and extends the plot yard by two meters as well. Option C adds a large outdoor space on the opposite side of the living bar, allowing the living bar to open in both directions. And as the lot expands, the pods above can stretch to accommodate more beds.

20.00

B

14.00

Knowing the speciďŹ c solar angles of Dar es Salaam, the Frame Scheme orients the houses to face north and south. These are the easiest directions to shade. The windows of the south façade is shaded with roof and ďŹ&#x201A;oor overhangs while tree canopies shade the north elevation. The narrow width of the house promotes cross-ventilation to cool the rooms inside.

14.00

12.00

STRETCHING THE BAR, EXTENDING THE PLOT [LATTICE SCHEME]

PASSIVE COOLING [FRAME SCHEME]

DEC. 21

C

10.00

PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPING [LATTICE SCHEME]

C

14.00

The Lattice Scheme takes advantage plant and biological systems to actually produce food, fuel, vegetation, and shade. By employing a methane digester, household waste is converted into methane gas for cooking, nutrients for plants. Banana tree swales also take advantage of household compost by using the waste to grow edible fruit.

14.00

14.00

18.00

0m 0 m

1

2

5

3. RESEARCH: HOUSING

3. RESE RESEARCH: EARC CH: HOUS HOUSING SING

HOUSING DIVERSITY: ABC

ENVIRONMENT ENV VIRO ONME ENT + R RESOURCES ES SOURCES

38

39

3 SUN: winter low

SUN: summer low

serivce entry

J A

A

B

B

1

A. Screened-in Stairwell B. Bedroom C. Screened-in Terrace D. Bedroom E. Servantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quarters F. Bathroom G. Kitchen H. Rainwater Storage I. Living/Dining J. Thermal Insulating Green Roof

C

2 F

C

3-3 LONGITUDINAL SECTION (1:125)

1

B H G

2

D

H

A

I

F

G

E

C 3

1

A

B

1

D

E

A 2

2 C

B

C A

D

F

H

B

G

3 3

LOWER PLAN (1:125) A. Servantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quarters B. Bathroom C. Kitchen D. Dining/Living E. Courtyard F. Laundry Slab G. Methane Digester H. Screened-in Corridor

ROOF PLAN (above, 1:250) 1:250 0)

UPPER PLAN (below, 1:250)

A. Large Pod B. Screened-in Terrace C. Small Pod

A. Master Bedroom B. Bedroom C. Sreened-in Terrace D. Bedroom

C

D E

I

primary entry

D

E

1-1 CROSS SECTION (1:125)

2-2 CROSS SECTION (1:250)

A. Screened-in Terrace B. Rainwater Storage C. Plumbing Chase D. Kitchen E. Passive Air Cooling Tubes F. Screened-in Corridor G. Methane Digester H. Laundry Slab I. Banana Tree Swale

A. Bedroom B. Bedroom C. Bathroom D. Servantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quarters E. Courtyard

4. HOUSING

4. HOUSING G

PLANS

SECTIONS SEC CTIO ONS

48

49

A

C

A B

B

C

D

LARGE POD (10m x 4m)

E

A. Roof Terrace with PV shading B. North facing Louvers C. Panelized Enclosure D. Structural Shell w/Rain Storage E. Interior Partitions F. Panelized Enclosure G. South Facing Louvers

F

E

G

D

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Aâ&#x20AC;? UNIT A. Large Pod (10m x 4m) with Sunshading Louvers B. Small Pod (4m x 4m) C. Circulation & Terrace Screen D Base Bar (4m x 13m) with Sliding Doors

A

B

C

D

MEDIUM POD (6m x 4m) A. Hip Roof with Wind Scoops B. Steel Mesh Green Screen C. Panelized Enclosure D. Structural Shell with open top E. Interior Partitions F. Panelized Enclosure G. Steel Mesh Green Screen

E

F

G

4. HOUSING

4. HOUSING G

KIT COMPONENTS

POD D COMPONENTS COMP PONENT TS

50

56 Stewart Gohringer

51

AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

VIEW OF THE PROPOSED STREETFRONT

Housing in Urban Africa 57

Drive-In Model MOS Architects

Cambridge, MA Summer 2009 Project Leaders: Michael Meredith, Principal Drive-In Model is a 1”=1’ scale model of a proposed drive-in movie screen and band shell. The free-standing structure transi ons from a flat projec on surface at the top to a curved support base at the bo om. Ver cal ribs are slo ed together with diagonal bracing and then capped with face plates on one side. Aside from the base, the model is made en rely of .04” thick aluminum.

58 Stewart Gohringer

Drive-In Model 59

THREE VIEWS OF THE COMPLETED MODEL WATER-JET CUTTING INSTRUCTIONS, ARRANGED ON THREE 10’x4’ SHEETS OF .04” THICK ALUMINUM

60 Stewart Gohringer

Drive-In Model 61

Stewart Gohringer Resume

62 Stewart Gohringer

ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ

The Graduate School of Design | Harvard University - Cambridge, MA Master of Architecture Candidate - 2012 hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƵīĂůŽ ͮ dŚĞ ^ƚĂƚĞ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ ŽĨ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ Ͳ ƵīĂůŽ͕ Ez Bachelors of Science in Architecture - 2008 Ͳ ŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞĚ ĮƌƐƚ ŝŶ ĐůĂƐƐ͕ summa cum laude

^ƚƵĚLJ ďƌŽĂĚ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ͮ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƵīĂůŽ͕ ^ĐŚŽŽů ŽĨ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ ĂŶĚ Planning Barcelona, Spain - Summer 2007 Ͳ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ Ă ƐƚƵĚŝŽ ĂŶĚ ƚǁŽ ƐĞŵŝŶĂƌ ĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ ƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐ ƚŽ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŝƚLJ ŽĨ ĂƌĐĞůŽŶĂ

skills

Design Programs - Revit, AutoCad, Rhino, GIS, 3dStudio Max, SketchUp, Adobe Suite, MasterCam, Digital Project ĞƐŬƚŽƉ ƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ Ͳ DŝĐƌŽƐŽŌ KĸĐĞ ;tŽƌĚ͕ džĐĞů͕ WŽǁĞƌWŽŝŶƚͿ Physical Modeling Ͳ ůĂƐĞƌ ĐƵƫŶŐ͕ ϯ ƉƌŝŶƟŶŐ͕ E ŵŝůůŝŶŐ͕ ǁĂƚĞƌͲũĞƚ ĐƵƫŶŐ Language - basic German language skills

experience

Architectural Intern ͮ WĞƌŬŝŶƐ ĂƐƚŵĂŶ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ͕ Ez ͮ June 2011 - August 2011 Ͳ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐĐŚĞŵĂƟĐ ŵĂƐƐŝŶŐ͕ ŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ĨĂĐĂĚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ŽĨ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ŚŽƐƉŝƚĂů ĂŶĚ ŚĞĂůƚŚ ĐĂƌĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŝŶ EĞǁ zŽƌŬ ŝƚLJ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŶĞǁ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƌĞŶŽǀĂƟŽŶƐ

,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ĂŶĚ ĞƐŝŐŶ ͮ ZĂĮ ^ĞŐĂů ĂŶĚ ĂǀŝĚ ^ĂůĂnjĂƌ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ Cambridge, MA | June 2010 - August 2010 Ͳ ƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŝŶ ƐŽĐŝĂů͕ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ƌĞůĂƟŶŐ ƚŽ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŝŶ Ăƌ ĞƐ ^ĂůĂĂŵ͕ dĂŶnjĂŶŝĂ - the project resulted in a preliminary master plan, a housing study, and printed booklet

&ĂďƌŝĐĂƟŽŶ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ ͮ DŝĐŚĂĞů DĞƌĞĚŝƚŚ͕ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů͕ DK^ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ Cambridge, MA | June 2009 - August 2009 Ͳ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĨĂďƌŝĐĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ Ă ϰ͛ ƚĂůů ŵŽĚĞů͕ ŵƵƐĞƵŵ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͕ ŵĂĚĞ ĞŶƟƌĞůLJ ŽĨ ĂůƵŵŝŶƵŵ Ͳ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĚŝŐŝƚĂů ƌĞŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐ͕ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ Ă ĨĂďƌŝĐĂƟŽŶ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂƐƐĞŵďůLJ

Architectural Intern | Architectural Resources ƵīĂůŽ͕ Ez ͮ February 2008 - August 2008 Ͳ ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĂŶĚ ŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ Ă ŶĞǁ ƐƚŽƌĞĨƌŽŶƚ ĂŶĚ ĨĂĐĂĚĞ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ Ͳ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů ŽĸĐĞ Ͳ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ͕ ĐŽĚĞ ƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕ ĂŶĚ ƌĞĚůŝŶĞ ǁŽƌŬ ŽŶ Ă ŵƵůƟͲŵŝůůŝŽŶ ĚŽůůĂƌ ŵĞĚŝĐĂů ŽĸĐĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ

Contractor/Home Repair ZŽĐŚĞƐƚĞƌ͕ Ez ͮ Summers of 2003 - 2006 Ͳ ĂƐƐŝƐƚĞĚ Ă ƐĞŶŝŽƌ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ ŽŶ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ƌŽŽĮŶŐ͕ ŝŶĚŽŽƌͬŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ƉĂŝŶƟŶŐ͕ ĚƌLJǁĂůů ƉĂƚĐŚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƟŽŶ͕ ǁŝŶĚŽǁ ƌĞƉĂŝƌ͕ ĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĨƵƌŶŝƚƵƌĞ ŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƟŽŶ

ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƟŽŶ

,ĂƌǀĂƌĚ '^ ƉƵďůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ͗ '^ WůĂƞŽƌŵ ϯ ;ϮϬϭϬͿ͕ A View on Harvard GSD, Vol 2 ;ϮϬϭϬͿ͕ '^ WůĂƞŽƌŵ Ϯ ;ϮϬϬϵͿ͕ A View on Harvard GSD, Vol 1 ;ϮϬϬϵͿ ĞƐŝŐŶ džĐĞůůĞŶĐĞ ǁĂƌĚ Ͳ ĂǁĂƌĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ :ƵŶŝŽƌ ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ŽƵƚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƐƚƵĚŝŽ ǁŽƌŬ ;ϮϬϬϳͿ

ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ ǁĂƌĚ Ͳ ĂǁĂƌĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ͘^͘ ŝŶ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚĞƐƚ 'W ;ϮϬϬϳͿ

^ƚĂŶƚĞĐ ŽŶƐƵůƟŶŐ ^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐŚŝƉ Ͳ ĂǁĂƌĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ͘^͘ ŝŶ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚĞƐƚ 'W ;ϮϬϬϲ͕ ϮϬϬϳͿ

hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƵīĂůŽ ,ŽŶŽƌƐ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ Ăƚ ƵīĂůŽ ƉƵďůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ͗ Intersight v11 ;ϮϬϬϴͿ͕ Intersight v10 ;ϮϬϬϳͿ͕ Intersight v9 ;ϮϬϬϲͿ

contact

ϰϮ ĂůǀŝŶ ^ƚ͘ ηϮ> ͮ ^ŽŵĞƌǀŝůůĞ͕ D ϬϮϭϰϯ ͮ ϱϴϱ͘ϳϱϮ͘ϬϬϲϲ ͮ ƐŐŽŚƌŝŶŐĞƌΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ Resume 63