Chew Shi Cheng Christopher Year 2 Semester 1 Architecture Portfolio

CHEW SHI CHENG A0199924J

A simple home analysis revealed how rather than using walls to express programmatic function, user circulation within the house at different time periods is a more reliable expression of its programme Learning Points: 1. Territorialism or space occupancy is defined more by circulation than walls or structure 2. Territorialism is user-driven 3. In an age where programme is less clearly defined, enabling modules that can facilitate user-led programme are essential

Myself

0800 hr

0800 hr

0800 hr

1400 hr

1400 hr

1400 hr

2000 hr

2000 hr

2000 hr

2400 hr

2400 hr

2400 hr

My Brother

My mother

0800 hr

1400 hr

2000 hr

2400 hr

My father

An agglomeration of blocks was experimented to explore spatial permutations of apartments.

Learning Points: 1. Blocks derived by walls and concrete lead to opaqueness 2. Resulting spatial permutation creates a binary visual and living condition for users 3. Democratic access to space by users must thus be through a uniform arrangement of modules 4. Can we create spatial democracy even with non-symmetric arrangement?

Useful References: 1. Exploring the redefinition of apartment volumetrically 2. Must apartment floors be “fragmented� by levels and programme 3. Use of vertical displacement to redefine territorialism

Sou Fujimoto, House N.A. User-centric design and vertical redefnition

William Ng, Studio Willz Volumetric de-construction

Concept

Spatial Arrays of the Apartment Modules

Small Apartment 20 sqm

Type S.A2 Freelancer

A research into Rowell Road reveals a diverse demographic of varied family structure and residents.

Learning Points: 1. The apartment must be able to customise to the various users programmatic needs 2. How can we design apartment units that discourage programmatic pasivity of users (too simple a module shape) yet without being too specific in enforcing a programmatic intent on users (too definite a module shape)

Type S.A2 Single Mother

Type S.A2 W / S Pass workers

Type S.B1 Free-lancer

Type S.B1 W / Pass workers

Type S.B1 Single Mother

Type L.B1

Different designs will selected for the small apartment. Furniture associated with different users (free-lancer and single mothers) were added to test the programmatic rigour of the design) Design too narrow and specific of programme Type S.B1

Design too simple in shape Doesnt encourage users to explore defining programme to their needs

Learning Points: 1. Small size of apartment forces sharing of communal activities. Kitchen spaces are shared along balconies which connect with neighbouring units 2. Toilets are not shared for sanitary concern and structural soundness 3. Is it necessary to segregate apartment by GFA? Useful References: 1. In previous Metabolist building, priority was to give users personal programmatically-defined amenities. Today where living styles and family structures are evolving, is this still necessary and feasible?

2. Can we create apartments that empowers users to customise space to their individual programme instead?

3. What are some reforms to the apartment that must happen hence?

The use of spital staircase was effectively chosen to enable users to readapt the functions of the apartment by exploiting often under-utilised vertical spaces.

Learning Point: 1. Consider design that thinks volumetrically Type L.A1 Family

Large Apartment 60 sqm

(from left to right): Cut section of S.A1 modules at 1m, 2, 3m and 4m from frontal elevation

Large apartment designs were designed with the consideration of acting as an anchor for the community within the building.

Ideas such as creating a walk-through balcony on both ends and an almost symmetrical module pre-empts the possibility of positioning this “anchor” apartment in the centre of the building without restricting circulation amongst residents

Type L.C1 Family

Learning Point: 1. Reinforces the importance of circulation in expressing territorialism 2. Symmetrical apartment can form dual apartments 3. Given point (2), is there really a need to split apartments by sizes and GFA? Why cant 2 medium apartment be derived by a “large” apartment?

Thus should walls serve anything more than structural outfit given that their opaque spatial segregation on grounds of defining programme or size or econocentric occupancy of space is greatly irrelevant?

The apartments were stacked in 3D to determine its general volume and shape.

Multiple recessions and extrusions spatially were observed.

These extrusions could serve as extended balconies for neighbouring apartments above.

Learning Points 1. Where one’s roof is another’s balcony 2. Volumetric points of intersection expands scope for possible interaction betweem various apartments 3. But design might be too accidental and the non-uniformity process may become risk the question as to whether the design is really in control or just purely chaotic?

Modular

Habitat 61

Array 3 Array 2

House NA Array 4 Array1 Diverse

Democratic

Parametric Architecture

Non-Modular

A simple analysis of various metabolist apartments was conducted between modularity and spatial outcomes.

Given that the conceding of specific programmes to users has been abandoned in this user- bottom up apartment module design, the aim would thus be to create diversity of space from uniform modules.

Learning Points: 1. To resolve the contradictions of modularity and diversity of space within and without each module 2. On a side note, can we create modularity in non-modular designs that create diversity in spaces?

Apartment modules were arranged to best reflect the following aims: 1. Modularity that creates diversity in space 2. As much interaction between users as possible Self-reflection and Remarks for module designs: (top): Symmetrical arrangement of modules 1. Is it necessary given that the units used are already modular?

2. Does it enable light and wind to crossventilate?

3. Is this the best visual exposure between users of various units?

4. Are there better ways for users to interact?

This is because the currrent arrangement create a singular large communal space which often lead to lack of responsibility or belonging of the space (Think of long HDB corridors and the lack of spatial occupancy) (centre): Quadrant arrangement of modules 1. Democratci access to central space which ‘ enable placement of lifts 2. Better cross ventilation of Sun and wind 3. But is the visual and interaction between users the most ideal?

4. Given the singular communal spaces, will larger apartment users interact with the smaller apartment users 5. L apartment users are to be the “anchor� apartments. In this fashion, will there be nestling and cross social class support?

6. No semi-privacy in interaction 7. Privacy-public dichtomy still very binary

4th floor

4th floor

4th floor

The self-reflection over the earlier 2 agglomeration were internalised to produce Array 4.

Array 4

In Array 4, the following were prioritised: 1. Diversity of interactive spaces that were at the same time semi-private for stronger nestling to occur between users 2. Ensuring that the toilet and other structural components were aligned and well-connected 3. Maximising the possible areas for balconies to connect to expand communal spaces such as the kitchen area 4. Creating well-shielded lifts that were usable only by users to offer some protection from outsiders 5. Yet still enabling outsiders to enter the building and see residents without getting into the apartments at all Seeing but not being 4th floor

Learning Points: 1. The use of both spiral stairs within apartment and U shaped stairs outside is a confusing typology. try to standardise it 2. The concern that there is minimal cross-ventilation 3. Agglomeration only deals with diversity laterally Can we try to displace modules vertically to create different visual experience and hence expand possibilities for interaction 4. Perhaps the use of ramp is a better option that stairs for vertical displacement of module units?

Reference points: Typology a combination of shophouses and villages that used to exist along Rowell Road The use of ramps to create possibilities of spatial diversity interactive spaces was explored. Initial design of placing units along fixed floor levels and “squeezing” in ramps led to “floating units” and ramps of low headroom.

Decided to stack modules first then insert ramps. Definitive floor levels were abandoned as a result.

Self-reflection and Crit Remarks: 1. Design seem to accidental and too chaotic More deliberate placing is needed to be justified 2. The sloping terrain of the ramps which was meant to create intangible boundaries that help delineate territorialis tendencies are not sufficiently clear yet 3. Concept is relevant and interesting nonetheless Going forward, 1. Re-explore where GFA and size dichotomy is needed in apartment 2. How to distill and refine the concept of nestling better?

3. Can we have a modular component creating non-modular arrangement that is continuous and thus resulting in a diversity in spatial outcome 4. Continue challenging the purpose of walls in apartments

Central to the idea of a design on nestling requires the presence of sufficient spots for interaction, both physical and visual to take place. Thus an analysis of Rowell Road’s visual porosity was explored. Its windows typologies were studied, visual porosity along alleys were derived and programmatic and basic physicality analysis explored.

Learning Points: 1. Presence of windows extensing from different time period 2. All premise the use of wall for structural and programmatic purpose. Can it be reduced in the design?

3. Must windows be the only way to convey visual porosity In the programamtic design, it is observed that the urban programme of Rowell Road is very building-centric.

Multi-use buildings are minimal and minor difference in strength of their programmatic expression is seen across the day 1. Given that the building will be on an existing site, how can the design merge the generic programmatic dichotomy seen along Rowell Road?

2. Cognisant to the apparent erosion of the top-down programme separation in former multi-use shophouses, can the building bring back some of such programme and hence experiences?

In the visual porosity analysis, the extent of visual coverage from each building was derived. It’s noticeable that taller buildings have wider visual exposure and that most visually porous experiences are found on the higher floors.

1. Must visual porosity be confined to the limits of a building’s height?

2. Can greater visual porsity be derived even at a shophouse-like height?

3. Can the access to visual porosity be more democratic and hopefully interaction too?

4. Must the notion of visual porosity always be lateral (people seeing from a vantage of height downwards or across? Can’t it be seen from bottom to top?)

Continuing from the apartment modules, new apartment modules with stairs were explored. Deviating from the spiral staircase due to the inacessibility that it brings to elderly and disabled users, larger staircase were used.

That had to be reconciled with the small space given.

Hence the following ideas were adopted: 1. Letting the stairs to serve to both individuals in apartments and by users passing by the apartment.

Breaking down the dicohomy of private and public staircase and stairwell 2. Arrangement of modules such that medium apartment are shielded by larger apartment to bring about stronger nestling 3. Allowing larger stairlanding which can serve as extended public balcony spaces also Learning Points: 1. Where the staircase exists, no additional built component must be above it to ensure that the staircase will connect 2. The staircase area must be given sufficient headroom.

To do so, staircase landing at the upper floor must be lowert than the highest component in each individual module 3. Creating midway stair landing enables for more public spaces for interaction. Also enable the apartment modules to be split into smaller more private areas.

Self-reflection: This design is too similar to the earlier design. Cuboidal and unexciting Cross-ventilation and poor image of cluatraphobia Does not reflect strongly the territorialist and nestling tendencies

Double House, MVRDV, 1997 Learning Reference: 1. Could “modules� be defined by their platform rather than walled capsules especially given the relative un-importance since in this project?

2. Where stairs can connect different parts of the apartment together. The staircase becomes a common meeting area. Yet its vertical height difference enable the kind of privacy of space for interaction.

Hence, this approach of placing platforms were explored.

At the same time, the exploration of apartment modules with ramp was conducted. Similar to the staircase modules, the ramps were made to serve both a public and a private setting, thus becoming places for shared interacton and communication.

The design below creates a funnel-like ramp that draws people from their individual apartment into the main ramp for interaction and outward mobility around the apartment Learning Points 1. Sloping ramps form their ceilings and the floors hence the highest point of the floor and the lowest point of the slant ceiling must have sufficient headroom 2. The sloping floor and ceiling makes it difficult to stack the modules in too different a permutation.

How can they be stacked to prevent excess spaces between the upper and lower level modules?

3. Unlike the stairs, the slanting nature of the slope meant that to expand common space for interaction along ramps would require a symmetrical arrangement of the modules.

Other permutations were created, building on the concept of nestling. The possibility of accomodating spatially, an apartment within another aparment was explored as this was determined to best enable cross interaction and nestling. The idea of encapsulating a large apartment into the medium apartment (green) was attempted, The idea was such that their sloping ramps of the L and M apartment shall conicide for sufficient spots to be created where residents can cross over to the others apartment and interact. (bottom right): large apartment “merged� into smaller apartments. But interaction is kept to a visual interaction only. Can we enable real physical interaction in subsequent design?

Elevation at 12m @ 2nd permutation

The ramp design was assembled to form a 24m by 24m agglomeration to check on its evenetual design. It inspired the idea to create ramps throughout the building that is continuous such that the slanting roof of the medium apartment will connect to the elevated large apartment whose walking area will be the roof of the medium apartment.

Learning Point: In such a design, the ramp would thus be a purveyor of circulation that creates various spots and opportunities for interaction. Its is spatially democratic as medium and large apartment residents can access it and it links to all sides of the apartment.

However, a few problems exists 1. How does this show modularity?

2. Can it accomodate the lift shaft?

3. How tall is one apartment? As it stands it reached 7m.

(Too tall) 4. To walk on the top of the apartment, the ramp must have sufficient head space. To ensure that happens, the apartment above must be supported upwards but it will create visually “floating apartments”. Is that we we want?

And doing so requires columns. WIll the use of columns destroy the sloping nature of the design?

Is there alternative ways for this?

5. Where to install the main core and lift shaft?

The next design thus evolve where the path is diverted from the bottom right to open up a space sufficient for a lift shaft and additional extended public space to be created.

In addition, 1. While the sloping ramps are maintained, the microunits are kept with a flat roof to be stacked above one another.

This is to ensure that while the ramp are sloped, there will not be any “floating units” that defy structural sense.

It also enables more units to be stacked vertically which also ensures sufficient head room when users walk on the ramp 2. Various spatial agglomeration are explored. The view of a slanting building that emphasizes the ramp is best observed in the diagram below Reflections: 1. However, need to modularise the micro-units 2. Continuity and diversity in space is created. How do we get back the discrete modularity into the building?

Section at 12m agglomeration Level 1

The next design simplified the micro-units into 5 independent modules. The building was encased by glass and mullions with no walls. All non-private acttivities were consigned to the first floor common area eg. kitchen, play and meals. Units become private capsules for rest and healing Self-reflection: Can we further modularise the entire building into C-shaped or U shaped looking parts? (left)

The design was distilled into 5 types of C-shaped and U-shaped modules that were stacked continuously to form both rooms and ramps throughout the building. Through modularity, continuity was achieved, and modularity led to a diversity in space.

The fundamental assumption of the Metabolist was challenged.

Where it was premised that modularity helps to attain democracy of space and uniformity in experience, through modular components, non-modular outcomes were derived and yet still sufficiently democratised.

Through this consistency in the constituent units, walls become ramps, ramps become ceiling, ceiling become walls again. Adjust their position and pockets of spaces are created for physical interaction and spaces.

The modular components assembled into 1. 3 type of units (Modular units made of modular components) Each unit consist of an elongated arm where the bed is hidden with sufficient privacy. The C-shaped unit was selected to be 1.0m tall to cover the bed and offer some privacy when lying down The elongated arm extends to a larger part of the unit which simultaneously serve as a cross area for user walking on the ramp It ensures users are accessible to the ramp and interaction will hence occur. Yet with sufficient privacy and publicness 2. Quadrant units (Modular quadrants of modular units of modular components) Each quadrant encircles each other with the ramps cutting through every individual unit. Ramps are positioned such that there is sufficient headroom. The lower floor of the quadrant is 3m in height due to the more communal activities that exist on the first floor to give more breathable vertical space. Where additional ramps are required to raise it to a sufficient height, ramps are coalesced to create public spaces for interaction.

3. Building units (Modular building of modular quadrants of modular units of modular components) The building is combined with quadrants aligned towards each other in a reflection manner.

This creates a sloping view that centralises the feature of the ramp in the entire building while maintaining structural integrity. This spatial assembly ensures sufficient space in the middle for cross ventilation and wind and light to pass through. A duality of a heavy looking structure that is porous visually and looks flexibly bendable and fluid is created.

Having derived the spatial agglomerated building, the tectonic frameworks was designed. RC bracing was adopted due to the ease of installation and its ductlity.

The first design adopted the following procedures in its derivation: 1. Place position of columns 2. Add girdles in octogonal grid-like manner according to modules location 3. Incorporating traversing girdles (To conceal steel frame from sight) 4. No slanting girdles were added. Ramps were supported by octogonal frames Problems: Steel bracing was too visually obstructive. Takes away visually slanting ramps

In the next structural design, the procedures for its derivation was modified: 1. creating square frames to support the various modules 2. Adding horizontal girdles to connect the square frames 3. Add or replace some horizontal girdles with slanting girdles to accomodate ramps 4. Extend columns from ground upwards to support the various square frames Dimension of steel RC used: 300mm x 300mm x 4500mm (Square frames for modules and Columns) 200mm x 200m x varied length (Pavilions and Ramps) Maximum distance between two RC columns: 3000mm However the design was found to be too inconsistent At times, the RC steel frame was within the structure some areas such as the pavilion saw the frame outside Consideration: 1. Standardise the RC steel framwork 2. Is there alternative forms of structural system to use?

Researching on the structural system. the RC steel frame was re-modified. A new lockkey model approach for structural system was attempted. Modules were designed to accomodate a I steel bar of dimension 75x 75 x 5 x 8 mm to hold them together, further supported by some columns.

The lock and key is favoured due to: 1. Inconsistent ramp gradation that makes a RC steel frame rather imposing on the building’s visuals.

2. Ease of building and demolition 3. Further standardisation of modules

Continuing from Week 7 feedback, the current works may have diluted the original concept of social nestling and benign territorialism. Hence, focus turned towards linking the building to the site itself.

The following connections with the site was made: Site Analysis concluded: 1. Site lacks visual porosity which impedes non-commercial interaction 2. An overly programmatically-driven design first by shophouse typologies and later on in newer malls that linearise visual and interactive experience 3. Place is programmatically defined and segregated.

Existing site is a rare transitionary zone for its - intersection location - Presence of trees - Sandwiched between commercial and residential part of Rowell Road Hence the residential building while serving benign territorialism and social interaction internally, shall serve similar intent with the outside environment through 1. More visual porosity and visual anomalies that draw peoples attention 2. Preservation of existing connection with alleys and roadways to minimise disruption to the existing and limited non vehicular circulation in Rowell Road 3. Hence a bi-programme of interactive experience between residents and between residents and outsiders through a recreational spot shall be conceived.

Emphasis is to preserve and intensify visual experience built on incumbent circulation practices in the area

Internalising the feedback from crits, the following was explored further 1. Varying degree of democracy of space of living pods 2. Reconsider new ways to traverse within the building and between the building and the site 3. Reconsider how to create an independent structural system from the modules I reconsidered how to use the RC structure to set the building.The following structural strategy was chosen: 1. Central podium where individual quadrants were adhered to in-situ 2. Presence of macro-cantilever to support podium and micro-cantilever to support individual modules 3. Required to excavate 1m beneath ground to support edited quadrant design The materiality of the building was chosen to be polycarbonate for varied visual porosity and to enable a slight see-through of the RC structure It creates a light feeling that contrasts the surrounding visually heavy concrete environment The initial plan and section was drawn.

Problems: 1. The colored people were too distracting. Change to human silouhette 2. Include more furnitures 3. For the sectional perspective, just tidy up the visuals 4. Personally, I found the need to create some composition to show the hierarchy of building> quadrant> living pods > structural better

In the meantime, the preparation for the model has commenced. I have chosen greyboard with the intention of stacking it module by module

The use of the greyboard for model-making was rejected because: 1. Too visual heavy 2. Messy 3. Too uncontrolled Instead bristol board was next chosen. The first method was to fold it and glue them side by side. But I found several problems 1. Difficulty to maintain folded shape 2. Inconsistency in its look I decided to use a mini lock-key method to hold the folded shape in place.

It manage to maintain greater consistency Easier and more accurate in assembly This was followed by adding the central podium and spray painting

After receiving back the laptop from repair, and a 5 days time loss, the hierarchy of the parts of the building was rendered. I found it useful, but it needed to be positioned spatially for clarity in illustration. A clear breakdown from quadrant to living pod via plan and section was deemed necessary, I find.

I rendered out the exploson of the buildings into individual components and exploded the quadrants into plan section of individual living pods.

Other things done: 1. Resketch the site analysis for greater clarity 2. Sketch additional plans of different floors of the building 3. Rendered various sections of the building

The photo collage of the building was attempted with emphasis on capturing views (top to bottom. bottom to top, lateral, perpendicular) views from the various living pods The transparency was adjusted to suit varying visual p porosity hence showing the inner RC structure to varying degree Renderng via Photoshop was conducted next In the meantime, the video collage was prepared.

A deconstructing of the building plane was rendered over 5s time frame via Grasshopper

Final Model

APPENDIX

Module Experimentation Week 1

Module Experimentation Week 2

Module Experimentation Week 3

Module Experimentation Week 4

Module Experimentation Week 4

Module Experimentation Week 5

Module Experimentation Week 6

Total: Units: 729 sqm Ramps: 207 sqm Pavilions: 360 sqm Open Porch on Ground: (7.5m x 3m) x 4 = 90m 1386 sqm grand total

From 0m to 2m: 27 (1.5 x 0.75m) Units = 30.375 sq m 15 (1.5 x 0.75m) Ramps = 16.875 sq m 9 (1.5 x 0.75m) Pavilions = 10.125 sq m From 2m to 4m: 20 (1.5 x 0.75m) Units = 22.5 sq m 15 (1.5 x 0.75m) Ramps = 16.875 sq m 10 (1.5 x 0.75m) Pavilions = 11.25 sqm From 4m to 6m: 34 (1.5 x 0.75m) Units = 38.25 sqm 10 (1.5 x 0.75m) Ramps = 11.25 sqm 4 (1.5 x 0.75m) Pavilions = 4.5 sqm

Module Experimentation Week 7

0.75m (W) x 2m (H) x 1.5m (L) 0.75m (W) x 3m (H) x 1.5m (L)

0.75m (W) x 2m (H) x 0.75m (L) 0.75m (W) x slanted (H) x 1.5m (L) 0.75m (W) x 3m (H) x 0.75m (L)

0.75m (W) x 2m (H) x 1.5m (L) 0.75m (W) x 3m (H) x 1.5m (L)

0.75m (W) x 1.2m (H) x 0.75m (L)

Appendix for Week 8

Appendix for Week 9

Appendix for Week 10 (Computer crashed week, sent for repair)

Appendix for Week 11

Appendix for Week 11

Appendix for Week 12