Robert Heister

ARCTIC FOSSIL HOW DOES A BUILDING SURVIVE? STUDENT:

ROBERT WALTON HEISTER ADVISOR:

KATIE BROH

THESIS 2020

DEDICATION Dedicated to Laurie, the Love of my life. Thank you for teaching me how to love the Earth more than myself :) Thank you for waiting until I came back from my trip to say goodbye.

November 26, 2005 - August 23, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to: • My Dad for making this project and the preceding five years possible. I asked too much of you, but you did the impossible and gave more than you had.

• Aubrie Lincks for helping me learn how to accept and appreciate myself.

• Henri Brooks for inspiring me to be a more passionate, thoughtful person and architect.

Thanks to:

Claudia Cueto and CuetoKEARNEYdesign, Uncle Chub, Mama, Susie, Mark Brack, Jemal Kirkland, Nicole Koltick, Nina Lish, Jordan Solomonic, and Roger Wing

THESIS INVESTIGATION PROCESS OVERVIEW:

My interests lie in change over time. I spent my thesis year investigating the change undergone and incited by remote structures abandoned after rapid urbanization in the 21st century. The year consisted of a series of experimental studies including a three week site visit, dozens of user interviews, a fleet of study models, material studies, GIS analysis, and parametric building optimization. I grounded all of my work in the following questions and arrived at the subsequent answers.

1) HOW DOES A BUILDING SURVIVE? A building survives by withdrawing into the landscape, both visually and physically. This withdrawal assimilates the building and gives it purpose; makes it function as a symbiotic organism within a greater ecosystem.

2) HOW DOES THIS CHANGE RELATE TO CHANGE IN THE GREATER LANDSCAPE? Change occurs across scales such that the stone and mountain are equal, but it is the role of the building, at the human scale, to present this scaleless change in an understandable way.

3) HOW CAN CHANGE BE SPATIALLY EXPERIENCED AND UNDERSTOOD? As the building changes, the habitability of the space it claims changes as well. This varies the overall function and experiential quality of the original space. Our perception of this change can be the means by which we interpret the greater change in the landscape.

INVESTIGATION OUTCOME I identified three types of change: negative (loss), neutral (exchange), and positive (addition) in terms of material presence. With three types of change, I found three different landscape conditions that emulate those categories (glacier, river, mountain summit). Despite my best efforts earlier in the year to only design one building, the project naturally evolved into a group effort of three site-specific stone structures - each designed to both change and be changed by their unique site. Fascinatingly, the change of one structure influences the change and survival of another. This change effects the base habitability and programmatic function of each structure, varying between environment research station and primal dwelling over the span of 500 years.

TUMBLER ONE THAT TUMBLES

ALLUVIUM FERTILE SEDIMENT DEPOSIT

HABITACULUM BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR DWELLING

NEGATIVE CHANGE MELTING GLACIER

NEUTRAL CHANGE RIVER EROSION + SEDIMENTATION

POSITIVE CHANGE ALPINE ECOLOGY + TREE LINE ADVANCEMENT

SITE SELECTION + RESEARCH TRIP SITE SELECTION:

In searching for a site, I started with the Arctic Circle since it is the fastest changing landscape on earth and will drive the change experienced by the rest of the planet. After a thorough analysis of potential areas there, I selected Sarek National Park, Sweden to site my investigation. Sarek, commonly referred to as “The Last Wilderness of Europe”, is the most mountainous part of Sweden with a diverse landscape below. I went on a three week hiking trip with my dad along the Kungsleden Trail to gain an understanding of the landscape conditions. At 300 miles long, walking the length of the Kungsleden is equivalent to walking from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.

KUNGSLEDEN TRAIL MY ROUTE SAREK NATIONAL PARK LOCAL PRECEDENT SITES

INTERVIEW PROCESS INTERVIEW PROCESS:

Given the evolution of my structures, I implemented a program that could adapt with the buildings. That program is citizen science - a new form of research common throughout Europe that engages both hikers and environment researchers for an improved learning opportunity for both users. Essentially, hikers share their memorabilia with scientists to focus their research efforts. I learned about this approach during my experience as a citizen scientist at Tarfala Research Station. I did field work with a team of multi-national hydrologists and asked them a series of questions to learn about their experience as a researcher in this harsh environment. I asked those same questions to other hikers and researchers on my trip as well as relevant parties after I returned to the States. I compiled and analyzed the data with my “Petri Graph” (three samples to bottom right) to identify commonalities and understand what parts of the citizen science experience could be improved (pink) or kept the same (green).

Me (left) doing hydrological research with Ilaria Clemenzi (right) at Tarfala

HIKER

CITIZEN SCIENCE

RESEARCHER

INTERVIEWEES:

REL

40%

T FU

UN D

COLOR : answer rating

30%

20% 10%

-10 (negative)

0 (neutral)

UR

BAC

E

ACCESS

ACCESS

E AC SP

AT IO NS HI P

SIZE: answer frequency

50%+

RESEARCHER

AT IO NS HI P

LEGEND

KG RO

ILARIA CLEMENZI

REL

RESEARCHER

BAC

E

BENJAMIN FISCHER RESEARCHER

LINE: question thread

+10 (positive)

KG RO

UN D

USE

TORBJÖRN KARLIN

UR

USE

ACCESS

T FU

UN D

E AC SP

KG RO

AT IO NS HI P

BAC

E

REL

UR

E AC SP

T FU

USE

Torbjorn Karlin - Tarfala Superintendent Benjamin Fischer - Tarfala Hydrologist Ilaria Clemenzi - Tarfala Hydrologist Stefan Ploum - Tarfala Hydrologist Lena Bodevig - Tarfala Hydrologist Ulf Molau - ITEX + Arctic Researcher Eva Gunnare - Sami Local + Alpine Ecologist Claes Grundsten - Lapland Photographer + Preservationist Mattias Skogsfrakt - Swedish Hiker (summited every mountain in Sweden) Bob Heister - American Hiker Curt Hoesgstroem - Swedish Hiker Marcus Lindstrom - Swedish NCA + Aktse Conservationist Hanes Lakso - Sami Craftsman + Preservationist Juhan Stalka - Sami Craftsman + Activist Boel Hellman - Architect at 3XN Stockholm Office Frida Oster - Architect at Asante Stockholm Office Roger Wing - Stone Sculptor Bill Pinder - Paleontologist Judy Jacobson - U.S. National Park Service Preservationist Jordan Teischer - Academy of Natural Sciences Herbarium Manager Heather Kostick - Academy of Natural Sciences Ecologist Leigh Ann Campbell - PHS Landscape Architect Peter Hess - PHS Horticulturalist + Alpine Ecologist Leah Blanton - PHS Horticulturalist Louise Clark - PHS Horticulturalist Charles Cresson - Swarthmore PHS Horticulturalist

TARFALA RESEARCH STATION | GROUND CONNECTION: CAUSE + EFFECT Beyond the fieldwork, the facility also served as a remarkable learning tool.

Multiple buildings are oriented with the prevailing wind. This arrangement creates a protected pocket of plant growth well above the tree line. In a place where it takes a banana peel 10 years to decompose, these findings show that the there is a dialogue of cause and effect between building and ground.

SH I E L D ED

PROTECTED VEGETATION ZONE

A RE A D AILING WIN PREV

WATER FL

OW

AKTSE STF CABIN | GROUND CONNECTION: ARTIFICIAL THRESHOLDS In Boreal forest, flowers are cut down with scythes every year to create an artificial meadow and maintain a framed view of Sarek. The buildings disturb the soil and cause plumes of flowers to grow here, but not in the surrounding forest. These artificial elements create a series of thresholds that blur the boundary between natural and artificial; nature and building.

KUNGSLEDEN TRAIL THRESHOLD 01 - TREELINE THRESHOLD 02 - CURATED MEADOW THRESHOLD 03 - DEMARCATED SETTLEMENT THRESHOLD 04 - PERMANENT STRUCTURE

T H R E S HO L D 0 3

THRESHOLD 0 2

THRESHOLD 01

EXISTING TYPOLOGIES | PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE: IMPORTANCE OF GROUND CONNECTION Most existing typologies have a strong ground connection as shown by their triangular profiles. This profile is used to resist the strong wind forces that rush between the mountains.

Newer, modernized structures tend to forego that relationship with the ground and instead reject it with raised foundations. These structures do not last long as the wind lifts them off the ground and throws them down the mountainside. Based on these findings, strong ground connection was important in my designs.

PRISMA

SAMI TENT

MODERN CABINS

SAMI EARTH HUT

SAMI RELIC

MODERN CABINS

VISUAL PERFORMANCE: SCARECROW VS. WITHDRAWAL While some buildings are set lower on the mountain and are not exposed to such strong forces, they still fail in a visual way. These modern structures act as scarecrows in the landscape because they present typical architectural elements such as casement windows and gable roofs. These elements interrupt the landscape and discourage interaction. Instead of visually rejecting the landscape, buildings should instead visually withdraw by taking cues on material, form, and orientation.

SCARECROW

WITHDRAWAL

SITE ANALYSIS | SAREK NATIONAL PARK Buildings in Sarek are few and far between, so I turned my attention to the relationships within the landscape. I described those relationships as “interplay” and studied their many forms like glaciers, rivers, and tree line. The most informative findings were: 1) how the glaciers carved through a surface layer of black granite down to white marble and quartzite in the valley 2) how different types of plants/lichen grew on different types of rock (i.e.. dark stones like black granite facilitate lichen growth while light stones like marble and quartz prevent it due to different chemical composition and crystalline structure). These relationships led me to use black granite and white marble as the primary building materials for my project in an effort to further emphasize the change experienced by my three structures.

GRANITE GRANITE DOLOMITEDOLOMITE GNEISS

GNEISS

SANDSTONE SANDSTONE MARBLE MARBLE QUARTZITE QUARTZITE BUILDING SITES BUILDING SITES SAREK NATIONAL PARK: 761 mi² PARK: 761 mi² SAREK NATIONAL PIELLORIEPPEPIELLORIEPPE MASSIF: 45.7 mi² MASSIF: 45.7 mi² PHILADELPHIA: 141.7 mi² PHILADELPHIA: 141.7 mi²

PIELLORIEPPE MASSIF With the three types of change defined earlier, I selected three sites that suited those characteristics.

The Piellorieppe Massif is the most environmentally diverse in the park, so I focused my attention there. A thorough analysis identified multiple landscape conditions, but I favored the glacier, river, and mountain summit for their heightened degrees of change. GIS analysis found that the change will occur not only in different ways at these three sites but also at different points in time, as shown by the tree line analysis below. This interrelated process informed the timeline of my project narrative: the glacier melts and dumps water in the valley. Increased water promotes plant growth that sends the tree line up the mountainside. Decreased cooling from the glacier make higher elevations more susceptible to landscape changes like plant introduction/development.

FIELDS + MARSHLAND GLACIER LAKE + DELTA RIVERS PROPOSED ROUTE EXISTING TRAILS BUILDING SITES

MATERIAL STUDIES | PERFORMATIVE DETAIL With my earlier findings on stone types, I studied how the sourcing of these materials could also serve my investigation. Specifically, I wanted to make a performative detail with the excavation carving pattern. The use of the Plug & Feather process creates flutes in the excavated stone which I use to direct rainwater, as shown with the hand-carved marble study model to the right. Though primarily for water management, this detail is slightly modified to fit the needs of each site.

Additionally, all of stone for the project is sourced from one location at the third site, concentrating excavation efforts rather than carving multiple swaths of land.

PLUG + FEATHER METHOD: Start: raw boulder Step 1: drill or chisel holes to desired depth Step 2: insert feathers Step 3: separate feathers with plugs Step 4: crack forms End: fluted boulder Multiple passes can create fluted tiles

BOULDER

STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 3

STEP 4

FLUTED BOULDER

TECHNICAL PRECEDENTS | CAPABILITIES OF STONE AND MASONRY VAULTS The harsh landscape and high wind forces necessitate flowing, organic forms rather than typical geometries. Analysis of stone vaults taught me the capabilities of ashlar stone masonry as long as two things are kept in mind: 1) use of double curvature limits need for reinforcing while increasing span distance 2) intentional proportions can keep material needs low while still allowing for a large form. I applied the material studies and technical precedents to make three versions of a stone tile that use the carving and structural principles to further facilitate the change of my structures.

ELADIO DIESTE MONTEVIDEO PORT WAREHOUSE, 1975 MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY GAUSSIAN VAULT SPAN: 161’ THICKNESS: 4-6” THICKNESS-TO-SPAN RATIO: 1:322

BLOCK RESEARCH GROUP VENICE ARCHITECTURE BIENNALE 2016 VENICE, ITALY ARMADILLO VAULT SPAN: 52’ THICKNESS: 2-4” THICKNESS-TO-SPAN RATIO: 1:185

TUMBLER DETAIL

ALLUVIUM DETAIL

HABITACULUM DETAIL

STRUCTURE 01: TUMBLER | PROCESS Tumbler looks at negative change at the glacier site. Early efforts put the structure at the tip where the greatest change has occurred, but further analysis found that the glacier is melting so fast that there would be no relationship shortly after construction. This understanding led to an analysis of glacier anatomy which resulted in siting Tumbler on top of the glacier in order to melt through it for glaciological research much like a bathysphere is used for oceanography.

First Design Iteration STEINMETZ SOLID

MULTI-INTERSECTION STEINMETZ SOLID

ASSEMBLY

PORTHOLE ITERATION 1

PORTHOLE ITERATION 2

1986 (337 ACRES)

2008 (268 ACRES)

2014 (238 ACRES)

TRAIL

AREA OF INTEREST

Form Iterations

Hammock Study Model

Structural Iteration

Material + Thickness Methodology Diagram

OUTCOME This unconventional interaction led to designing a building that can roll. Thick marble panels reject inconsistent solar heating and opt for the constant pressure of the 40 ton weight to melt through the glacier. The panel joints make the stone selfsupporting, but will shear over time as the freeze-thaw process dissects Tumbler.

The stone carvings act like a shoe tread to direct melt water to the keystones rather than the joints so dissection is delayed. A roll cage acts as a secondary structure that protects the wood lining (dwelling) within. The dwelling is isolated by a spring suspension system that absorbs any impacts when rolling. A detachable hammock floor rotates as Tumbler rotates. Tumbler arrives at cavities within the glacier for a profound research opportunity different from current practices.

MINIMAL CHANGE BOTTLENECK

WITHDRAWN LONG TERM ENGAGEMENT

300’ IN 6 YEARS 50’ PER YEAR 450’ IN 22 YEARS 20’ PER YEAR

Stone Panel Shell Hss 10x10 Roll Cage Spring Suspension Charred Wood Shell Biodegradable Insul.

Pegboard Lining Porthole

Hammock Floor

Image From Melting Process Animation 2’ THICK MARBLE PANEL

2’ THICK GRANITE PANEL

Dismantled Axon

Hammock Pegboard Operation

Porthole Operation Submarine Hatch + Moonroof Hybrid

Stone Carving Application For Meltwater Management

Approach

Entry

Arrival

Research Inside Glacier

Ruin

STRUCTURE 02: ALLUVIUM | PROCESS Alluvium looks at neutral change through erosion and sedimentation at the river.

Earlier efforts only considered erosion, but further analysis found that the selected site also experiences sedimentation which prevents it from being erased by the flowing water. This inspired a structure that uses a similar cycle with an eroding sediment shell that collapses and promotes plant growth. Earlier efforts used found stone which was too different from the cut stone at the other sites. Further development included scripting with Grasshopper, Pufferfish, and Kangaroo to create a cut-stone module that aids in the erosion and sedimentation process.

Low-flow

High-flow

Erosion + Sedimentation Analysis WATER

VEGETATION

SEDIMENT

Early Design Iteration

Early Section Study

Design Development w/ Pufferfish

Early Section Study

Design Development w/ Pufferfish

OUTCOME Previous attempts wavered between being too raw with found stones and too artificial with modules that could only be digitally fabricated. The end product balanced those two extremes with the aforementioned excavation-carved tile.

Manipulation of the drill hole carvings allows for rammed earth to be retained in some places and lost in others. This pattern creates an aesthetic of withdrawal as the ground appears to consume Alluvium, blurring the line where structure ends and ground begins. As shown below, the form frames an existing patch of barren sand. Use of isolated granite and marble shells create heightened growth on the exterior and limited growth on the interior. This creates a series of growth zones/thresholds where different scales of change can be observed ranging from lichen to tree line. These zones are made accessible after the structure sheds its sediment shell and reveals a secluded doorway granting access to the interior. The difference between inaccessibility and accessibility varies the purpose of Alluvium from research outpost studying exterior erosion + flow rates and hiker dwelling emphasizing the interior condition.

INITIAL FORM

MATERIAL SELECTION

Structurally-optimized Stone Tile Application

FORM DEVELOPMENT MARBLE LINING PLAN DIAGRAM

GRANITE SHELL SEDIMENT COAT

SEDIMENT COAT REMNANT

N

CONTINUOUS GRAVEL FOOTING

1’ CONTOURS 0‘

50’

Design Development Process

Section Perspective

Before - Research Outpost

After - Hiker Dwelling

Entry Growth Zones

Dwelling w/ Scales of Growth

STRUCTURE 03: HABITACULUM | PROCESS Of the three sites, Habitaculum has undergone the greatest development process.

Tasked with looking at positive change as vegetation is added to the mountain, earlier attempts started with a massive research box that created a sheltered exterior space - rejecting the harsh nature of the site. Further development made the building succumb to the site forces by withdrawing the structure into the site and the change into the structure. Iterations were made to test how to make these interior conditions possible through different degrees of exposure. These iterations were done with both sketching and scripting through Grasshopper physics engines like Kangaroo, Karamba, Butterfly, and Honeybee to measure performance.

Site View Over Neighboring Summits

Site View Over Valley

Diagram of Scripting Workflow

Sketch #500 / 1,249,203

Kangaroo Physics Engine Used

Early Concept Sketch

Solar Analysis

Process Perspective During Scripting

Wind Analysis

Process Perspective During Scripting

OUTCOME After an exhaustive development process, scripting was replaced with more manageable Sub-D modeling to achieve desired results. In the end, I designed an armature that creates a large mesocosm (semi-enclosed space) to test different growths based on the varying degrees of exposure. The structure is broken up in to four growth zones inspired by the four lichen morphologies that similarly respond to high wind forces. Different exposure between the four vaulted spaces creates a series of thresholds of growth from interior to exterior. The stone carving details from the other two sites are combined here to allow for PROGRAM KEY the differing interior and exterior conditions. Beyond 1 - ENTRY CHAMBERS material performance, Habitaculum is also intended 2 - STORAGE to provide a profound user experience. This experience 34 -- BATHS BATH TERRACES 5 - HEARTH is made with a primal program that can accommodate 6 - STONE GARDEN 01 7 - STONE GARDEN 02 any user - hiker or researcher. The four growth zones 8 - STONE GARDEN 03 are occupied by the four elemental spaces that humans 9 - CAMPIRE DENS 10 - BURROWS have needed throughout time: bath (water), hearth (fire), APPROX AREA: 34,000 SF burrow (shelter), garden (nutrients). These spaces are arranged according to the different exposures, and will aid in representing change as the exterior remains barren while the protected interior space thrives

2 1 9

3 4

Aerial Perspective Study

10

1

10

5 10 8

6

9

10

Interior Perspective Study 7 0’

50’

100’

SECTION A - NORTH/SOUTH

EXTERIOR REJECTION

INTERIOR COLLECTION

A

B ALLUVIUM DETAIL

TUMBLER DETAIL

SECTION A - NORTH/SOUTH HABITACULUM DETAIL

Cut Approach

Cut Exit

North “Bowl” Entry 1/16” Scale Plaster Site Model

Structure Approach

Structure

e Arrival

*Not pictured: me pushing this 150lb plaster site model from URBN to my house in Fishtown after Drexel closed for the quarantine. Talk about process...

Interior Stone Garden

Stone Garden Bays

South Entry

FINAL THOUGHTS I have never worked so hard on anything as I have with this thesis. Opinions vary on the purpose of a thesis: some say it is an opportunity to learn about yourself and expand your horizons while others downplay it as just another assignment blocking the way to graduation. I chose to use this as one more opportunity to change, unlearn any bad habits, and make up for anything I missed out on in the past. As a result, I have grown more now than during any of the preceding five years.

This project showed me what is possible when I unleash my passion (obsession) for architecture. Although this has been a profound learning experience and set me up for a phenomenal career, I acknowledge that I overextended myself. At every review, the jury said that I need to scale the project down and narrow my focus to something more manageable. Being the person I am, I ignored that advice (but applied the rest) and continued to let the project evolve naturally rather than constrain it. To keep up with the growth, I taught myself six new programs and built more models than all of my previous studios combined. I also studied the work of other schools and read about architectural theory - the contemporary thoughts that are unfortunately nonexistent in Drexel’s studios. That was a huge inspiration for the unconventional work.

Exposing myself to so many new avenues led to a bit of a “quantity-over-quality” outcome in some ways. Do not get me wrong - I have never been so proud of a body of work. However, the recurring critique, “This project is sculpture, not architecture,” haunts me. I have always leaned toward designing cartoon buildings in the past, and had hoped to correct that this year. I improved in that area in some ways, but I can’t help but think that I could have done something more architectural if I had reined the project in like the jury suggested. That being said, designing three completely different structures on three completely different sites and still getting down to the scale of the stone carving detail of individual tiles is nothing to scoff at.

This project taught me that I need to do design+build to be happy. Although it will take me 1000 years to get out of my 90 minute sleep schedule and to reconnect with reality, I would not change anything about my thesis experience.

ADVICE FOR FUTURE STUDENTS • • • • •

For God’s sake, only propose one building... SAVE YOURSELF! However, if the project asks for more than one building, do not fight it.

Do something you can never do again. I did and I am a better person and architect for it.

Tell me a compelling story, not a compelling profit margin.

Join your friends in studio. They are your lifeline and make the thesis experience worth remembering.