__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1


ACADEMIC

Contents

Design Project Year 3

PROFESSIONAL

User behavior analysis

Working experience

CRITICAL

Articles and writings

Drawings

Model making


ACADEMIC Design Project Year 3 This Project aims to connect and reconcile the participants and professionals within the planning processes in England while also making citizens part of the process by offering transparency and opportunities for engagement. It is often the fact that decisions which shape the cities, and spaces we inhabit are made without enough engagement from the public. This project opens the doors of urban planning and invites citizens for a glimpse into how their city is changing and how they can express their views about it.


Location & Brief

Formal and informal meetings Citizen services

This project addresses the current lack of connectivity and engagement of planning industry with regards to the public, parties of interest and other institutions. Carrying huge responsibility for the direction in which cities and areas develop I believe there should be more transparency and opportunities for engagement with the planning system in England.

Spatial organization The building is organized in vertical hierarchy so that meeting and research spaces are on lower levels - and the debating chamber has a prominent location on the second floor and is distinctly communicated on the facade - to enable views both in and out. Made for the city it is located in, the NAPR is a distinct and dynamic opportunity for more public participation in transparency within urban planning.

A place that fosters discussions and democracy

Planning & projects information and updates

Accessible and central location


Internal organization Service cores positioned in close proximity and in both wings

Circulation axis outisde and inside the building

Opening up to the surroundings

Precedents Seating layout and its influence on users and their behavior

Connections between the interior and exterior Established by prominent positioning of the debating chamber and the glazed parts, allowing views in and views out

UK, Australia adversarial seating layout

Wales, Germany - circular seating

Views out Views in

Moderator

Additional participants Core participants in debate

- Fixed seats - Scene for an argument - Stationary - Not encouraging agreement

- Flexible seats - Encourages interaction - ‘Together’ - not separated

Both the Reichstags and National Assembly include spaces for visitors which give direct views and connection with the processes happening inside - demystifying the usually concealed idea of a debating or assembly space.


Orthographic drawings

Short section

Second floor

Long section

First floor

Ground floor


Structural model

Bolted steel connections between beam and column

Mechanical separation between layers: Support structure, Insulation and Finish

S

I F

Debating chamber - Interior space section 1 2 3 4 5

Raised floor finish Foamed glass insulation Screed RC concrete precast slabs Steel beam

6 Roof concrete paves, set on pedestals 7 Water flow reducing layer

8 Foamed glass insulation - 250 mm 9 Waterproofing layer

10 RC concrete 150 mm 11 Steel decking 12 Steel beam carrier


Interior views and renders

Section through east wing

Left: Reception Right: Exhibition space

Left: Atrium Right: Debating chamber

Interior space study Left: Daytime Right: Nightime


Exterios views and renders

Section through atrium Site section

Oracle corporation

Tower Wharf

National Centre for Planning Resolutions

Temple way

Natwest Glass

One glass wharf

PWC Office

Colored panels

Red brick Stone

When completed

in 2-3 years

in 5-7 years

Located in an rapidly changing area - a building that adapts to its environment. The main cladding material - recycled copper sheets will change their color and gradually adopt to the turquoise material pallette of the Enterprise zone in Bristol


ACADEMIC User behavior study


PROFESSIONAL Internship Project


Internship Arteks Engineering

Master plan for a housing development in the outskirts of Sofia

Zones and constraints

Constraints and regulated zones

2

2

1

Regulations and zoning according to Bulgarian law Zone 1 - allowed development with density either 20% or 30% depending on site size Zone 2 - green space conservation zone - no development allowed

2

1

3

2

Zone 3 - river zone - no development

Design considerations

Location plan

Luxurious Development Diversity in home types

Access

Emphasis on green spaces

Exposure and desirable areas Orientation regarding the sun Noise and proximity to road

Access

Least to most desirable exposure

Entrance Vehicular access Within the Development

Pedestrian Pathways

Public road


Final Master plan and types of housing Type 1 Housing block

Type 3 Detached

Quality, size, pricing

Type 2 Terraced

Type 4 Semi-detached

17 single family houses 5 terraced 6 twin 6 detached 4 multifamily buildings (living blocks) 6 apartments in each Size for single family houses - 10 500 m2` Size for living blocks - 6000m2

Car access and car space to every home

Private green space Community green space

Orientation and equal sun exposure


Orthographic drawings Second floor

First floor Long section

Short section

Master Bedroom view

Single bedroom view

2 small bedrooms and a master bedroom on first floor

Kitchen and lounge on ground floor

Ground floor

Flexible studio space on second floor


PROFESSIONAL 1

Articles and writings


Interview with Michael Jones, Foster + Partners

The winner of the 2018 RIBA Stirling prize – Bloomberg Headquarters is undoubtedly an impressive and innovative building in a number of ways. Reaching a 99.1% in BREEAM the building is surely setting the standard for sustainability in office design. Michael Jones – deputy Head of studio at Foster + Partners and architect on the Bloomberg project was interviewed by students in our department – Ekaterina Petkova, Annie Davies and Suleiman Al Saadi. We had the privilege to spend an hour with Michael and ask him a range of questions, from his career path, the winner of the Stirling prize and his opinions on some hot topics in architecture today: What makes the Bloomberg HQ special in your opinion? The client. You are only as good as your client. With Mike Bloomberg we had a client who was brave, he was prepared to invest a lot of money into pushing the boundaries and take risks. Clients don’t really like to come out of their comfort zone normally and Mike was the complete opposite. He said to me very early on; “I’d rather you beg for forgiveness than ask for permission, so if you have an idea and you think it’s good, even if it’s the most off the wall idea, let’s have a go and if it goes wrong I’d rather you beg for forgiveness then”. Clients like that are very rare and that was defining part of the project. The Bloomberg HQ has raised the bar for sustainability, Lord Foster has been quoted saying that sustainability was a driver from the outset, was this always in the brief or did the practice push for it? People ask a lot about the brief, in reality it was a list of 10 things written on a piece of paper after a meeting with Mike. From that list, 1 thing was written at the bottom, in big capital letters: SUSTAINABLE. So yes, it was there from the beginning, and really, it’s no surprise as Mike is a Climate Change Ambassador at the UN. As a practice, we are also very interested in sustainability and it was a great meeting of minds. A lot of things we tried to achieve in the building had never been done before and to test it, Mike even built us a laboratory, otherwise, we would not have been able to deliver them. We decided to measure the building’s success under two ratings, the BREEAM, and the Wellbeing ratings. In its early stages it was clear that the building would perform very well under BREEAM, which meant they had to extend the range. We scored 98.5 in the design stage. On delivery, the building scored even higher reaching a score of 99.1 rating.

Interview and article with David Mikhail and Analie Riches

Mikhail Riches are the winners of the 2019 Stirling prize award. Redefining social housing and giving it Passivhaus standard they tell the story of how it all happened. A five yearlong collaboration with Norwich city council and the results speak for themselves – residents love the houses and visitors pile up to see the architectural solution. David and Analie tell the story of the award-winning project First of all, congratulations for being the team behind the Stirling Prize for the first time for social housing. Goldsmith street has been described as a ground breaking project and outstanding contribution to British architecture. Firstly, how does it feel to have that recognition. Analie: Quite strange, we keep forgetting and remembering (laughs). It’s amazing – our client did a lot of very unusual things in their project. Hopefully it will have an impact on the way people are thinking about what’s possible in housing especially within a green agenda. Has it had a lot of impact on your company? David: We won lots of work before the Stirling from various competitions, but weirdly since we won Goldsmith street, we have not won any new work. Someone said to me ‘winning the Stirling is like winning an Oscar – everyone assumes you are either too busy or too expensive’Analie: People have told me that it is changing their work culture, someone just said to me the other week they are rewriting their sustainability agenda now. This makes me feel positive and hopeful that it’s changing something. What influenced your idea of what housing should be and were there any specific precedents or housing estates that you have taken any principles from? Analie: We are working on Park Hill in Sheffield which is quite an important building and although it was not a direct influence it definitely made me want to be involved in social housing. I am quite blown away by the ideas behind it, not necessarily how well they were resolved, but the ideas themselves: like keeping places for children to play safely, orientation towards the south to maximize sunlight.David: I can’t point you to a body of work and say ‘we love that’ but why housing? I think It’s because I’ve been more in love with cities and backdrop architecture than standalone buildings that ‘shout’.In the many years I have spent traveling around Europe seeking the work of heroes I am often left slightly ‘deflated’ by the reality of what I find. I think gradually over the years that meant that I became less interested in architectural icons and more interested in backdrop city making and place making and a modest set of aspirations as a designer.


CRITICAL Hand drawings


Pencil and soft pastel drawings Measured drawing in 1:5 and 1:10 exploring materials and textures.


CRITICAL Model making


Physical modeling

Variety of modeling techniques explored: 3D printing, laser cutting and hand crafted models of cardboard plastic and recycled materials.


Profile for Ekaterina Nikolaeva

Graduate Portfolio  

This document presents the academic, professional, and critic work I have conducted so far within my architectural career. It contains my fi...

Graduate Portfolio  

This document presents the academic, professional, and critic work I have conducted so far within my architectural career. It contains my fi...

Advertisement