Page 1

PORTFOLIO

ELIUD CELIS


“When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. When you photograph people in black and white, you photograph their souls.” ― Ted Grant


P. 03

ATRIO

P. 17

FUSION

P. 29

FRAME

P. 43

INTERLOCKS

P. 47

MODULE

P. 53

PHASE 1

P. 63

PHASE 2

P. 71

PROTOTYPE

P. 79

ILIUM

Grids

User Interface

Domestic Space

Colliding Forms

Points + Lines

Solid

Void

Nomadic

Organic


ATRIO GRIDS Spring 2016 Pasadena City College Professor: Michael Cranfill 10 Week Project Individual Work Description: Atrio (the spanish word for atrium) is a museum set to be designed in the heart of downtown Los Angeles, on the north intersection of S. Grand Ave. and W. Temple St. The concept of the design is to create a monumental and monolithic design which interconnects large and expansive gallery spaces with the fluid motion of vertical circulation. Gallery spaces are separated from the program on the ground floor, which primarily consists of curatorial/administration, and facilities management program in order to create a clear distinction between the museum and back-of-house. Large gallery spaces form the exterior of the museum while smaller gallery spaces are indirectly connected to them which creates a threshold between the atrium and large gallery spaces. The spatial organization stems from Louis Kahn’s Phillips Exeter Academy Library (the precedent of this project) allowing for the employment of frames within frames (through plan) acting as thresholds of space. An atrium at the core of the museum is wrapped by column-like circulation. The relationship of the atrium and circulation, and the separation of museum and back-of-house unify the concept, becoming, Atrio.

03


Grid System (40’x40’), Subdivisions into 3rds or 4ths Plan (Top) & Section (Bottom)

ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016


Av e

W pl

Gr an

d

m Te St

N

e

Site Plan

1/32� Physical Model on Site Model North Side of Building

05


Beam System

Shear Walls

ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016


Columns (18”X18”)

Stair Walls

07


10

11

12

12

13 13

14 15 16 1 17

28

18

27 19

20

23

21

18

22

1

27

28

26

25

24

1

Ground Floor

1. Entrance 2. Sculpture Gallery 3. Art Gallery 4. Lobby 5. Ticketing 6. Information 7. Library

8. Atrium 9. Sculpture Garden 10. Parking Entrance 11. Maintenance Lounge 12. Maintenance Storage 13. Mechanical 14. Loading Dock

15. Receiving Area 16. Exhibition Storage 17. Conservatory 18. Offices 19. Fumigation/Paint/Pre-Fabrication 20. Photography Room 21. Kitchen

ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016

22. Cafe 23. Auditorium 24. Restrooms 25. Bookstore 26. Pre-Function Space 27. Elevator 28. Fire Stair

0

10

20

40F


9

28

3

5

27

6 1

4 8

4

1

6

27

5

7 28

Second Floor 1. Entrance 2. Sculpture Gallery 3. Art Gallery 4. Lobby 5. Ticketing 6. Information 7. Library

8. Atrium 9. Sculpture Garden 10. Parking Entrance 11. Maintenance Lounge 12. Maintenance Storage 13. Mechanical 14. Loading Dock

15. Receiving Area 16. Exhibition Storage 17. Conservatory 18. Offices 19. Fumigation/Paint/Pre-Fabrication 20. Photography Room 21. Kitchen

09

22. Cafe 23. Auditorium 24. Restrooms 25. Bookstore 26. Pre-Function Space 27. Elevator 28. Fire Stair


28

2

27

2

2

27

2

Third Floor

1. Entrance 2. Sculpture Gallery 3. Art Gallery 4. Lobby 5. Ticketing 6. Information 7. Library

8. Atrium 9. Sculpture Garden 10. Parking Entrance 11. Maintenance Lounge 12. Maintenance Storage 13. Mechanical 14. Loading Dock

15. Receiving Area 16. Exhibition Storage 17. Conservatory 18. Offices 19. Fumigation/Paint/Pre-Fabrication 20. Photography Room 21. Kitchen

ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016

28

22. Cafe 23. Auditorium 24. Restrooms 25. Bookstore 26. Pre-Function Space 27. Elevator 28. Fire Stair

0

10

20

40F


28

3

27

3

3

27

3

28

Fourth Floor

1. Entrance 2. Sculpture Gallery 3. Art Gallery 4. Lobby 5. Ticketing 6. Information 7. Library

8. Atrium 9. Sculpture Garden 10. Parking Entrance 11. Maintenance Lounge 12. Maintenance Storage 13. Mechanical 14. Loading Dock

15. Receiving Area 16. Exhibition Storage 17. Conservatory 18. Offices 19. Fumigation/Paint/Pre-Fabrication 20. Photography Room 21. Kitchen

11

22. Cafe 23. Auditorium 24. Restrooms 25. Bookstore 26. Pre-Function Space 27. Elevator 28. Fire Stair


ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016


13


ATRIO | Architectural Design Studio 2 | 2016


15


FUSION USER INTERFACE Fall 2017 University of Michigan Associate Professor: Melissa Harris 6 Week Project Individual Work Description: Fusion (a wellness centre) is the programmatic fusion that is defined by the user. The “negative space� brings together the two distinct parts of the site, the public and the university. Tutoring spaces, a lounge, a communal space, a pool, a terrace, and an auditorium (among other program) are incorporated to create a dialogue between the exterior and interior and promotes user collaboration. A light well unifies the space(s) spanning from the ground floor and vertically throughout the building. Light illuminates the interior and draws the eye upward, instilling a sense of curiosity in the user for what lies above.

17


FUSION | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


19


1:20 Physical Model on Site Model

FUSION | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


1:20 Physical Mass Model, Material: 2ply Museum Board & 1/16� Acrylic

21


Fourth Floor

11

13

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator

12

6

5

Third Floor

11

13

12

4

3

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator

Ground Floor

11

13

2

12

2 1

FUSION | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator


Sixth Floor Mezzanine

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator

13

12

10

Sixth Floor

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator

13

12

9

Fifth Floor

1. Entrance 2. Lobby/Lounge 3. Pre-Function Space 4. Auditorium 5. Terrace 6. Communal Space 7. Pool 8. Dressing Room 9. Public 826 Tutoring 10. Public 826 Tutoring Mezzanine 11. Grand Stair 12. Fire Stair 13. Elevator

8

13

7

23

12


FUSION | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


25


FUSION | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


27


FRAME DOMESTIC SPACE Winter 2018 University of Michigan Fellow: Brittany Utting 4 Week Project Individual Work Description: Frame is a site-less project which challenges the ‘public space’ in a home and its significance at the domestic scale. The intent is to create spaces which integrate not only the individuals residing in the home but also the community as a whole. This concept is implemented in the program’s distribution to reinforces the idea of the ‘public space.’ Various frames are employed to distinguish the homes programmatic uses and thresholds. Frame’s procession begins with an open public space on the ground floor which promotes community engagement with a variety of activities. Following the public space, the user is met with a labyrinthlike path which then leads to either the garden or second floor. Arriving at the second floor, the user is met with various collaborative spaces (e.g. kitchens, laundry, corridor) which again promotes interaction between individuals residing in the home and community. Every space prior to the dwelling units is meant to be public in order to maximize the ‘public space’ in the domestic realm.

29


FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


31


6

7

2

8

4

2

4

5 1

2

4

2

6

Ground Floor

1. Garden 2. Restroom 3. Bathroom 4. Chess Area 5. Pool & Ping Pong 6. Arts & Crafts

7. Hopscotch 8. Cornhole 9. Kitchen 10. Laundry 11. Storage 12. Closet

13. Family Dwelling 14. Couple Dwelling 15. Three Rommate Dwelling 16. Single Occupant Dwelling

FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


13

3

9

10

3

11

11

12

12

14

16

12

12

11

11

3

10

9

15

Second Floor

1. Garden 2. Restroom 3. Bathroom 4. Chess Area 5. Pool & Ping Pong 6. Arts & Crafts

7. Hopscotch 8. Cornhole 9. Kitchen 10. Laundry 11. Storage 12. Closet

33

13. Family Dwelling 14. Couple Dwelling 15. Three Rommate Dwelling 16. Single Occupant Dwelling

3


FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


35


FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


37


FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


39


FRAME | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


41


INTERLOCKS COLLIDING FORMS Spring 2012 Pasadena City College Professor: Deborah Bird 2 Week Project Individual Work Description: Interlocks employs three volumes each made of a different material (museum board, acrylic and walnut) which distinguishes the volumes. Each volume is analyzed in order to understand the spatial qualities of potential interlocks in two-dimensions. Vertical & horizontal diagrams are developed at the volumes intersection. Once the desired interlock is achieved, the visualization of a conceptually designed 2D section is developed with the intent of exploring spatial relationships of the interlocked volumes.

43


B

A

A

B

Diagram B

Diagram A

INTERLOCKS | Design Fundamentals Studio 1 | 2012


Hand Drawn Section (Diagram B), Original Size: 32” x 40”

45


MODULE POINTS + LINES Spring 2013 Pasadena City College Professor: Casey Hughes 6 Week Project Group Work Description: Module is designed to study and observe different materials in certain applications: (i) Their behavior when specific forces are applied, (ii) their limitations, and (iii) their natural behaviors. The design involves problem-solving the material limitations to create an architecture that performs based on a system of modular logics. The precedent for the project is Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome. Nylon string is strong and semi-resistant to stretching which is ideal for the tension component of tensegrity. PVC pipes are strong in compression, complementing the nylon’s tensile qualities. The module used for the project consists of a single 5’ PVC pipe and the ends of a 6’ nylon string attached at each end of the PVC pipe. The modules topology is broken down into thirds to create specific and precise connection points allowing for a self-contained design. Role: Within a team of five, my primary responsibility consisted of developing drawings for potential design iterations, their mechanics, and leading the team with the assembly process of the final construct (pg.46). Sergio Sanchez and I completed the drawings on (pg.48-49). Group: Sergio Sanchez, Patrick Kim, Michael Chen, Garthlee Garrovillas

47


Bolt

String

Nut

Nut Material Mechanics

Axonometric of Compression Units

MODULE | Materials and Processes of Construction | 2013


Shared Points Tension Lines

Module (Construction) Topology

Plan of Tension Lines

49


Professor Interacting w/Study Model, Material: Bamboo Sticks & Nylon String

MODULE | Materials and Processes of Construction | 2013


Semi-Complete Construct, Material: PVC Pipes & Nylon String

51


PHASE 1 SOLID Fall 2017 University of Michigan Associate Professor: Melissa Harris 3 Week Project Individual Work Description: Phase 1 investigates a painting (pg.54) by Italian artist Giorgio Morandi. The painting has specific characteristics of which I chose ‘profiles’ to expand upon to further explore the relationship between solid and void. The relationship between the two primary objects in the painting suggests a physical connection between them which blurs the interior and exterior conditions. A sectional drawing was developed (using the two objects) to further investigate the ‘profile’ of solid and void (pg.52). The “physical connection” between the two chosen objects is implemented in the design process of the solid and void relationship. A (4”x6”x8”) bounding box is interpreted as a solid object which receives ‘profiles’ of a similar language to that of the sectional drawing. The profiles then transform and merge, carving into the “solid object” creating a plastic and sculpture-like form within the bounding box’s limits to create a clear distinction between solid and void.

53


Giorgio Morandi Painting

PHASE 1 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Sketched Serial Sections of Solid (Top-Down, Left-Right)

55


Stacking Model Study of Void (48 Layers), Upper Photos

Stacking Model Study of Solid (48 Layers), Lower Photos

PHASE 1 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Material: 1/8� Corrugated Cardboard

Material: 1/8� Corrugated Cardboard

57


Void Stacked on Solid (96 Layers)

PHASE 1 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Material: 1/8� Corrugated Cardboard

59


Final Model of Solid (128 Layers)

PHASE 1 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Material: 4ply Museum Board

61


PHASE 2 VOID Fall 2017 University of Michigan Associate Professor: Melissa Harris 2 Week Project Individual Work Description: Phase 2 further utilizes the (4”x6”x8”) bounding box and process derived from the sectional drawing used in the development of Phase 1. Rockite is introduced as a new material (instead of the stacking method) creating a new thought process for understanding solid and void. Phase 2 is not the residual, but rather the calculated unoccupied space of Phase 1. Phase 2’s spatial qualities are similar to that of Phase 1, and in order to optimize Phase 2’s materiality, the project aims for a stereotomic formal quality. The result is a cavernous aesthetic. Is it a solid or void?

63


PHASE 2 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


65


Formwork Studies of Void, Material: Foam

PHASE 2 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Form Studies of Void, Material: Rockite

67


Final Model of Void

PHASE 2 | Architectural Design UG1 | 2017


Material: Rockite

69


PROTOTYPE NOMADIC Winter 2018 University of Michigan Fellow: Brittany Utting 6 Week Project Individual Work Description: The goal with Prototype is to create flexible housing structures with the option of disassembly or permanently fixture if need be. The purpose of this concept is to reinforce the idea that there is no one correct way to live in, interact with, or to enter the structure which gives way to a nomadic experience of living. Through collaboration with others, the users are given full control of their experience. The structure(s) are meant for shortterm housing. Through disassembly, the structure(s) can be transported and reassembled anywhere on the site. Through various configurations, e.g., single, or groupings of structures, a common space in between the structure(s) and the site is introduced creating microcommunities that shift with the passing of time and change, as the users change.

71


PROTOTYPE | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


7

5 2

3

8

8

1

4

6

Interior Plan 1. Entrance 2. Rest Area 3. Media Space 4. Dining 5. Bathroom 6. Kitchen 7. Quiet Space 8. Storage

73


Roof Connection (4”x8” Wood Beams)

Floor System (Wood Flooring [above], Steel Plate [below])

PROTOTYPE | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


Roof-to-Wall Connection (4”x8” Wood Beams)

Wall-to-Ground Connection

75


PROTOTYPE | Architectural Design UG2 | 2018


77


ILIUM ORGANIC Fall 2017 University of Michigan Lecturer: Mark Meier 2 Week Project Individual Work Description: Ilium’s design began with the intent of mimicking the organic. The skeletal system (for its structural qualities) came to mind as a framework for the design. Through analysis of the skeletal system, the pelvis bone became the ideal choice for the topology of the design because structurally it is one of the primary components which assists the posture of the human body. Coincidentally, the pelvis is also the bone that most frequently makes contact with a chair. The aim is to implement the aesthetic sensibilities of bones. Creases and curvature are employed into Ilium’s design which further accentuates the origin of its formal qualities. The continuity of the seat, arm and backrest are an homage to the pelvis’ bowl-like form. Ilium takes advantage of the three-legged design by thickening the rear leg for the purpose of increased structural support. The “shoulder blades” are an aesthetic response to accentuate the armrest to backrest transition. The result...Ilium.

79


ILIUM | Geometric Modeling | 2017


81


To Be Continued...


Eliud Celis Portfolio  
Eliud Celis Portfolio  
Advertisement