Paradeisos : Reconciling Man and Nature

paradeisos RECONCILING MAN AND NATURE DIA 2017/2018 hopeTon BarTley 1ST ADVISOR ROGER bUNDSCHUH 2ND ADVISOR JORIS FACH

1

2

Table of Contents

God‘s Garden. by Dorothy Frances Gurney.....................................5 A new Typology........................................................................................6 The Proposal......................................................................................................8 Design Process..........................................................................................9 Paradeisos..................................................................................................20 Structural Drwing and Detailing....................................................51 Plant Inventory......................................................................................65

3

4

God‘s Garden The Lord God planted a garden In the first white days of the world, And He set there an angel warden In a garment of light enfurled.

So near to the peace of Heaven, That the hawk might nest with the wren, For there in the cool of the even God walked with the first of men.

And I dream that these garden-closes With their shade and their sun-flecked sod And their lilies and bowers of roses, Were laid by the hand of God. The kiss of the sun for pardon, The song of the birds for mirth, One is nearer God‘s heart in a garden Than anywhere else on earth.

For He broke it for us in a garden Under the olive-trees Where the angel of strength was the warden And the soul of the world found ease.

Dorothy Frances Gurney

5

A new typology

The office, in the eyes of many has always had a strictly utilitarian purpose, that is, we go to work, we earn money, and we go home. This example illustrates the typical day for a person of the 21st century. If one were to take a stroll down any metropolitan city, he would see scores of people melancholily making their way to work every morning, and back home every evening. This has become a flavourless cycle within our everyday lives.

Many countries still have exhausting work hours where people are locked up within clustered and sterile offices for hours on end. The United States of America has an average working week of 40 hours, whilst its European comparisons, United Kingdom, Germany and France, favour a 35-hour week shift.

This data results show that North Americans spends approximately 25 percent of their 7 day week, within the office whilst its European comparisons spend approximately 20 percent. This data does not take into consideration the time spent in commuting to and from work, which is an added time taken from each individual’s day.

Research shows that we spend accumulatively an approximation of 90 percent of our day within a building1. Most of this time, we come in contact with very little of the natural environment, and we get very little opportunities to sit back, appreciate and explore the world we have around us. Our biophilic proclivity implores us to interact with the biosphere, and by so doing, my research has persistently elucidated the fact that this will without a doubt, improve our mental and physical health by reducing the toxicity of the urban stimulus.

Consequent to studies, as well as the utilitarian approach people have towards the office, it appears as the most suited place to begin this intervention.

The aim is therefore to combine the utility of the office structure with the spirituality and immateriality of the natural environment. The question now is how one can use these theories to develop an architecture language which will effectually reconcile man with the biosphere, whilst improving the overall quality of life within the urban environ.

1 (OVERSHINER 2013) 6

7

The proposal

This proposal must utilise the park space of the site efficaciously; so that nothing is taken away from the community. Hence, the building must give back, equivalently what it has taken. It must metamorphose the existing green-park into an architype of a more sophisticated social and aesthetic value. This project takes the physical and virtual connection to the outdoor environment and translates it into every publicly usable space and floor within the edifice, resultantly reconciling itself with what it has taken from the public.

The proposals must use biophilic design principles to create a work environment that improves the work output of its occupants while reducing the effects of the everyday psychological stressors. There must also be 24/7 permeability of the public spaces available in the edifice.

8

DESIGN PROCESS

9

10

MA

IN

TR

AM

PO IN T

siTe drawinGs

KE

UC

E

NS

RI

CH E

L bR

S

FIS

C

R HE

IN

SE

L

FI

M

ER UF

SC

KI

AR

S HE

SITE PLAN 1:2500

11

Restoring historical connection

12

M��� E���� S�������� E����

M��� ����������� S�������� �����������

13

NON bUILT AREA

bUILT AREA

MAIN CIRCULATION AXIS

14

Typical Office Stack

Twisting office stack allowing for light

15

Twisting floor plates allow for increased light permeation into the buidling and reduces air drag on wind facing sides. Natural lighting plays a huge importance in regulating ones circadian rythm. as such the building most adopt a shape which allows for flight to enter easily, and in abundance. Lastly, the twisting shape reduces the windloads on the edifice.

16

Adjusting oor plates to increase light penetrating and reduce building self shadowing.

17

The next step is following through with the vegetation existing naturally on the site. The buildings spiraling form must therefor twist within itself the the existing park functions, and replace it with one of a higher quality, whilst allowing the full accessibility of the public.

18

Twisting and wrapping existing park into the architcecture

19

20

Para�eisos

21

22

23

24

Site Plan

25

26

Groun� floor Plan Retail an� Nursery 27

1st Floor Plan S�are� Floor Plans 28

29

10t� Floor PlanMeetin� Rooms 30

11t� Floor 3 storey Offi�es 31

12t� Floor Plan3 Storey Offi�es Me��anine 32

13t� Floor Plan3 Storey Offi�es Me��anine 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Elevation of Nursery/ Ramp area

46

47

Visualisation of Nusery Ramp Area

48

49

50

Stru�tural Dra�in� an� Detailin�

51

Exploded Axonometric

3x4 Steel Meshs Living wall system

Ramp Structural support

52

40cm CHS Pretensioned Steel column

Connection to foundation

60cm CHS Cross Bracing system

Connection to foundation

20cm CHS bracing

Hole for structural shaftv

Office Floots,

Ramped Park ooring

Structural Core

Ramp leading from park

Wood ďŹ nish on concrete Metal decking

53

Stru�tural Diam�ram

Secondary Strucutral System, connection to out skeleton

Main Strucutral System

Tertirary Strucutral System

54

Floor Conne�ti�ity Dia�ram 60CM CHS member structural Beams

Living wall system

structural core 250mm reincforced concrete

Structural prestressed40cm CHS

55

Green Floor Detail

Plants 0.5m-3m

Soil .15m-0.5m

Edge Paver

.15m concrete Drainage Medium Seperaion Fabric Irrigation dripline Root barrier Plyboard .15m insulation

.15m concrete slab .2 universal IBeam

56

50 cm

35 cm 15 cm 20 cm

530 cm

57

Soil Dept� C�art

Low growing succulent 50mm150mm substrate

Herbaceous perrenials substrate deeper than 150mm Small shrubs and turf substrate deeper than 250mm

small trees and shrubs up to 2m substrate 500mm

trees substrate 500m and deeper

58

Skin Foun�ation Detail

Steel Mesh

30 cm CHS

Join to coundation

Prestressed Concrete Spun prestressed Concrete Spun Piles

59

60

Roof Top Park

Roof Top Park

61

62

63

64

Plant In�entory

65

appearance

66

name

Size

position

usage

Bouganvillea

Creeper H: 60–100 cm W: 25–30 cm

Mesh wall

Ornamental Aesthetic Aromatic

Aloe Vera

H: 60-100 cm

Ramps Ground level

Ornamental Therapeituic Edible

Plantain lilies (Hostas)

H: 15-70 cm W: 20-30 cm

Ramps Roof top

Ornamental

Crhrysantemum (Cryanthemum Kamelin)

H: 30-100 cm W: 30-60 cm

Ramps Ground level

Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic

Catmint (Nepeta × faassenii)

H: 46-60 cm W: 25–30 cm

Ramps Roof top

Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic

Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)

H: 46-60 cm W: 25–30 cm

Ramps Rood top

Aesthetical Ornamental

Winter Jasmine (Jasminum nudiflorum,)

H: 1-3 m W: 2-3 m

Ramps Rood top Ground floor

Ornamental Therapeituic Aromatic

English Ivy (Hedera helix)

Creeper

Mesh wall

Ornamental Therapeituic

Crabapple tree

H: 6-7 m

Roof top Ground level

Ornamental Edible

appearance

name

Size

position

usage

Flowering Dogwood tree (Cornus florida)

H: 5-10 m

Roof top Ground level

Ornamental Aromatic

Japanese maple tree (Acer palmatum)

H: 4-6 m

Roof top Ground level

Ornamental Aromatic

Grass (Poa Supina)

H: 10 cm

Ramps Roof top Ground level

Ornamental

Fern (Athyrium, Cystopteris)

H: 30-60 cm W: 60-70 cm

Ramps Roof top

Ornamental Aesthetical Spontaneous

Primerose (Primula vulgaris)

H: 20-40 cm W: 10-30 cm

Ramps Ground level Roof top

Ornamental Medical

Blueberry

H: 1-4 m w: 1-3 m

Ramps Ground level

Aromatic Edible Ornamental

Domestic apple tree (Flemish beauty)

H:2-3 m W: 2-3 m

Roof top Ground level

Ornamental Edible

Dwarf pear tree

H: 2-3 m W: 1-2 m

Roof top Ground level Ramps

Ornamental Edible

Purple Clematis (Clematis viticella)

Creeper

Mesh wall

Ornamental

67

68

69

c

I Dessau International Architecture School

Anhalt University Department 3 70