UVA. ARCH 6010-FALL 2019

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

INDEX 1. INSTRUCTORS 2. REVIEWERS 3. SYLLABUS 4. FINAL REVIEW 5. STUDENTS

1

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

INSTRUCTORS Ines Martin Robles (Arch 6010+Arch 6231) Xianwen (Shirl) Xu (TA. Visualization)

2

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

INÉS MARTIN ROBLES Assistant Professor, Architecture UVA. imm3x@virginia.edu www.pancorboarquitectos.com

Inés studied at the School of Architecture of the Technical University of Madrid ETSAM-UPM achieving a dual degree in Architecture and Urban Design; at L’Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Paris-La Villette, ENSAPLV, and at L’Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris (Université Paris-Est, Créteil-Val de Marne). She developed her Ph. D at the School of Architecture of San Pablo-CEU University, with a dissertation entitled “The Design Methodology of Julio Cano Lasso”.

Inés was Associate Professor in ESNE School of Design, Madrid, from 2011 to 2015.

PANCORBO ARQUITECTOS Inés Martin-Robles and Luis Pancorbo focus their professional practice on the submission of international architectural competitions. They have won 17 awards in different competitions. First Prizes: Hotel for regional tourism network in Castuera, Badajoz; “Vegas Altas” Congress Center in Villanueva de la Serena, Badajoz; Competition “Hacemos ciudad” SEPES, Guadalajara, Spain; Competition for the construction of temporary homes on public facilities plots in Parla, Madrid; 49 social dwellings in Vallecas, Madrid. Second Prizes: Competition for the General Archive of Extremadura in Mérida; Competition for social dwellings VicálvaroLa Catalana 3, Madrid; Competition for the facilities, urban design and new market design in Barceló - Santa Barbara square and its surroundings, Madrid; Competition for the construction of 982 social dwellings, in "Los Ahijones" (Madrid)”. Andalusian Competition for Young Architects J5, Dwelling in Cazorla; Competition for 204 social dwellings in Los Olivos; Competition “Edificio das Artes”. University of Vigo, Pontevedra Campus.

They achieved more than 20 awards for their built work, including four COAM awards, the AZ Awards in Canada, AR awards of AIA, AIA|DC’s Unbuilt Awards, Architizer A+Awards, ACSA Faculty Design Award, S.ARCH Awards, Chicago Athenaeum Award, and the MasterPrize Architecture Award. Their work has been published in more than 60 international magazines as L’architecture d’aujourdhui and Le Moniteur (France), Architect (USA), Azure Magazine (Canada), IW magazine (Taiwan), Mark and Frame (Netherlands), Plot (Argentina), AIT Architektur (Germany), Arquitectura Viva (Spain), AV Monographs (Spain), The Plan (Italy), C3 (Korea), among others.

TA. Visualization Xianwen (Shirl) Xu (TA. Visualization) xx2bn@virginia.edu Xianwen is currently a third-year graduate student at path 3 of M.Arch program. Before coming to UVA, she got her Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree at Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China) in 2014. After then, she started her professional practice as a Junior Architect at Staedtebau-Architektur-Transfer International (Hangzhou, China) for three years. The past two summers after coming back to school, she participated in internship programs at Gensler (Austin, TX) and ZGF Architect (Portland, OR). She has been awarded the Merit Scholarship for three years. Also, she worked as graduate Teaching Assistants for Earl Mark with SARC 6710 / ARCH 2710 Computer Aided Architectural Design in 2018 Fall, and for Bill Sherman, Ali Fard & Schaeffer Somers with ARCH 3020 Foundation Studio V, as well as for Seth Mcdowell with ARCH 3260 Building Matters in 2019 Spring.

3

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

REVIEWERS Miguel Guitart Esther Choi Robin Dripps Elgin Cleckley Karen van Lengen Andrew Johnston

4

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

MIGUEL GUITART Clinical Associate Professor, University at Buffalo mguitart@buffalo.edu www.miguel-guitart.com www.gimeno-guitart.com Guitart obtained his Ph.D in Architecture at the Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (ETSAM), Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM) in 2014, where he graduated in architecture and became Licensed Architect in Spain in 2000. Guitart obtained his Master’s Degree at the Graduate School of Design GSD at Harvard University in 2003 as a J. W. Fulbright Scholar.

A Principal at Gimeno Guitart (www.gimeno-guitart.com), Guitart has received international recognition (ACSA Faculty Design Honorable Mention, NY State Council for the Arts, or AZ Awards in Canada, among others). Guitart previously worked at the office of De Stefano+Partners in Chicago and Equator European Architects in Madrid, contributing to projects both in Europe and the US. His doctoral research focuses on the phenomenological construction of the space through the exploration of light, vision and matter, with a special focus on filters. His current research has expanded into the experiential relationships between matter and perception in architecture. Guitart has published internationally numerous articles on architectural theory in magazines such as the Journal of Architectural Education JAE, Arquia Próxima, Cátedra Cerámica, TC Cuadernos, ZARCH, Future Arquitecturas, Rita, and Arquitectura COAM, among others. He has also edited and authored several books, like The Depth of the Skin or the Práctica Arquitectónica PA book series on methods on the practice of architectural design.

ESTHER CHOI Adjunct Professor, Rensselaer School Architecture choie2@rpi.edu www.estherchoi.net Esther Choi is an architectural historian, artist and writer. Her research interests center on the entanglements between architecture, art and the life sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the intersections between artistic and architectural movements throughout the twentieth century. Her dissertation at Princeton University entitled “The Organization of Life: Architecture, Biotechnics and the Life Sciences in Great Britain, 1929-1950,” explored exchanges that took place between modern architects, biologists, designers and writers to redesign British subjectivity in projects ranging from experimental exhibitions to city planning.

Choi is the author of Le Corbuffet (Prestel, 2019), an artistic project that explores issues of cultural valuation and consumption that has been featured in T: The New York Times Style Magazine, The Daily Beast and Quartz. She is the co-editor of two volumes of architectural theory: Architecture Is All Over (Columbia Books on Architecture, 2017) and Architecture at the Edge of Everything Else (MIT Press, 2010). Her writing has appeared in periodicals such as Artforum, Art Papers, The Journal of Architectural Education, Architectural Review and PIN-UP, and in publications for the Walker Art Centre, Guggenheim Museum and Oslo Triennale.

A recipient of the 2019 Richard Rogers Fellowship, Choi has been honored with grants and awards from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, Society of Architectural Historians, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Social Sciences Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Centre Interuniversitaire Des Arts Médiatiques. She has held teaching appointments at OCAD University in Toronto, and the New School and Cooper Union in New York City.

Choi has a PhD from Princeton University, where she pursued a joint doctoral degree in the Department of Architecture and the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in the Humanities. She previously received a MDes from Harvard Graduate School of Design, a MFA from Concordia University, and a BFA in Photography Studies from Ryerson University.

5

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

ROBIN DRIPPS Fitz-Gibbon Professor of Architecture, Architecture UVA. rdd9a@virginia.edu www.drippsphinneystudio.com

Robin Dripps, B.A., Princeton University; M.Arch., University of Pennsylvania.

Dripps teaches within the studio design sequence, lectures on architectural theory, and directs a seminar on the relationship between design intent and detail manifestation. The ACSA honored her teaching with its Distinguished Professorship Award in 1992. Educated at Princeton (BA in architecture) and the University of Pennsylvania (M. Arch), she has been writing and lecturing on the structure of myth as a fundamental basis for architectural form. This work was published as The First House: Myth, Paradigm, and the Task of Architecture, where it received a Phi Beta Kappa book award in 1999. Professor Dripps recent research, writing, and teaching deals with the pragmatic and poetic opportunities of a shift in interest from the figure to the intellectual and physical grounds, fields, and other networks that give order to human action. Her essay,” Groundwork" was published by Routledge in Site Matters, an anthology on recent re-thinking about sites edited by Carol Burns and Andrea Kahn. “Notes on an Ethical Context for Fragmentation, Continuous and Multiple Grounds, and other Open Fields of Action, in The Hand and the Soul: Aesthetics and Ethics in Architecture and Art. Current research and teaching explores how parametric and generative software can extend how we work with complex field structures and how structures and surfaces can respond to external inputs. The design work of Professor Dripps, with Lucia Phinney, deals with the unobserved edge shared between architecture and landscape architecture, or between construction and ecology. Working with large scale earth works, water works, and agriculture, as well as scaffolding systems, operable shade cloth, and other lightweight materials, they have produced a body of work revealing different ways that the interior life of architecture can engage its political and natural context. This work has been published and exhibited in America, Europe, and Asia. Robin is also the designer and driver of a car that established two world land speed records.

ELGIN CLECKLEY Assistant Professor, Architecture + Design Thinking, UVA. elc2n@virginia.edu

Princeton University, Master of Architecture; Fontainebleau School of Arts, Fontainebleau, France; University of Virginia, Bachelor of Science in Architecture Elgin Cleckley is a designer, educator, and creative director of _mpathic design, a Design Thinking initiative and practice focusing on strategies for empathic, human valued design.

After studying architecture at the University of Virginia and Princeton University, he collaborated with DLR Group (Seattle), MRSA Architects (Chicago), and Baird Sampson Neuert Architects (Toronto) on awardwinning civic projects. He was a Muschenheim Fellow at the University of Michigan (1998), also teaching undergraduate studios at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Before joining UVa’s Design Thinking program in 2016, he was the 3D Group Leader and Design Coordinator at the Ontario Science Centre (Toronto), Science Content and Design Department, and Agents of Change Initiative, since 2001. This work produced award-winning exhibitions and public art with international artists David Rokeby, Michael Awad, Steve Mann, and Stacy Levy.

Elgin teaches Design Thinking studios and seminars at the University of Virginia, also directing the School’s Design Thinking program in Ghana.

6

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

KAREN VAN LENGEN Kenan Professor, Architecture UVA. kv3f@virginia.edu

Karen Van Lengen, FAIA; Columbia University, Master of Architecture; Vassar College, B.A. She is an internationally recognized architect, researcher and academic leader. Van Lengen’s research has focused on the exploration of sound and communication as an integral part of the new public realm. As a University Research Fellow (2012-14) at the Institute for Advanced Technologies in the Humanities, she created an ongoing web-based project entitled “Soundscape Architecture”, launched in 2014. This project celebrates the aural qualities of iconic examples of architecture using inventive interpretive and analytical processes. She is the recipient of a Jefferson Trust Grant to study the aural qualities of the University’s Academical Village with students and faculty collaborators. This work has led to the creation of another web site, (in collaboration with the Institute for Advanced Technologies) entitled "Listening to the Lawn". Her art and architectural works have been acquired and exhibited at several international museums including, The Art Institute of Chicago (MIX House Project), Columbia University Library Drawing Collection, (Berlin Library Competition Drawings), The Museum of the City of New York, (Soundscape New York Installation) and Amerika Haus Berlin, as well as several exhibition galleries. She is currently working on experimental sound designs for architectural space with the aim to influence the scope and practice of architectural design. In addition to her design work, Van Lengen has lectured extensively, authored and co-authored several books and articles, related to sound, landscape and academic projects.

From 1999-2009, Van Lengen led the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia as the Dean, where she championed cross-disciplinary education and research to address the complex environmental and cultural challenges that she dubbed, “The Architecture of Urgent Matters”. She founded “Campbell Constructions”, a faculty design program to renovate and add to Campbell Hall and its contiguous landscape, using her own faculty and alumni as the designers. Her book, Urgent Matters: Designing the School of Architecture at Jefferson’s University, (2009) documents the decade long rejuvenation process. As Chair of Architecture at Parsons School of Design (1995-1999), she founded the renowned 'Design Build Workshop', and its associated curriculum that celebrates the theory-to–building process and that remains a hallmark of the program today. Her book, "CityScapes", documents the five projects that became the foundation for this continuing program.

Van Lengen, a cum laude graduate of Vassar College and a MArch graduate of Columbia University, began her professional career at IM Pei & Partners, where she became the first female Design Associate, before founding her own firm in New York City in 1987. A Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, Van Lengen is the recipient of numerous awards, competition prizes, fellowships and grants associated with her design work and leadership.

Fellow, Institute for Advanced Technologies in the Humanities Jefferson Trust Foundation Grant for “Listening to the Lawn” Project Fellow of the American Institute of Architects University of Virginia Zintl Leadership Award Distinguished Achievement Award, Virginia Society of the AIA First Prize winner, Amerika Gedenkbibliotek Competition, Berlin, West Germany Third Prize, Formica 2000X Competition AIA Honor Award, Fragrant Hill Hotel, Beijing, China (I.M. Pei & Partners) Fulbright Fellowship in Architecture, Rome, Italy American Association of University Women Academic Fellowship

7

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

ANDREW JOHNSTON Associate Professor, Architectural History + Director Historic Preservation, UVA. asj4w@virginia.edu

Ph.D., Architecture, University of California, Berkeley M.Arch., Architecture, University of California, Berkeley M.S., Urban Design, Pratt Institute B.A., Arts, Hampshire College Andrew Johnston is a licensed architect and certified planner with a PhD in architectural history and extensive experience both in practice and in academia. He has served as a supervising architect for the Historic American Engineering Record and as an environmental planner for the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), working with a wide range of experts and stakeholders on the preservation and interpretation of historic cultural landscapes. In China he joined with UNESCO affiliates as one of a team of experts working on historical gardens, intermediate cities, and urban cultural landscapes and served as Consulting Architect in Heritage Preservation with the China Suzhou Institute of Architectural Design.

Andrew Johnston’s research interests focus on industrial and infrastructure heritage, cultural landscapes, critical heritage studies, and heritage and preservation in China. His book, Mercury and the Making of California: Mining, Landscape and Race, 1845-1900, is a multidisciplinary examination of the history and cultural landscapes of California's mercury-mining industry, which raises mercury to its rightful place alongside gold and silver in the development of the American West. His current research focuses on the question of heritage in contemporary China and encompasses research on heritage education in China, participation in writing national guidelines for the preservation of industrial heritage in China, and a new book project taking a comprehensive look at heritage conservation theory and methods in China today.

Andrew Johnston joined UVA in January 2016 from the department of architecture at Xi’an-Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China. He was the founding program director of both the Master of Architecture and the Interdisciplinary MSc at XJTLU, where he also led the Heritage, History and Theory Research Initiative. He has worked extensively on the promotion of multidisciplinary research sharing and interdisciplinary programs at XJTLU and will bring this work to bear on his interdisciplinary vision for the Historic Preservation Program at UVA, which he heads.

Johnston is teaching ARH 5601 Historic Preservation: Theory + Practice and ARH 5610 Field Methods II during the Spring 2016 semester and a Field Methods class in Oxford, England in Summer 2016. His teaching will be focused on Historic Preservation and Heritage, including the connections between preservation and design practice.

8

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

SYLLABUS 1_Background.

2_Site. The villa and the ruin.

3_Method, themes and questions.

4_Program 5_Texts, Software and Materials.

6_Grades.

7_Studio Work Flow. Attendance and Exceptions.

8_Honor Policy.

9_Schedule.

9

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

1_Background. The Villa and the Ruin. Jefferson’s Hypnerotomachia.

This Studio is the last of a sequence of courses developed by Professors Ines Martin Robles and Luis Pancorbo in the University of Virginia since 2015.

All these Studios had as a common ground the exploration of the diverse types of obsolescence corresponding to different kinds of artificial objects that are suitable to be colonized, recycled, or reactivated by an architectural design proposal.

These “Landscapes of Obsolescence” ranked from extractive and industrial derelict environments to massive fluvial shipwrecks, from the scale of the urban organism to that of the isolated architectural object. Each of these landscapes have a different kind of behavior when they enter the obsolescence processes. Assuming that complete and irreversible obsolescence is characteristic of the more purely technical objects and that partial and reversible obsolescence is distinctive of the most essentially architectonic objects, a classification criterion can be stablished; that the type of obsolescence of each of these objects is a mark that signals their closeness or remoteness to architecture.

This assumption is specially interesting when applied to the most complex and diverse manmade objects as the cities or the humanized landscapes. These artificial organisms, that are composed by a huge number of artificial objects both technical and architectural, can be also classified regarding their modes of obsolescence. This derives into an urban taxonomy based on their obsolescence and kind of movement, studied in the syllabus of the 2019 Spring semester 8020 Studio, rooted in Los Angeles and its catastrophes.

This Fall 2019-6010 studio will focus on the architectonic ruin. We will study specifically the ruin of the kind of construction that is situated, for several reasons that will be explained later, in the center of the architectural discipline: the suburban villa.

As this is the first studio in the sequence of the Department of Architecture Masters Curriculum, it is necessary to introduce the students to the basic principles and methods of the discipline, but it is also an opportunity to make them familiar with the history, heritage and tradition of the institution. A tradition firmly linked to Thomas Jefferson and to Palladio. We will take advantage to this end of two events taking place this year; the celebration of the centenary of the School of Architecture and the inauguration in the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk of the exhibition: “Thomas Jefferson, Architect: Palladian Models, Democratic Principles, and the Conflict of Ideals” This exhibition is organized in collaboration with the Palladio Museum in Vicenza and will be on from October 19, 2019 to January 19, 2020.

The ruin.

The studio focuses on the use of the ruin as a material and conceptual base for architectural design teaching strategies suitable to connect with contemporary economic and social demands.

The use of ruins is an opportunity to introduce, since the beginning of architectural design, awareness of the materiality and the tectonics of building systems. The study of these ruins as a symmetrical construction process renders to the students important lessons of constructive anatomy that are valuable for three academic disciplines: history of construction, building technologies and architectural design. The introduction of temporality in the processes of construction and destruction, is another value added to this teaching strategy. Perfectibility, resilience design and planned obsolescence are key concepts in this context. Construction and ruin are studied considering these as two parts belonging to a single process.

10

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Joseph Gandy, Piranesi, van Heemskerck, Hubert Robert, Charles-Louis Clérisseau, and Auguste Choisy’s drawings, Georg Simmel’s and Robert Smithson’s theories about the ruin, and works of artists like Gordon Matta-Clark, can be used to define the convergences and divergences between these two phases and to explain the characteristics of the global process in which they belong. Based on this analysis, possible operational methodologies in ruins will be proposed to help the student to avoid both the strict methodology of heritage conservation and the current state of dereliction.

Ruins have been historically one of the recurrent tropes for occidental culture. For instance, Renaissance was, in accordance with many researchers as Andrew Hui, the “birth of the ruin as a distinct category of cultural discourse” 1. Therefore, for these authors, Renaissance could be renamed as “Ruin-naissance”. Although we think this statement is true, many precedents can be pointed out for the aesthetic consideration of ruins. The first can be from Pausanias’ literary depiction of ruinous classic temples in his “Description of Greece” of the second century that was the guide for the ruin researchers of the 18th century. Closer to the Renaissance times, we can find the medieval guides to the ruins of Rome or “Mirabilia” of the 12th century.

Unlike other tropes in art history, ruins don’t appear and disappear from the mainstream of aesthetic influence, they are always there, but they receive a different kind of assessment. It can be said that ruins, probably because their ubiquitous presence in our everyday environment, don’t have phases of latency or presence in the aesthetic discourse as Aby Warburg states for other artistic features in his theory of “Das Nachbelen Der Antike” (the Survival of Antiquity).

Ruins are always there because their essential material qualities and because they are an unavoidable part of the life cycle of a building. Ruins are by definition buildings, material elements that have lost their use value and therefore assume the only function left for them: being a monument. The first definition of the monument, delivered by Varro in his book “De Lingua Latina” in the 1st Century is: “Meminisse, to remember, comes from memoria, “memory” since there is once again a movement back to that which has stayed in the mind; this may have been derived from manere “to remain”, like manimoria. From the same word comes monere, “remind”, because he who remains is just like memory: so are derived monimenta, “memorials”, which are in burial places and for that reason are situated along the road. From this use, other things that are written or produced for the sake of memory are called monimenta, “reminders”2.

This relationship between places and memory makes ruins almost the opposite to the classical arts of memory studied by Frances A. Yates3. Memory is supported in the Art of Memory by imagined places. Memory supports the material places that ruins create, transforming them into monuments. We will review the different phases of assessment of ruins in history, reviewing the relationship between modernity and ruins.

1 HUI, Andrew. The Poetics of Ruins Renaissance Literature. Fordham University Press. New York, 2006. P 177.

2 Ibid 3 YATES, Frances A. The Art of Memory. Routledge. Oxford-New York, 2010.

11

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Assessment cycles.

These phases of different reception of ruins follow a cyclic pattern, in which alternative assessment occurs within different cultural environments and periods. This attitude follows a historical pattern similar to the model established for grief by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying”4, this original model has the phases: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

Our model for assessment of ruins include the following phases: denial, contempt, exaltation, and acceptance. Of course, these phases are not linear and successive, and some of them can coexist in the same space and time.

Denial.

The phase of denial of a ruinous environment can be found after every catastrophe affecting cities. The denial of the ruins of Rome occurred after the Visigothic sack of the city in 410 that put an end to classical culture and lead to an obscure era in which the inhabitants of the city lived amid ruins almost without acknowledging their presence. The ruins were considered as almost natural elements, subject to erosion and degradation. These obscure eras finished when ruins of Rome were rediscovered two times; by Early Renaissance and late Renaissance men like Palladio (after the second sack of Rome in 1527)5.

A brilliant study of this kind of denial phase is in WG Sebald’s book: “On the Natural History of Destruction”. In this book, Sebald analyzes the social amnesia caused by the bombings and subsequent destruction of the German cities at the end of World War II and its denial in German literature. Quoting Alfred Doblin, who visited the ruins of the cities coming from his America exile: “People walked down the street and past the dreadful ruins as if nothing had happened, and the town had always looked like that”6 .

Sebald describes this denial of ruins and this naturalization of cities: “At the end of the war, some of the bomb sites of Cologne had already been transformed by the dense green vegetation growing over them- the roads made their way through this new landscape like peaceful deep-set country lanes”7 .

There was even a proposal for the “pastoralization” of Germany, delivered by the US Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. In the same mood, the Mirabilia or Medieval Guides to the Ancient ruins of Rome established the relevance of those ruins only as Christian pilgrimage centers. This attitude, that is another more subtle kind of denial, meant the oblivion of those ruins as the memory of a past civilization and drove to their material decay for centuries8.

4 KUBLER-ROSS, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying: What the Dying Can Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy and Their Own Families. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York, 1976.

5 See the chronicles of the post-sack Rome in: GOUWENS, Kenneth. Remembering the Renaissance. Brill. Leiden, the Netherlands, 1998.

6 SEBALD, W.G. On the Natural History of Destruction. The Modern Library, New York, 2004. P 5.

7 Ibid. p 39.

8 See for instance: Mirabilia Urbis Romae and Narratio de Mirabilibus Urbis Romae, both of the XII Century or the older Itinerarium Urbis Romae of the early ninth century.

12

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Germany Year Zero. Roberto Rosellini

WG Sebald. On the Natural History of Destruction

Bernardo Bellotto. The Ruins of the Old Kreuzkirche, Dresden. 1836

13

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Contempt.

Denial is usually followed by anger and contempt. This attitude toward ruins can be exemplified with the phenomena of “Spolia” of classical ruins. David Karmon in his book “The Ruin of the Eternal City”9 documented this process of destruction of the classical monuments of Rome.

These ruins were sometimes disassembled to use their parts in new constructions. Other times, the old stones were subtracted to be ground and transformed into lime for the new constructions.

Karmon collected several original Papal permits, starting in 1426, issued to lime kiln operators and builders to extract marble from some ancient monuments. Contempt for ruins overlapped with their exaltation and occurred at the starting point for Renaissance.

This kind of overlapping of opposite attitudes can be seen graphically in the drawings of Martin van Heemskerck. In his drawings, we can see simultaneously the construction of the New Saint Peter and the destruction of the Old Saint Peter. These illustrations bring up the essential similitude between the stages of construction and ruin of buildings and talk about the possibility of a Creative Destruction in architecture as that described by Max Page in “The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940”10.

The strongest manifestation of this contempt for ruins is the 1964 Peter Blake’s book “God’s Own Junkyard. The planned deterioration of America’s Landscape”11. The preface states that the book “is not written in anger. It is written in fury” against the ruination of the American cities and landscapes. Blake reacts against the remains and by-products of the American Industrial Civilization. Infrastructures, industrial buildings, advertisements, and other everyday elements of industrialized America are pointed out as the culprits of the devastation of the American landscape. This process of ruination is illustrated in the book at all scales. The smaller scale of this range is the “micro-ruin” of the urban furniture and pavements along with the disordered accumulation of technical devices on the American urban and sub-urban ambiance: telephone and electric posts, billboards, etc. The second scale of the process of deterioration is exemplified by the presence of junkyards of obsolete technical objects. The urban and landscape scale is illustrated with pictures of transportation infrastructures and industrial facilities as factories.

Blake considers all these symptoms of ruination as pathologies that should be eradicated, corrected or at least concealed.

9 KARMON, David. The Ruin of the Eternal City: Antiquity and Preservation in Renaissance Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford, 2011.

10 Based in the theories of the economist Joseph Schumpeter. PAGE, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 2002.

11 BLAKE, Peter. God’s Own Junkyard. The planned deteroration of America’s landscape. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

New York/Chicago/San Francisco, 1964.

14

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Thomas Cole. Destruction. 1836

Maerten van Heemskerck. St. Peter’s basilica under construction. Circa 1536.

Peter Blake. “God’s Own Junkyard”

15

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Exaltation.

The first exaltation of ruins came into place with Renaissance literature. Petrarch and Francesco Colonna with his “Hypnerotomachia Poliphili”12 are the precursors in the use of ruins as an aesthetic catalyst, followed by painters like Sandro Botticelli and architects like Donato Bramante with his Ruined Temple engraving of 1481. Almost all Renaissance painters have used ruins as background for their paintings. Ruins came back to the center of the aesthetic debate in the XVIII and XIX Centuries through their exaltation as the best material example of the concept of the sublime.

The list of Ruin painters is long: Charles-Louis Clerisseau, Robert Adam, William Chambers, Fragonard, Canaletto, Francois de Nome, Marco Ricci, Pannini, Luigi Rossini, Caspar David Friedrich, Piranesi, Hubert Robert, Joseph Gandy, etc.

Hubert Robert (1733-1808), influenced by his readings of the Compte de Volney, was the first to represent new buildings like the Galleries of the Louvre in ruins, imagining a catastrophic future for them. Piranesi (1720-1778) combines the archaeological precision of his views of Rome with the utopian creations of his “carceri”. Piranesi devoted part of his time to the measurement and depiction of many of the ancient edifices, but at the same time worked in their exaltation, creating several fantastic ruinous compositions.

Gandy (1771-1843) was in charge of the graphic depiction of John Soane’s buildings. He created simultaneous views of the buildings in their nearly finished state and in a utopian ruinous future.

This romantic view of ruins invaded also the architectural realm, producing several new ruins to complete picturesque landscape designs. The ruinous column of the Désert de Retz is a good example of this trend. This romantic exaltation transcended to contemporary art through a new concept; Ruin-Porn, and a new technique; photography.

Photographers as Camilo Jose Vergara or Yves Marchand & Romain Meffre show the uncanny beauty of the ruins of industrial cities like Detroit. This movement has raised enormous critical attention. In a brilliant article by McLain Clutter, Ruin Porn is praised as: “Ruin porn elicits a mixture of immediate visual pleasure and lingering ethical guilt. The superficial subjectivities of contemporary culture find scopophilic delight in images of lapsed working-class urbanity emerging through the crumbling remains of Fordism. Such remains elicit narratives of bygone urban life that seem so authentic, so real, to the white-collar postmodern audience. Sitting on a couch or in a cubicle, ruin porn drives punctum (to use a term favored by Roland Barthes) through the boredom of perpetual comfort. Meanwhile, the ruins depicted are viewed in the process of being overrun by returning nature, as stone and steel intertwine with encroaching weeds, mold, and wildlife”13 .

12 COLONNA, Francesco. Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: The Strife of Love in a Dream. Thames & Hudson. London 2006.

It is attributed by some scholars to L.B. Alberti. See: LEFAIVRE, Liane. Leon Battista Alberti's Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: Re-Cognizing the Architectural Body in the Early Italian Renaissance. The MIT Press. Cambridge, 1997.

13 CLUTTER, McLain. “Notes on Ruin Porn”. http://www.averyreview.com/issues/18/notes-on-ruin-porn 16

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Francesco Colonna. Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. Woodcuts. 1499 The Ruins of Polyandrion.

Bramante. Ruined Temple 1481

Sandro Botticcelli. The_Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron. 1481-82

G. B. Piranesi. Ruin fantasy

17

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Architectural Fantasy. Clerisseau Charles-Louis. 1782

Joseph Gandy. A vision of Sir John Soanes Design for the Rotunda of the Bank of England as a ruin.

Hubert Robert. Architectural fantasy.

18

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Acceptation.

The acceptation of ruins started with the birth of archaeology and heritage preservation, and the need for an objective depiction of these monuments of the past. The Renaissance treaties like those of Serlio or Palladio, the drawings of Martin van Heemskerck, and the later French and British archaeological campaigns to measure and draw the Roman Antiquities, were the starting points to this new acceptance of ruins.

The central document of this objective revaluation of ruins was Antoine Desgodetz’s “The antique buildings of Rome drafted and measured with precision”, published in 1682. This book was followed by very relevant others produced by French and British architects like Peyre, De Wailly, Moreau-Desproux, Charles Cameron, Robert Woods, James Dawkins, John Bouverie, James Stuart, Nicholas Revett, etc14. The same kind of objective and documentary spirit fuels the contemporary work of Hilla and Bernd Becher and their systematic photographs of industrial facilities.

Although ruins are a preeminent trope in several phases of architectural history, they are rarely associated with Modern Architecture. This is probably due to the close relation of ruins with the picturesque and romantic ideals that transform ruins in almost the opposite to the purity, hygiene, and completeness of rationalist architecture. Nevertheless, this view is distorted by our assumptions on what the canonical Modern Movement was. In fact, the beginning of modernism was fueled by a change of paradigm, from classical tradition to new kinds of traditions as vernacular architecture, and especially the industrial vernacular coming from America. Quoting Venturi-Scott Brown-Izenour: “The architecture of the Modern movement, during its early decades and through a number of its masters, developed a vocabulary of forms based on a variety of industrial models whose conventions and proportions were no less explicit than the Classical orders of the Renaissance.

What Mies did with linear industrial buildings in the 1940’s, Le Corbusier had done with plastic grain elevators in the 1920’s, and Gropius had done with the Bauhaus in the 1930’s, imitating his own earlier factory, the Faguswerk, of 1911. Their factory-like buildings were more than influenced by the industrial vernacular structures of the recent past, in the sense that historians have described influences among artists and movements. Their buildings were explicitly adapted from these sources, and largely for their symbolic content, because industrial structures represented, for European architects, the brave new world of science and technology. The architects of the early Modern movement, in discarding the admittedly obsolete symbolism of historical eclecticism, substituted that of the industrial vernacular”15 .

What the Modern Europeans did not notice is that they were copying obsolete and ruinous objects. Due to the rapid technological changes in production and goods circulation, the factories and grain elevators depicted by Le Corbusier were obsolete by the time of the publication and swiftly becoming ruins.

14 See: YERKES, Carolyn. Drawing after Architecture. Renaissance Architectural Drawings and Their Reception.

Marsilio, Venezia 2017 15 VENTURI, Robert: SCOTT BROWN, Denise: IZENOUR, Steven. Learning from Las Vegas. The MIT Press. Cambridge, 1991. P135.

19

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

The acceptation of the role of ruins for modernity came precisely from a series of texts like “Learning from Las Vegas” and “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” and Robert Smithson’s “A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey” in which the remains of the past American industrial heritage reach a new acceptation.

Specifically, Venturi’s books are a reaction to “God’s Own Junkyard”. Including several of Blake’s images, these books are part of a new reflection in which derelict vestiges of industrial objects and facilities start to be tied together with other “ugly and ordinary” elements and accepted as part of the American urban landscape in a continuous process of construction and destruction.

Robert Smithson creates the concept of ruins in reverse to try to explain this consistent evolution of the artificial environment: “That zero panorama seemed to contain ruins in reverse, that is—all the new construction that would eventually be built. This is the opposite of the “romantic ruin” because the buildings don’t fall into ruin after they are built but rather rise as ruins before they are built. This anti-romantic mise-en-scene suggests the discredited idea of time and many other “out of date” things”16.

Robert Smithson. A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey

Hilla and Bernd Becher photographs.

16 SMITHSON, Robert. "The Monuments of Passaic", Artforum, December 1967, p.52-57 20

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

21

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

The Villa.

According to James S. Ackerman in his book about the Villa, these buildings are satellites of the city in the countryside. Quoting Ackerman: “The villa cannot be understood apart from the city; it exists not to fulfill autonomous functions but to provide a counterbalance to urban values and accommodations (…) The villa can be built and supported either by monetary surpluses generated by urban commerce and industry or, when it is sustained by agriculture, by the need of urban centers for the surplus it produces beyond its own requirements”17.

For Ackerman, the villa is less fixed in form that other architectural types because it is dedicated to leisure, and leisure is difficult to define and even more difficult to materialize in a determinate program. That said, Ackerman identifies two main contrasting models for the villa; the compactcubic and the open-extended18. These two models correspond to the different relationships stablished between the villa and the agricultural environment. The open scheme is based in identification of the surrounding environment with health and leisure. The compact scheme is chosen in environments where the enjoyment of the landscape is more based in observation than in interaction, and where defensive or privacy concerns take place.

In any case, the villa creates a kind of relation with the landscape different from that of the farmhouse that considers the surroundings as a milieu for technical exploitation. The villa inaugurates an aesthetic relationship between architecture and landscape. If the farmhouse can be explained as a hybrid between architecture and technical object, the villa can be considered as a pure cultural product, as architecture in its essence.

Other considerations may support this idea of the villa as the purest architectural object. Its condition of satellite isolated from the environment frees the villa from many of the restrictions derived from a productive relation with the site. This condition opens the possibility for a higher degree of abstraction in the villa design that that available for other buildings. The constrictions derived from the program are also very loose for the reasons that Ackerman points out, and because the villa on the contrary of the house is not a permanent dwelling, it is a stational abode.

The reduced scale of the building, its high level of abstraction, its independence from site constrictions (on the contrary of urban sites, the villa does not follow urban regulations, setbacks, codes, adjacent building’s constrictions, considering only the site from an aesthetic point of view), and from a demanding program, historically makes the villa the most suitable building type for architectural experimentation. The villa has been traditionally the laboratory where all architectural innovations were tested before being applied to more demanding and bigger building types.

This reduction of scale allows the architect of the villa to curate every detail of its design, creating a depurated object in which the level of abstraction and of disciplinary content is extremely high.

Curiously enough, this extra-refined object is meant to host since roman times the most trivial of human activities: leisure (otium), the everyday life without the constraints of work (negotium). All these characteristics make the villa a sort of equivalent in architecture to what the still life is for painting, a reduction of the external constrains (semantic and pragmatic) that derives in an exacerbation and refinement of the syntactic disciplinal procedures. Norman Bryson, in his book about still life painting, uses the term Rophography as the opposite of Megalography. Rophography refers to what happens each day and returns every day, the trivial, the quotidian, the obvious, the ordinary, the infra-ordinary, the background noise, the usual, 17 ACKERMAN, James S. The Villa. Form and Ideology of Country Houses. Princeton Universiy Press. Princeton, NJ. 1990. P9.

18 Ibid, p 18.

22

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

the unimportant and the irrelevant. Rophography is “the depiction of those things which lack importance, the unassuming material base of life that ‘importance’ constantly overlooks”19. This reduction of the attention to a humble milieu, draws attention to the procedures of painting itself.

“Still life takes on the exploration of what ‘importance’ tramples underfoot. It attends to the world ignored by the human impulse to create greatness (…) The process can be followed in either a ‘descending’ or ‘ascending’ scale. From one point of view, the worldly scale of importance is deliberately assaulted by plunging attention downwards, forcing the eye to discover in the trivial base of life intensities and subtleties which are normally ascribed to things of great worth; this is the descending movement, involving a humiliation of attention and of the self. From another point of view, the result is that what is valueless becomes priceless: by detaining attention in this humble milieu, by imprisoning the eye in this dungeon-like space, attention itself gains the power to transfigure the commonplace, and it is rewarded by being given objects in which it may find a fascination commensurate with its own discovered strength (…) Still life’s potential for isolating a purely aesthetic space is undoubtedly one of the factors which made the genre so central to the development of modernism. The Still Life with Apples by Cézanne (1839-1906), for example, makes no attempt to refer its arrangement of fruit; bowl and table to any aspect of a recognizable meal, or scene within a house. On the contrary, it aims to remove itself from function altogether: the fruit are disposed with no rationale except that of forming a compositional armature for the painting (…) What is shown is art itself, as something which in the presence of an everyday world always grows impatient; it is not content to be subservient to that prior world, and seeks autonomy and escape. (…) In its quality of attention, still life possessed a delicate and ambiguous instrument. Its whole project forces the subject, both painter and viewer, to attend closely to the preterit objects in the world which, exactly because they are so familiar, elude normal attention. Since still life needs to look at the overlooked, it has to bring into view objects which perception normally screens out. The difficulty is that by bringing into consciousness and into visibility things that perception normally overlooks, the visual field can come to appear radically unfamiliar and estranged”20.

These reinforcement of the intrinsic architectural design processes in the villas is probably the reason of their superior craft compared to other kinds of buildings. We will understand the concept of craft as Richard Sennett explains: ‘‘Craftsmanship’’ may suggest a way of life that waned with the advent of industrial society— but this is misleading. Craftsmanship names an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake (…) Every good craftsman conducts a dialogue between concrete practices and thinking; this dialogue evolves into sustaining habits, and these habits establish a rhythm between problem solving and problem finding”21.

19

Bryson, Norman. Looking at the Overlooked. Four essays on still life painting. Harvard University Press.

Cambridge, Ma, 1990.

20 Ibid 21 SENNETT, Richard. The Craftsman. Yale University Press. New Haven, 2006.

23

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Plan of some Palladio’s villas

24

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Rudolph Wittkower. Palladian villa types, in Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. 1952

25

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Palladio. Villa Cornaro

Palladio. Villa Pisani Montagnana

Palladio. Villa Almerico-Capra (Rotonda)

Palladio. Villa Emo

26

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

27

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Jefferson’s Hypnerotomachia.

The history of villas can be followed from roman times to the works of modern architects as Le Corbusier22, but the chapter that is more related with the studio is that of the import of the Palladian villa to the USA. Usually, this American branch of Palladianism is explained via the influence of the British Palladianism of the 18th century, but there is also a case of a more direct import from the classical sources; Thomas Jefferson.

The British neo-Palladianism had 3 main sources; Palladio himself, The built works of Inigo Jones, and the Ten Books of Architecture of Vitruvius. The influence of Palladio on the British architecture is based on the knowledge of Palladio’s drawings. These drawing were purchased by the British architect Inigo Jones 30 years after Palladio’s dead (1580). Palladio’s books were also translated into English like the Giacomo Leoni “Four Books” edition of 1715-16 or the Issac Ware edition of 173823. This stressed the publication of some new books based on them or on Vitruvius. The list of publications, most of them sponsored by the Earl of Burlington24, can start with the very influential “Vitruvius Britanicus” 1727 by Colin Campbell, and the “Books of Architecture” by James Gibbs published in 1728. Burlington also sponsored the publication of Robert Castell’s “The Villas of the Ancient Illustrated” in 1728, that is an attempt to recreate the roman country houses and their gardens. The most distinctive character of these neo-Palladian architect was the adoption of the villa as the most distinctive Palladian type. All these publications were done before the actual archaeological excavations of the roman ruins that happened after the middle of the 18th Century and produced a great amount of measured and accurate drawings of these monuments25. The work of Inigo Jones was also published in the book “Designs of Inigo Jones” by William Kent of 1727.

All this disciplinal body was exported to North America, where Palladianism rooted around the middle of the Eighteen Century. The first example of tis new trend in American land is the Redwood Library in Newport, built in 1749, and designed by Peter Harrison. It is almost a literal copy of illustrations of the Hoppus edition of Palladio’s books. There are several more examples of this early American Palladianism26, but it is with Thomas Jefferson that Neo-Palladianism reach its real starting point.

Jefferson knew, and in many cases owned, the British Palladian publications, but he also had the opportunity of visiting some classical buildings. During his diplomat missions in France in 1784, Jefferson studied several roman ruins in the south of the country. He was especially fond of the Maison Carree at Nimes, but he got to know also the roman remains at Lyon (Roman theatre, temple of Cybele and Odeum), Vienne (Temple of Augustus and Livia), the triumphal arch and theatre at Orange, and the roman ruins of Glanum at Remy-de-Provence27.

Jefferson had also the opportunity to be familiar to the French stylized kind of Palladianism like that used for the design of the Hotel de Salm (Pierre Rousseau 1786) and the church of St Philippe de Roule (Chalgrin 1772) and know firsthand the architectural avantgarde of his time

22 See James S. Ackerman’s book in bibliography.

23 Other edition very popular in America is: HOPPUS, E; COLE, B. Palladio, Andrea Palladio’s Architecture in Four Books: The Whole Containing 226 [i.e. 222] Folio Copper Plates. Benjn. Cole engraver the corner of Kings-Headcourt, near Fetter-lane, Holbourn, & John Wilcox opposite the New church in the Strand. 1736.

24 Alexander Pope’s Epistle to Burlington is the main text of the Palladian propaganda.

25 For a list of these publications, see: SAMBROOK, James. The Eighteenth Century: The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1700-1789. Routledge. Abingdon, 2016. P 162.

26 For a more comprehensive list of these pioneer works, see: A.A V.V. Palladio in America. Electa Editrice, Milan.

1976. P 104-110.

27 For a more detailed narration to Jefferson’s visits to roman ruins in France, see; https://www.francetoday.com/learn/history/jefferson_amid_the_ruins/ 28

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

represented by the architects Boullee and Ledoux28. He also went on a tour of nineteen English landscape gardens with John Adams, using Thomas Whately's “Observations on Modern Gardening” (1770) as a guidebook.

Thomas Jefferson developed a body of work that combines this diverse background in very different modes. His style can range from the serene roman classical style of the Richmond Capitol to the Palladian Academic Village in Charlottesville29, but he usually situated his designs in a delicate equilibrium between his French influence and his Palladian sources. This assessment is especially accurate for his domestic architecture, which is the bulk of his architectural production.

Ackerman stablished a series of similitudes and differences between Palladio’s and Jefferson’s villas. Both were modest in scale, thou luxurious, and were the headquarters of large agricultural exploitations. They were different in 2 ways. Palladian villas are situated in the outskirts of cities immersed a highly humanized landscape. Jefferson villas were in “the wilderness of a virgin land”30. The other difference was slavery31.

Jefferson finished the construction of his first Monticello design probably before leaving to France in 1784. This first villa followed a clearly Palladian scheme. In his return home in 1794, Jefferson stated to make plans to reconstruct and enlarge the villa. In 1796 the works had started in Monticello, removing the second floor and shifting the style to a mixture of the Roman influence and the more coeval French architecture32. Jefferson designed at least 5 more villas for himself and for his friends between 1798 and 1817.

Edgemont 1796 (attributed to Jefferson) Edgehill, before 1798 Farmington, 1803 Poplar Forest, 1804-1806 Bremo, 1816. Jefferson assisted the design of General John Cocke Barboursville, 1817

28 A.A V.V. Palladio in America. Electa Editrice, Milan. 1976. P 111.

29 Although its Palladian overall style (designed after the drawings of Villa Trissino in Meledo de Sarego present in the “Four Books of Architecture” according to some historians), there are some influences that may be noted in the design of the Academic Village. The rotunda is obviously based on the Roman Pantheon. The historian Fiske Kimball first suggested the idea that the Château de Marly served as the model for the University of Virginia in his 1923 article titled “The Genesis of Jefferson’s Plan for the University of Virginia”. Other historians as Michelle Benoit and Richard Guy Wilson think that “there is no one ultimate source for the design of the University of Virginia. Instead, it is unique among earlier American colleges because it draws from a variety of sources. Jefferson began forming ideas for his ideal university years before seeing the Château de Marly. He would have certainly been familiar with the oldest models of the American college — Harvard, which was established in 1636, William and Mary (1693), Yale (1701) and Princeton University (1746). Many of the earliest American colleges were connected to religious institutions, and architecturally resembled nothing more than large houses. Out of all of the American models, William and Mary was the most influential in forming Jefferson’s vision of the ideal college, since he studied there from 1760 to 1762”.

Michelle Benoit and Richard Guy Wilson, « Jefferson and Marly: Complex Influences », Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles 2012, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2013, consulté le 23 juillet 2019. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/crcv/11936 ; DOI : 10.4000/crcv.11936 30 ACKERMAN, James S. The Villa. Form and Ideology of Country Houses. Princeton Universiy Press. Princeton, NJ. 1990. P186.

31 To study deeper this issue, see the works of UVA scholar Louis P. Nelson, specially: McInnis, Maurie D; Nelson, Louis P. Educated in Tyranny: Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s University. University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville, 2019.

And his contribution to: WILSON, Mabel O; DEWITT, Lloyd; PIPER, Corey. Thomas Jefferson, Architect: Palladian Models, Democratic Principles, and the Conflict of Ideals. Yale University Press. New Haven, 2019.

32 Further reading about Monticello in: ACKERMAN, James S. The Villa. Form and Ideology of Country Houses.

Princeton Universiy Press. Princeton, NJ. 1990. P188-206.

29

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

All those houses are variations on the Monticello second design. At the end of his life he also submitted two unawarded designs to the competitions for the President’s House in Washington and for the Governor’s Palace in Richmond, both based in an enlarged version of Villa AlmericoCapra.

Monticello 1.

Poplar Forest

30

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

31

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Thomas Jefferson villas. Floor Plans of Poplar Forest. Edgehill. Farmington. Barboursville. Perspective of Bremo.

Thomas Jefferson Monticello 2

32

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

2_Site. Barboursville. The ruin and the landscape.

The studio’s site is Barboursville, situated 30 minutes North of Charlottesville. We will be working in the surroundings of the ruins of the villa designed by Thomas Jefferson for James Barbour. Barbour was the governor of Virginia during the War of 1812, a two-term U.S. Senator, and the Secretary of War under John Quincy Adams. The home was destroyed by fire on Christmas Day in 1884. It was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1969.

The villa was built in between 1817 and 1822 and shares a number of features with Jefferson’s own villa in Monticello (1768-1770), namely the symmetric disposition, the cruciform floor plan, the octagonal central element, the materiality and constructive technology, etc.

33

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

34

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

3_Method, themes and questions.

The design method to be developed in this course is the use of the limit concept as a focus of research proposals from students. Projects in which the primary design strategy is the establishment of a limit will be used as reference.

The course will also try to perform an exploration of the disciplinal boundary of architecture.

Paradoxically, by this strategy of instrumental hybridization, the focus of proposals from students will always be towards the fundamental architectural principles: limit, scale, space, light, order and place.

The course aims to obtain a number of specific design skills by students that can be summarized in a series of questions: How does one insert a medium-scale program in an environment of high natural landscape and historical heritage value? Issues as boundary definition, transparency, gradation between fragmentation and unity or the assessment of the concept of scale will be discussed in this section.

How can we produce an environmentally sustainable architecture, be respectful with the place and how can one be coherent with traditional constructive systems and local industries so as to produce their revival? Issues discussed in this section will be the social responsibility of architecture, the importance of the construction processes for architectural feasibility, and the appropriate materiality in relation to local availability. There is also the study the possible alignment of the architect with two complementary attitudes involved: the bricoleur and engineer. The work of engineers is to distinguish between contingent and necessary. The bricoleurs turn contingent into necessary and adapts needs to contingency. “The scientist (and engineer) creates events (changing the world) by means of structures and the bricoleur creating structures by means of events. (…) The aesthetical emotion is the result of this union between the structural order and the order of events”33. This methodological duality can serve as a good model for a dual activity like architectural design that struggles all the time between technical knowledge and art.

It also raises the question about the best way to proceed in this case of high value architectural ruins and the theme of the difference between obsolescence of technical objects and the obsolescence of architecture.

Google Earth Pics of the site

33

LEVI‐STRAUSS, Claude. The Savage Mind. The University Of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1966. P 22-25.

35

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

T. Jefferson. State Capitol. Richmond.

Maison Carree. Nimes

T. Jefferson. Academic village.

Château de Marly

Hotel de Salm. Pierre Rousseau 1786

T. Jefferson. Albemarle Academy. Plan.

36

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

4_Program.

The proposed program is an American Architecture History Research Center. It is drafted on the model of CISA Palladio in Vicenza, Italy. Extracting from the description of this center: “The Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio was founded in Vicenza in 1958 at thanks to the efforts of the local public authorities. It brought together some of the leading scholars of the day, such as Anthony Blunt, André Chastel, Ludwig Heydenreich, Rodolfo Pallucchini (the chair of the first scientific committee), Rudolf Wittkower, Giangiorgio Zorzi and Bruno Zevi. The aim was to create a research centre for the history of architecture where an international community of scholars could meet and work together.

Since 1958, 6,360 young architects and architecture historians have come to Vicenza from 47 countries to attend 129 courses or seminars at the Centre. Research projects have led to the publication of 178 books, from 1960 to 2012, and the staging of 98 exhibitions since 1960 in 53 cities in a total of 26 countries.

The Centre promotes research, stages exhibitions, publishes books, and organizes courses and seminars not only on historic architecture but also modern architecture – provided it is of the highest standard”34.

The program will reach a maximum area of 18,000 sqft and can be divided into 3 main areas: 1_Diffusion area.

Visitor’s reception area.

Conferences hall. 50-100 seats 2 Classrooms. 15 seats Cafeteria.

Shop.

Public toilets.

Permanent exhibition space. To host the exhibition Jefferson-Palladio.

Temporary exhibitions space.

2_Research and documentation Area.

Library.

Researchers’ offices.

Archive.

Administration and management offices.

Minimum lodgment for 3 guest researchers.

Photographic and digital documentation room.

3_Technical Area.

Facilities.

Vehicles and tools warehouse.

Staff changing rooms.

Staff toilets.

External area will provide a staff parking, and public parking.

34 https://www.palladiomuseum.org/cisa/?lang=en 37

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

DETAILED PROGRAM 1_Diffusion area.

Visitor’s reception area.

Conferences hall. 50‐100 seats 2 Classrooms. 15 seats Cafeteria.

Shop.

Public toilets.

Permanent exhibition space.

Temporary exhibitions space.

Circulation

1000 1000 300 800 600 100 Variable. maximum 5,000 sq ft 3000 1000

12,800 sq ft (max)

2_Research and documentation Area.

Library.

Researchers’ offices.

Archive.

Administration and management Offices.

Minimum lodgment for 3 guest researchers.

Circulation Photographic and digital documentation room.

Compact storage room.

300 450 150 300 600 500 250 250

2,800 sq ft 3_Technical Area.

Facilities.

Vehicles and tools warehouse.

Staff changing rooms.

Staff toilets.

750 900 250 100

2,000 sq ft Total area 17.600 sq ft External area will provide a staff parking, and public parking.

All areas are guidelines and can be adjusted according to instructor’s directions.

38

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

5_TEXTS, SOFTWARE AND MATERIALS. Bibliography: A.A V.V. Palladio in America. Electa Editrice, Milan. 1976.

ACKERMAN, James S. The Villa. Form and Ideology of Country Houses. Princeton Universiy Press.

Princeton, NJ. 1990.

ALLEN, Edward: IANO, Joseph. Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods. Wiley.

London, 2013.

BELTRAMINI, Guido; LENZO, Fulvio. Jefferson and Palladio: Constructing a New World. Officina Libraria.

Milan, 2016.

BRYSON, Norman. Looking at the Overlooked. Four essays on still life painting. Harvard University Press.

Cambridge, Ma, 1990.

CANEVA, Giulia. Amphitheatrum naturae. Il Colosseo: storia e ambiente letti attraverso la sua flora. Electa.

Milan, 2004.

CLUTTER, McLain. “Notes on Ruin Porn”. http://www.averyreview.com/issues/18/notes-on-ruin-porn DEAKIN, Richard. Flora of the Colosseum of Rome. Groombridge and Sons. London. 1855. https://archive.org/details/floracolosseumr00deakgoog DEPLAZES, Andrea. Constructing Architecture. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2013.

EISENMAN, Peter. Palladio Virtuel. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven, 2015.

ENGEL, Heino. Structure Systems. Hatje Cantz. Berlin, 2007.

FLAM, Jack (Editor). Robert Smithson: The Collected Writings. Univ. of California Press. Berkeley, 1996.

FORD, Edward R. The details of modern architecture. Vol 1 and 2. MIT Press. Cambridge, 2003.

FORD, Edward R. The architectural detail. Princeton Architectural Press. New York, 2001.

HARBISON, Robert. Ruins and Fragments: Tales of Loss and Rediscovery. Reaktion Books. London, 2015.

HOWARD, Hugh. Thomas Jefferson: Architect: The Built Legacy of Our Third President. Rizzoli. New York, 2015.

HUI, Andrew. The Poetics of Ruins Renaissance Literature. Fordham Univ. Press. New York, 2006.

KARMON, David. The Ruin of the Eternal City: Antiquity and Preservation in Renaissance Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford, 2011.

KIMBALL, Fiske. Thomas Jefferson Architect. Da Capo Press. Cambridge, Ma, 1968 LEVI‐STRAUSS, Claude. The Savage Mind. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1966.

MURRAY, Irena; HIND, Charles. Palladio and His Legacy: A Transatlantic Journey. Marsilio. Venice, 2010 NICHOLS, Frederick Doveton. Thomas Jefferson's Architectural Drawings. Compiled and with Commentary and a Check List. Massachusetts Historical Society. Boston, 1961.

PICON, Antoine. “Anxious Landscapes. From the Ruin to Rust”. Grey Room 01. Autumn, 2000. P 64-83.

PUPPI, Lionello. Andrea Palladio. Phaidon. London, 1975 SMITHSON, Robert. "The Monuments of Passaic", Artforum, December 1967, p.52-57 SIMMEL, Georg. A collection of Essays, with Translations and a Bibliography. The Ohio State University Press, Columbus. 1959 TRAGER, Philip; SCULLY, Vincent. The Villas of Palladio. New York Graphic Society. New York, 1986 TREVISAN, Luca; PUPPI, Lionello. Andrea Palladio: The Villas. Sassi. Vicenza, 2012.

VENTURI, Robert: SCOTT BROWN, Denise: IZENOUR, Steven. Learning from Las Vegas. The MIT Press.

Cambridge, 1991.

VERGARA, Camilo José. American Ruins. Monacelli Press. New York. 1999.

WOODWARD, Christopher. In Ruins: A Journey Through History, Art, and Literature. Vintage. NY, 2002.

YATES, Frances A. The Art of Memory. Routledge. Oxford-New York, 2010.

WILSON, Mabel O; DEWITT, Lloyd; PIPER, Corey. Thomas Jefferson, Architect: Palladian Models, Democratic Principles, and the Conflict of Ideals. Yale University Press. New Haven, 2019.

YERKES, Carolyn. Drawing after Architecture. Renaissance Architectural Drawings and Their Reception.

Marsilio, Venezia 2017

Software: Autocad. 2D and 3D, Rhinoceros, GIS. Materials: Scale, tracing paper (letter size). Drawing tools.

39

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

6_GRADES. At the end of the semester, grades will be recorded as follows: A+ | A-. EXTRAORDINARY WORK. Addressing and expanding upon the issues presented in the assignments and discovering/ proposing issues which are reciprocal and similar to the specific assignment. Demonstrating the ability to achieve and excel independently in the development of class work.

B+ | B. NOTABLE WORK. Addressing and expanding upon the issues presented in the assignments, and demonstrating understanding and achievement in directing the investigations and development in class work.

B-. COMPETENT WORK. Addressing all of the issues presented in the assignments and demonstrating an understanding of them. You are reminded that a B- is the lowest passing grade.

C | D | F. MARGINAL WORK. Exhibiting difficulty in demonstrating an understanding of the issues and concepts presented in the assignments. Assignments not completed.

7_STUDIO WORK FLOW. ATTENDANCE AND EXCEPTIONS. This studio is based on individual work during studio hours. During studio time, students have to be involved exclusively on the development of their studio projects. Any other activity is not allowed during this time. It is not allowed working on other courses assignments or any other tasks even if they are school related.

The studio interaction is based on the individual or group desk-crit. These sessions are based typically on drawing as a tool to think and improve your projects. To have a desk-crit with the instructors, it is mandatory to print your work at scale in order to be able to draw using it as a base. There will be no desk-crits based on work that is not physically on the desk. There will be no desk-crits on the computer monitor.

Reviews. There will be a mid-review and a final review. Missing any of these reviews without a proper justification approved by the instructors will result in a failing grade.

Pre-review. There will be a studio internal Pin-up previous to the final review. This pin-up will take place the Wednesday prior to the final review. It is mandatory to have all the deliverables printed in this pre-review, even if they are not 100% complete. It is not allowed to pin anything up in the final review that have not been seen and approved by the instructors before.

The SARC Lecture series is an invaluable learning experience, and your participation in studio extends to attending lectures by the Department of Architecture. We will structure Monday and Friday sessions to end before the beginning of School Lectures.

Attendance: Absences are excused only in extreme circumstances and must be approved by an instructor. Missing more than 2 classes may reduce your overall course grade by one full letter.

Missing 4 or more classes may result in failure of the class. Communicate all absences with your instructor prior to missing class to arrange for make-up work.

Extensions: Individual requests due to medical emergencies or family circumstances are to be discussed with your studio professor. The utmost discretion protecting your privacy will be assured. The final decision for any extension request and post-review schedule to complete 40

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

work for grading purposes will be made by the chair of the department or the director of the grade in consultation with your course professor.

Extensions for Medical Purposes: In regard to medical circumstances/emergencies, safely attending to the medical circumstance/emergency is the first and foremost priority. A request for a deadline extension due to a medical emergency should be submitted only after the emergency has been safely and properly addressed. A request for a deadline extension due to a medical reason should be submitted in writing to the Program Director and your studio professor. The deadline extension request must include an official note from a physician and a schedule specifying the completion date of the project.

Special Needs: All students with special needs requiring accommodations should present the appropriate paperwork from the Student Disability Access Center. It is the student’s responsibility to present this paperwork in a timely fashion and follow up with the instructor about the accommodations being offered. Students are urged to fulfill this responsibility within the first two weeks of the class. The SDAC is located in the Department of Student Health at Elson Student Health Center and can be contacted at 243--‐5180 or: http://www.virginia.edu/studenthealth/sdac.html.

8_HONOR POLICY. This architectural course is built on a foundation of analysis, transformation, and reuse of precedent and is, therefore, intended to be an open community of shared research, process, and ideas. However, the University of Virginia Honor Code applies with respect to the building and preservation of a community of trust across the University and prohibits lying, cheating, or stealing. You may find more information at http://www.virginia.edu/honor/, and if you have questions about special cases in the context of the School of Architecture’s curriculum, contact the School of Architecture's representatives.

41

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

9_SCHEDULE. The classes will be Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays 1:00PM-4:45PM. Monday and Fridays are regular days in studio. Wednesdays include usually a Visualization class that will take place at the end of the class, from 4.00 to 4.45 PM. The Studio will be linked closely to ARH 6231-building workshop I. The presentation and reviews will be done together.

The schedule is as follows. This schedule is always open to be changed by the instructor depending on contingencies, and the specific conditions and development pace of the Student work.

WEEK

DAY

W0

W

W1

TITLE

DESCRIPTION

Aug 28

INTRODUCTION

Presentation of the course. Review of existing documentation.

Task 1_Group. Compilation of documentation about the site. GIS Data, Google Earth elevations, aerial photographs, etc.

F

Aug 30

DOCUMENTATION

Professor Bill Sherman talk.

Visualization class GIS. Graphic documentation and production of the site.

The goal is to generate a basic graphic documentation of the site. This must be made in group. The result should be a shared documentation for all the students. This documentation should include: 1_contour lines and land forms.

2_Paths and roads.

3_ buildings. Including any kind of ruin.

3_Railroads and bridges.

4_vegetation.

5_water

M

Sep 2

VISIT TO Barboursville.

Confirmation of graphic hypothesis. Field notes on site. It is the opportunity to learn about the material culture of the place, its history and memory. Preparation for individual diagrams of the site. These diagrams will be hand drawings and will be included in the final review. It is very important to take pictures of the site in order to have enough documentation to make the renders of your final proposals.

W

Sep 4

SITE MAPPING

Professor Richard Guy Wilson lecture and tour UVA Lawn (1pm) Site models, site plans and sections.

F

Sep 6

SITE REVIEW

Professor Peter Waldman lecture. (9am) Internal review. Plot your site maps and sections at the end of the class. Deliverables: 42

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

1-Site map. Group.

2-At least 4 site sections. Group.

3- Physical Model of the site. Including all the features listed under the “documentation” title 3-Individual diagrams of the site.

Visualization class.

W2

W3

W4

M

Sep 9

SPECIFIC SITE.

Each student must choose one specific site within the area. The student must start a process of appropriation of the site through a series of misreading diagrams. The sequence of accessing, visiting and leaving the building must be specified and materialized using only landscape tools. Each student must create a geometric pattern for the site that include existing and new features. 3 different ways experience the site and the building: public, staff and resident researchers.

The students along with the instructor will chose specific precedents for the project. The focus in the precedent will be the constructive systems and the materiality, not the program. The precedent can be a building or a technical object.

W

Sep 11

PRECEDENT

F

Sep 13

SIPO-STATEMENT

Maps of misreading.

Establish SIPO. Self-Imposed Prior Order.

Chose program, statement. Scale, geometry.

Start of prospective floor plans, sections and elevations.

Visualization class autocad 2d.

M

Sep 16

THE BUILDING AND ITS LIMITS. TRANSITIONS FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR

W

Sep 18

F

Sep 20

FOOTPRINTS OF THE BUILDING. THE TRACES ON THE SITE EXTENDED BOUNDARIES DIALECTIC OF THE LIMIT

Individual Deskcrits. SIPO, statements, plans and sections. Construction systems with special emphasis in structure. Start constructive model of the structure including its effect in the surrounding landscape.

Depiction of the effect the building is going to cause in the site.

Individual deskcrits. Relationship buildingcontext. Relationship with the existing traces and vestiges of the site.

M

Sep 23

LANDING THE BUILDING

W

Sep 25

STRUCTURE PROJECT. SPANS AND DIMENSIONS

Paths, pass-rituals, sequences and narratives of access. Individual model of the structural system due at the end of the class.

Visualization class laser cut and 3d modeling.

Individual deskcrits. Models. Floor plans, sections and elevations. Structural system and interaction with envelope. Relationship with ground, water, and sky.

Individual deskcrits. Models. Floor plans, sections and elevations. Structural system and interaction with envelope

43

A R C H

W5

W6

W7

W8

W9

6010/6231-FALL 2019

OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS STRUCTURE PROJECT

F

Sep 27

Individual deskcrits. Models. Floor plans, sections and elevations. Structural system and interaction with envelope Visualization class Rhino 3d modeling.

M

Sep 30

PROGRAM WORK

Individual deskcrits. PROGRAM.

W

Oct 2

PROGRAM WORK

Individual deskcrits. PROGRAM.

F

Oct 4

PROGRAM WORK

Individual deskcrits. PROGRAM.

M

Oct 7

W

Oct 9

CONSTRUCTIVE SYSTEM. MATERIALITY

Individual deskcrits. Memory as material.

Suitable materials and systems.

Transportation, assembly.

F

Oct 11

CONSTRUCTIVE SYSTEM. MATERIALITY

Individual deskcrits. Joints models.

Visualization class Rhino 3d trouble shooting

M

Oct 14

SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

W

Oct 16

SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

F

Oct 18

SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

Visualization class Line weights and printing trouble shooting

M

Oct 21

SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

W

Oct 23

MID REVIEW 6010+6231

Deliverables: Models: 1. Proposal structural model. 2 Alternative proposals 2. Site model.

Drawings: 1. Site plan. Including generative geometry and diagrams.

2. Floor plans (all, including roofs). 2 Alternative proposals 3. Four sections of the proposal. 2 Alternative proposals 4. All Elevations. 2 Alternative proposals 5. Exploded Axon view of the building.

ALL DRAWINGS MUST INCLUDE YOUR BUILDING AND THE CONTEXT. No drawing will be considered complete if the site is not included in it.

F

Oct 25

RECONSIDERATION

Individual deskcrits after review.

Reconsideration of alternate proposals.

M

Oct 28

FINAL TECTONICS

Individual deskcrits.

(READING DAY)

44

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

W10

W11

W12

W13

W14

W

Oct 30

FINAL TECTONICS

Individual deskcrits.

F

Nov 1

FINAL TECTONICS

Individual deskcrits.

VISUALIZATION. 3d and rendering rhino.

M

Nov 4

FINAL SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

W

Nov 6

FINAL SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

F

Nov 8

FINAL SYNTHESIS

Individual deskcrits.

VISUALIZATION. 3d and rendering with vray.

M

Nov 11

RENDERING

Individual deskcrits.

W

Nov 13

RENDERING

Individual deskcrits.

F

Nov 15

RENDERING

Individual deskcrits.

VISUALIZATION. 3d and rendering with lumion.

M

Nov 18

FINAL MODEL

Start Final model, exploded axon, site axon.

W

Nov 20

FINAL MODEL

Final model, exploded axon, site axon.

F

Nov 22

FINAL MODEL

Final model, exploded axon, site axon.

VISUALIZATION. Lasercut, 3d printing.

M

Nov 26

PRE-FINAL TEST

Final model, exploded axon,site axon. +last iterations: final floor plans, sections and elevations+ renders.

W

Nov 28

F

Nov 30

M

Dec 2

W

Dec 4

F

Dec 6

FALL BREAK FINAL PRODUCTION FINAL PRODUCTION

Individual deskcrits.

PRE-REVIEW 6010+6231

FINAL DELIVERABLES: A MAXIMUM OF 4 BOARDS 32X74 INCHES INCLUDING.

Individual deskcrits.

1.

MODELS: -Extended Site model. (group) -Proposal structure model.

-Joints model. Construction models.

-Final model. Building + particular site 2.

DRAWINGS: -Site plan with your building in it.

-Generative geometry and diagrams.

Misreading.

-Circulation diagrams (visitors, workers, cars, etc).

-Program diagrams.

-Site sections with your building in it.

-Site and building axonometric view.

-Floor plans (all, including roofs).

45

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

-Four sections of the proposal. (Depending of the proposal this number can be adjusted) -All Elevations.

-Exploded Axon view of the building.

Construction and structure. (Can be partial or the complete building).

-Constructive section of façade including roof and foundations.

-Constructive Details.

(In all drawings except the constructive ones, the site would be present surrounding the building).

3.

IMAGES: -At least 2 Exterior rendering in the site.

-At least 2 Interior renderings, (the site should be seen outside your building through glasses and open elements).

4.

TEXTS.

-Short description of the design process (500 words more or less).

-A title for the project that depicts your intentions or summarizes the project concept.

-All drawings, including plans, sections, diagrams, axons, etc, labeled and with dimensions (dimensions, topographical levels, building floor levels) The time between pre-review and Final review will be used by the students and instructor to refine the documentation presented in the pre-review. No new documentation needs to be produced.

W15

M

TBD

FINAL REVIEW. 6010+6231

TA’s classes. Visualization. weeks 2 and 3: Physical modelling. coordinated with Melissa. Tutorial about any missing skill from SDI. Lasercut, 3d printing and CNC. This can be a on-demand tutorials. Ask the students the first day what these missing skills are and fill the gaps. This can help them with the site model preparation. week 4: 2d software and workflow. Autocad, illustrator, indesign. When to use each program and sequence. weeks 5 and 6: 3d modelling software. Rhino. week 7: Photoshop. week 8: mid review preparation. printing and lay-out troubleshooting. week 9: rendering. Vray week 10: rendering Lumion. following weeks. Troubleshooting in studio.

46

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

FINAL REVIEW December 16th, 2019. 9am-1pm Exhibit B + Corner Gallery

47

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

48

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

STUDENTS Timothy Victorio Rafiul Alam Gordon Leibowitz Yichun (Jocelyn) Xu Meghann McMahon Kate Nguyen Sean Kois Sierra Brown Macey Whitt Xinyuan Li Yijie Gui Zihe Ye Asriyanti Karma

49

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Timothy Victorio. A Path to Ruin. Boards 1&2 (32�x74

50

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Timothy Victorio. A Path to Ruin. Boards 3&4 (32�

51

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Rafiul Alam. A Break in the Form. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

52

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Rafiul Alam. A Break in the Form. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

53

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Gordon Leibowitz. Sitting: a Building. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

54

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Gordon Leibowitz. Sitting: a Building. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

55

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Yichun (Jocelyn) Xu. The Shape of Woods. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

56

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Yichun (Jocelyn) Xu. The Shape of Woods. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

57

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Meghann McMahon. Obscurity Through the Hidden Path Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

58

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Meghann McMahon. Obscurity Through the Hidden Path Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

59

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Kate Nguyen. Figure/Ground. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

60

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Kate Nguyen. Figure/Ground. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

61

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Sean Kois. ULTISOL. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

62

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Sean Kois. ULTISOL. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

63

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Sierra Brown. Platforms to the Past Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

64

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Sierra Brown. Platforms to the Past. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

65

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Macey Whitt. Bridge to the Past Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

66

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Macey Whitt. Bridge to the Past. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

67

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Xinyuan Li. Rebuild the Ruins. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

68

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Xinyuan Li. Rebuild the Ruins. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

69

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Yijie Gui. Shed in Green. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

70

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Yijie Gui. Shed in Green. Boards 1&2 (32”x74” 71

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Zihe Ye. Huts in the Woods. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

72

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Zihe Ye. Huts in the Woods. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

73

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Asriyanti Karma. A Sectional Approach to Barboursville Ruins. Boards 1&2 (32”x74”)

74

A R C H

6010/6231-FALL 2019

Asriyanti Karma. A Sectional Approach to Barboursville Ruins. Boards 3&4 (32”x74”)

75