Page 1

PAST . PRESENT . FUTURE

JUN SEONG AHN


www.junahn.com Copyright Š 2017 Jun Seong Ahn All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying, reproduction, or distribution of copyrighted works is strictly prohibited.


I felt how petite humans are after looking down from an airplane viewing the movement of small automobiles and infinite streetlights. Because I am one of those people, I can observe their interest, feel the emotion, listen to the environment, and design a masterpiece for human being. This is why I yearn to continuously develop myself envisioning and dreaming a future. ​- 6PM on a Los Angeles-bound American Airlines from Boston


hinge 6

waterfront 26

community 46

refugee 66


sustainability 92

work 110

liberty 120

dmz 130


hinge


8

Growing Hinge


Growing Hinge Major cities nowadays have a well-organized and stabled infrastructure surrounded by various communities. Yet, there are still ongoing issues that don’t adequately reflect the communities anymore. It is important to consolidate people’s interest and construct a strong infrastructure on top of a built environment. Growing Hinge will strategize a new system as a way of rethinking city that collects common interest from the communities and solve problem for the city to grow as a continuous development. Program, user, site, or any other field can be a hinge but is essential to reflect current communities and discover a hybrid formation that is connected by related hinges. A new grid on top of an existing network can guide the cities to a future urbanism where growth is constantly active. With the method of growth through connection on various urban scales, the city will be fluently enlivened through an engagement of the communities in a whole new perspective. Establishing a new zoning code based on the communities’ interest will ultimately create a growing carpet streaming throughout the whole city.

Rhode Island School of Design | Architecture Thesis | Fall 2015 - Spring 2016

9


10 Essential Principles of Growing Hinge 1. Diagonal Elevation

6. Public Facilities’ Control Over Community Space

2. Circulating Loop (carpet)

7. Attractive Public Transportation

3. Sunlight Penetration (top / side)

8. Connection Between Buildings

4. Sunlight to Street Level (setback)

9. Accessibility to Community Space

5. Privacy and Security for Residential Area

10. Green Sustainability

Dragging people to upper levels

Creating a communication within communities and promoting their city blocks and moreover to a whole city

Making communal spaces attractive and livable

Extra floors on top of existing regulation should have a penetrating facade for sunlight to reach street level

Residential

X

Community

Community may open or share space with commercial area but residential area should always remain private

O

Commercial

10

10 Essential Principles of Growing Hinge

Public Facilities such as public school or government are allowed to restrict adjacent community spaces for special purposes

Borders around subway station, bus stops, or bike station that does not have exits should open 1.0 ~ 5.0 FAR minimum of exit area for common space

A connection between community spaces gives advantage of extra floors to both buildings for further development

Community space above ground level should be accessible to all

Building with a sustainable program such as urban farm or photovoltaics will be financially supported from the government and should support its block or the community (energy, food etc)


MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD 8 ZONING REGULATION CURRENT ZONING REGULATION

ALTERED ZONING REGULATION

Residential Districts: R8B

Residential Districts: R8B-1 R8B General Residence Districts

R8B

Lot Coverage (max)

FAR (max)

Corner Lot

4.0*

80%

R8B-1 General Residence Districts

Interior / Through Lot

Base Height (min / max)

Buliding Height (max)

Required Parking (min)

70%

55-60 ft

75 ft

50% of dwelling units

R8B-1

FAR (max)

Lot Coverage (max)

community resididential Corner Lot Interior / Through Lot 2.0 *

4.0

100%

70%

Base Height (min / max)

Buliding Height (max)

Required Parking (min)

55-60 ft **

100 ft

50% of dwelling units

* Except in Manhattan Community District 8 where an FAR of 5.1 is permitted for community facilities.

* Building bridges between blocks’ community facilities should follow the Code of Standard Practice for Structural Steel Buildings and Bridges. (AISC 303-10) ** Community facilities should not alter and preserve the current aesthetic of street-faced facade except public buildings (school etc).

Commercial Districts: C1-9

Commercial Districts: C1-9A

C1-9 Commercial Districts (Residential District Equilivant to R10) Lot Coverage (max)

FAR (max)

C1-9

commer. resid. 2.0

Corner Lot

Interior / Through Lot

100%

70%

10.0 *

C1-9A Commercial Districts (Residential District Equilivant to R10)

Street

Base Height (min / max)

Buliding Height (max)

Required Parking (min)

wide narrow

125-150 ft 60-125 ft

210 ft 185 ft

40% of dwelling units **

* Up to 12.0 FAR with Inclusionary Housing Program bonus. ** 20% if zoning lot is between 10,001 and 15,000 square feet; waived if zoning lot is 10,000 square feet or less, or if 15 or fewer spaces required.

Lot Coverage (max)

FAR (max)

C1-9A commer. commun. resid. Corner Lot

Interior / Through Lot

Street

Base Height (min / max)

Buliding Height (max)

Required Parking (min)

wide 125-175 ft ** 250 ft *** 40% of dwelling units **** narrow 60-150 ft ** 215 ft *** * Building bridges between blocks’ community facilities should follow the Code of Standard Practice for Structural Steel Buildings and Bridges. (AISC 303-10) ** Street-faced facade above 150 ft (wide) / 125 ft (narrow) should be able to penetrate sunlight to the street level. *** Community facilities that are connected to the other community facilities earns an extra 40 ft maximum to the maximum buliding height. **** 20% if zoning lot is between 10,001 and 15,000 square feet; waived if zoning lot is 10,000 square feet or less, or if 15 or fewer spaces required. 2.0

2.0 *

10.0

100%

70%

100’ Max Building Height 75’ Max Building Height

Base Height: 55’ min / 60’ max

Above Max Base Height, Building must be Set Back at least 15’ from a Street Wall facing a Narrow Street

Open Areas between Street and Wall must be Planted NA

RR

OW

ST

Above Max Base Height, Building must be Set Back at least 15’ from a Street Wall facing a Narrow Street

Residential Street-faced Facade should not be changed for Aesthetic and Preservation Open Areas between Street and Wall must be Planted

RE

ET

NA

RR

OW

ST

RE

ET

Code of Standard Practice for Structural Steel Buildings and Bridges (AISC 303-10)

Street Line

Street Line

185’ Max Building Height beyond 100’ of a Narrow Street

215’ Max Building Height beyond 100’ of a Narrow Street 210’ Max Building Height within 100’ of a Wide Street Above the Max Base Height, Building must be Set Back at least 10’ (15’) from the Street Wall when facing a wide (narrow) street

Base Height: 60’ min / 125’ max

210’ Max Building Height (250‘ when community facilities are connected) within 100’ of a Wide Street

Base Height: 60’ min / 150’ max

Above the Max Base Height, Building must be Set Back at least 10’ (15’) from the Street Wall when facing a wide (narrow) street

Street-Faced Facade above 150’ (Wide) / 125’ (Narrow) should have a sunlight penetrating facade

Base Height: 125’ min / 175’ max

Base Height: 125’ min / 150’ max

Street Line Open Areas between Street and Wall must be Planted

Base Height: 55’ min / 60’ max

Code of Standard Practice for Structural Steel Buildings and Bridges (AISC 303-10)

Street Line NA

RR

OW

ST

Open Areas between Street and Wall must be Planted

RE

ET

T

EE

TR

ES

WID

NA

RR

OW

ST

RE

ET T

EE

TR

ES

WID

Current and Proposed Zoning Regulation

11


E7

5th

st

2nd 3rd

Ave

E7

6th

12

Context and Connectivity of the Selected Site

st

Ave


Surrounding Programs in Relation to the Site Condition

13


14

Connection in between residences of the East Commercial Building


15


16


Joint Program with Senior Care and Middle School

17


18

Integrated Hall connected with multiple apartments on the west side


19


20


West Commercial Building Section Perspective

21


22

Open Space at the East Commercial Building


23


24


25


waterfront


Clinton Waterfront Complex

Enlivening Hell's Kitchen Community through Interconnecting Walkable Network Clinton Waterfront Complex is a project constructing a threshold from De Witt Clinton Park to the adjacent waterfront integrating the landscape and programs of public parks and piers that not only designates the unified space an attractive destination but also create an economic development through strengthening the local community network. As De Witt Clinton Park extends its landscape to the waterfront along W 54 th St blending into the Piers 92/94 and Clinton Cove Park, the structure and programs of the piers will also spread its territory encompassing natural environment on the roof. The two expansions becoming part of a walkable network will attract tourists from the cruise dock and vitalize the Special Clinton District community seeking prosperity of quality of life. Rethinking the existing municipal grid and infrastructure, and bridging potential areas in the district will generate diverse scale of communities based on their interests and create an economic development through improving social and political welfare of the district. A network with genuine design, thoroughly intervened space, significant connection, and user-oriented adaptability will anticipate the site to become an all-encompassing infrastructure extending its potentiality throughout the city.

28

Clinton Waterfront Complex: Enlivening Hell's Kitchen Community through Interconnecting Walkable Network


Columbia University | Urban Design Studio I | Summer 2016 Group Project: Jun Seong Ahn | Fu Wang | Wanpeng Zu

29


PEDESTRIAN LIMITED ACCESS AUTOMOBILE BICYCLE ELEVATED ROAD

THE ELEVATED RAMP SEPERATES THE TWOPEDESTRIAN PARTS OF AREA LIMITED ACCESS AUTOMOBILE BICYCLE ELEVATED ROAD

30

Disconnection of the Piers and Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood through Elevated Road


Timeline Analysis of the Piers and Clinton Park

31


rovider y Provider der

Elevator Access Elevator Elevator Access Access

Embedded Embedded Embedded Staircases Staircases Staircases

Direct Direct Bridge Bridge Access Access Direct Bridge Access

Underground Underground Access Access Underground Access

Elevator Access Elevator Access Elevator Access

Movable Movable Movable WallWall forWall Flexible for for Flexible Flexible Space Space Space

educed ced Rooftop Rooftop Rooftop Parking Parking Parking Space Space Space

32

Partial Partial Rooftop Partial Rooftop Rooftop Open Open Space Open Space Space

Elevated Road Accessibility Study

Open Open Space Open Space Space

Retail Retail Stores Retail Stores Stores

Rooftop Rooftop Rooftop Garden Garden GardenFreshfood Freshfood Freshfood Market Market Market

New Floor Floor above above Rooftop Rooftop NewNew Floor above Rooftop


p

Movable Movable Wall for WallFlexible for Flexible SpaceSpace Reduced Reduced Rooftop Rooftop Parking Parking SpaceSpace

PartialPartial Rooftop Rooftop OpenOpen SpaceSpace

OpenOpen SpaceSpace

RetailRetail StoresStores

Museum Museum

Rooftop Rooftop Garden Garden Freshfood Freshfood Market Market

Gallery Gallery

Ferry Ferry Terminal Terminal

New Floor Rooftop New Floor aboveabove Rooftop

ArtShow Fair Show Art Fair

Rooftop Pier Potential Programs Study

33


Piers 92/94

The piers sustaining as a temporary event holding space

34

Phases of connecting the Piers and Parks

Clinton Cove

De Witt Clinton Park

Surrounding Parks becoming a potential of creating a healthy walkable network

Future Expansion

Elevated Landscape integrating the piers and parks


Pier Lower Level

Opening spaces in between the two piers for internal events and aqua leisure

Pier Upper Level

Gradual slope for natural flow atmosphere and easier accessibility

Clinton Waterfront Complex

35


36


Perspective View from the Pier 94 Rooftop to Inner City

37


38

Perspective View from Street View towards the Waterfront


39


40


Green Walkway on Rooftop of Pier 92

41


42

Clinton Waterfront Complex hinging Piers and Clinton Park


43


44


45


community


Saratoga Springs

Greenwich

Schenectady Troy

Albany-Rensselaer

Nassau Greenville

Pittsfield

New Baltimore

Chatham Cairo

Athens

Hudson Catskill Livingston

Woodstock

Annandale

Red Hook Rhinebeck

Rhinecliff (Kingston)

Millbrook

Hyde Park New Paltz

Esopus Island

Fairview

Poughkeepsie

Arlington

Wappingers Falls

New Hamburg

Hughsonville Montgomery

Fishkill

Newburgh & Beacon Stewart Int’l Airport Cornwall

West Point Woodbury

Fort Montgomery & Manitou Peekskill

Stony Point Haverstraw

Crotonville New City

Scarborough Connecticut

Nyack Irvington

Englewood

New Rochelle

Fort Lee

Yonkers

Bronx

Upper Manhattan Grand Central (NYC)

New Jersey Long Island Red Hook

Atlantic Ocean

48

Community-Transit Oriented Development: Reshaping the Poughkeepsie Waterfront Public through Breaking the Boundary


Community-Transit Oriented Development Reshaping the Poughkeepsie Waterfront Public through Breaking the Boundary

After constructions of infrastructure such as highway and railroads, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) along the Hudson Valley became one of the major movements that seeks to collect array of regional benefit in the Northeast region, and at the same time, visual spectrum and accessibility to the waterfront along the Hudson river has been gradually declined. Poughkeepsie is also part of this controversy along the river with an ongoing proposal, Poughkeepsie Watelfront Redevelopment Plan, by the city of Poughkeepsie, State and Federal Government, and the MTA. The redevelopment plan, claiming waterfront vacant lots after many iterations of urban renewal, is mostly funded by the State and Federal Government through constructing new parking structures and supporting the City's annual payment for maintenance. The city and MTA try to pursue private developers to invest for new development on their vacant land, simultaneously increasing tax revenue from these new growth. Though greatly imagining to economically benefit and enliven the city through Hudson Valley regional transportation system, the plan doesn't resolve the current issue of bypassing infrastructures that clearly separates the community of the inner city from the waterfront. Poughkeepsie waterfront with the TOD plan promotes the site into a deeper segregation from the city without any valuable link in between, and the waterfront having great potential of valuable resource should equally include the Poughkeepsie community as their goal. Instead of continuing traditional Hudson Valley TOD plan, this project, Community-Transit Oriented Development, proposes to relocate the waterfront redevelopment such as commerce, residence, and mixed-use to the Main Street. Two main strategies along the Main street is utilizing city-owned property as nodes for open public space. and persuading private property owners for new development through new zoning features. In addition to altered structural placement, new shallow waterway along the street will bring back the potential of land value for better development and generate new programs and activities with an extended waterfront atmosphere in the inner neighborhood. As a consequence, preserving the waterfront as public will provide stronger accessibility for the Poughkeepsie community and persist the ongoing waterfront promenade. The Poughkeepsie waterfront and the Main Street seek to enhance and create multiple forms of accessibility into a redesigned urban fabric by integrating fragments of potentiality and implementing better design to the community. Reinforcing the Main Street and downtown to the city's periphery hopes to become a successful case study and be able to apply to other regional cities by not defining infrastructure as barriers, but as a potential location for meaningful redevelopment throughout the region. Columbia University | Urban Design Studio II | Fall 2016 Group Project: Jun Seong Ahn | Yiran Hu | Mengke Wu | Zichang Yan

49


POUGHKEEPSIE TOD PROJECTED WATERFRONT LAND VALUE INCREMENT (10 yr) - $8,563,000 > $61,199,000

$52,636,000

CITY & MTA OWNED PROPERTY (DEVELOPMENT REVENUE) SUPPORTING FUND

SUPPORTING FUND

FEDERAL

$ $

STATE

$

$

CITY

MARKET VALUE SALE OF LAND

MTA

PRIVATE DEVELOPER MARKET VALUE SALE OF LAND

OPERATING COSTS

CAPITAL COSTS

PERIODICAL

ONE TIME

PARK MAINTENANCE (funded $11.8 - 15.9M) ANNUAL OPERATING COST

STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATED COST

PARKING STRUCTURE ENTITIES (PSE) (funded in phases $11.8 - 15.9M)

$4M - 6M

USED BY

COST

CITY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS (RESIDENTIAL) PRIVATE DEVELOPERS (HOTEL) OTHERS

$0.8M - 1.2M $0.8M - 1.2M $1.3M - 1.7M $12.5M - 15.8M

ESTIMATED COST NEW PARKING SPACES

$15.4M - 19.9M 547

$516,000 / yr

PARK IMPROVEMENTS

EXCESS

ESTIMATED COST ANNUAL INCOME FROM DEVELOPMENT

$10.5M - 16.9M

$777,000 / yr

$0.8M INCREMENTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE

ATTRACT $100M FROM POUGHKEEPSIE COMMUNITY

PROPERTY OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT, HOTEL SERVICES, OFFICE, RETAIL

250 PERMANENT JOBS

CREATING JOBS (950)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $140M - 145M 700 CONSTRUCTION JOBS

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSED IN PHASES

PARKING STRUCTURE

NEW RETAIL, HOTEL, RESIDENCE, PARKING, OFFICE, RESTAURANT ONLY ON THE WATERFRONT

FEW AFFORDABLE HOUSINGS AND PARKS IN THE WATERFRONT BUT NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE INNER CITY

CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE POPULATION (2014) 30,513 - 950 = 29,563 TREATING POUGHKEEPSIE COMMUNITY AS TOURIST? HIGHLY RELYING ON POUGHKEEPSIE MAIN STREET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY CURRENTLY IN 2014 DRAFT VERSION (NO OFFICIAL FUND STATEMENT) TOD PLAN IN HIGHLY VULNERABLE SITUATION!

50

Poughkeepsie Transit Oriented Development Projected Waterfront Fund and Stakeholder Status


RIVER ERA (1690 - 1850)

RAILROAD ERA (1950 - 1930)

HIGHWAY ERA (1930 - PRESENT)

WATERFRONT TOD SUCCESSFUL CASE STUDY APPLYING TO OTHER REGIONAL CITIES NOT DEFINING INFRASTRUCTURE AS BARRIER

FUTURE PROPOSAL BY OFFICIALS KEY PLAYERS - (FEDERAL, MTA, CITY)

DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION

BREAK THE BOUNDARY

INTEGRATING FRAGMENTS OF POTENTIALITY BETTER IMPLEMENT TO COMMUNITY

RETHINK EXISTING HIGHWAY AND RAILROAD RESOLVE CITY COMMUNITY’S CURRENT ISSUE

ALL-PURPOSE ACCESSIBILITY

PUSH AND PULL

NEW & ENHANCED STATION, ROUTE, ROAD FOR HIGHWAY, RAILROAD, RIVER, BUS, BIKE, PEDESTRIAN

INCLUDE MAIN STREET PART OF TOD PLAN MAKE WATERFRONT ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL

MAIN STREET SHALLOW WATERWAY

COMMUNITY-TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

INCREASED LAND VALUE ALONG MAIN STREET CORRIDOR WATERFRONT ATMOSPHERE EXTENDED TOWARD INNER CITY

INCLUDE MAIN STREET PART OF TOD PLAN PRESERVING WATERFRONT PUBLIC

DEVELOPMENT RELOCATION COMMERCE, RESIDENCE, MIXED-USE TO MAIN STREET UTILIZING CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AS NODES (OPEN SPACE) PURSUADING PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGH NEW ZONINGS

Potential Waterfront Development Phases in Chronological Order

51


52

Strategic Diagram Targeting Main Street Development (bottom to top)


River Era (1690 - 1850)

Railroad Era (1850 - 1930)

Highway Era (1930 - Present)

Poughkeepsie Waterfront Historical Era

53


WATERFRONT PARK PARKING STRUCTURE CENTRAL PLAZA PRIVATE PROPERTY RAILROAD PROPERTY CITY PROPERTY

MAIN STREET PIER COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL & MIXED-USE MIX-COMMERCIAL MODERATE INCOME HOUSING KAAL ROCK WALKWAY PARKING STRUCTURE

54

TOD Property Ownership

TOD Proposed Development

Development Orientation

Development Connectivity

Original Waterfront Transit Oriented Development Strategy


ECOLOGY EDUCATION CENTER WATERFRONT PARK MAIN STREET CORRIDOR PUBLIC PARK

COMMERCIAL / PARKING OPEN SPACE

RAILROAD PARCEL

MIXED-USE

PRIVATE PROPERTY

MAIN WATERWAY MAIN STREET PLAZA RESIDENTIAL

New Proposed Parcels Division

New Proposed Development

Development Orientation

Development Connectivity

Proposed Community-Transit Oriented Development Strategy

55


56

Waterfront Detailed Design Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

6


Expanding the influence of existing facilities to promote general division of function

Developing related programs from existing facilities

1

Preserving initial Poughkeepsie plan's continuous green walkway

2

Providing various user experience in the waterfront including connection to the inner neighborhood

Different types of open space and degrees of privacy in the waterfront

4

3

Enhanced structures and viewpoints for more perspectives to the Hudson river

5

6

57


Poughkeepsie Waterfront Illustrative Plan View

59


60

Waterfront Illustrative Aerial View


62

Main Street Section Perspective View


63


64

Redesigned Commercial Space under I-95 Highway


65


refugee


The Right To Water

The Potential of the Camps' Urban Topography “Camps are established with the intention of being demolished. (...) They are meant to have no history and no future; they are meant to be forgotten” 1 Sixty-eight years after the Palestinian exodus following the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe), many of the Palestinian refugee settlements, once located in distant rural areas like Al-hussein Camp in Amman, have been bypassed by the ever growing city development. As time passed, Palestinian refugee camps became multi-story dense neighborhoods and incubators for diverse micro economies while struggling with the dichotomy of the right to return. However, the permanent temporariness of the camp’s typology has been employed to justify the marginalization of this community through an inequitable access to resources, like water and electricity. This situation puts the camp in a fragile situation against a rapidly changing climate, in particular in Jordan, the third most water scarce country in the world 2, where forcibly displaced populations constitutes around one third of its population.3 Within a regional context of dependency and subordination, The Right To Water, utilizes the irregularity and extreme density of the refugee camp to empower the population towards water independency by the implementation of an extended network of decentralized micro water collection and storage units embedded in the built fabric. The urban fabric performs like a second topography that can be molded and reshaped through various interventions ranging from the use of elevated light structures that divert the flow of water while providing shade and opportunity for new programs on roof-scapes, to the provision of storage facilities. These storage containers, which also filtrate the water using alternative techniques, are hidden in tanks that provide structural support for future vertical growth, or are contained in planters, outdoor seating, stairs and smaller portable devices designed for a seasonal storage. The tanks are interconnected by aqueducts and gutters to assure an equal distribution of the collected water as it overflows from small-scale individual tanks on the roofs into more collective reservoirs in the ground. The sequential overflow of water leads to an underground tank located in the lowest point of the newly reshaped-topography, which also becomes a point of “water revelation“ through a collective usage of water happening in the programs above it. This community space is flexible enough to allocate different programs like common kitchens and gardens, places for meetings and children to play, kindergartens, medical assistance, weddings, among others. Thus, the proposed water collection and storage extends its value beyond the functional infrastructure to become an element of finding and activating much-needed open spaces for gathering and social interactions across the camp. The Right To Water advocates for a system to be carried out individually and collectively by its own residents (DIY). This will not only allow for independence and flexibility in terms of implementation, but will also become part of the legacy and memory of the camp to be left for future populations. The camp will never be forgotten. PETTI, Alessandro (DAAR), “The Architecture of Exile IV. B”. Retrieved from: http://www.e-flux.com/architecture/refugee-heritage/. February, 2017. MAYRHAUSER, Melissa “Water Shortages in Jordan”. Retrived from: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/06/20/water-shortages-in-jordan/. February, 2017. 3 MALKAWI, Khetam, “The Jordan Times”. Retrieved from: http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/refugees-constitute-third-jordan-population-%E2%80%94-world-bank-official. February, 2017. 1 2

68

The Right To Water: The Potential of the Camps' Urban Topography


Columbia University | Urban Design Studio III | Spring 2017

Group Project: Majed Abdulsamad | Jun Seong Ahn | Isabel Carrasco | Haochen Yang

69


70

Residential Segregation and Refugee Camps in Amman Municipality


REFUGEE CAMPS

RELATION TO RAINFALL COLLECTION AND CAMP POPULATION

COVERAGE OF WATER DEMAND FROM RAINFALL CONNECTION

Baqaa Camp 1968

Zarqa Camp 1949

Marka Camp 1968

Al-hussein Camp 1952

Wehdat Camp 1955

Regional Water Information of Jordan

71


1. Dispersed Water Runoff on the Camp

72

Urban Fabric as a Second Topography

2. Shifting Building Roofs to Manage Water Flow

3. Amalgamating Water Collection within Blocks


System Typology - Collection to Comsumption

73


Dense Urban Fabric

74

Topography

Water Runoff


Water Vulnerability

Collective Water Network

Community Linkage

Water System as a Growth Regulator in Al-hussein Camp

75


76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Hypothetical Analysis Scenario of New Water System in a Typical Block


Building surfaces and roofs as first receivers of rain water

Typical camp block

1

Deflector fabrics with light structures placed to mediate the water flow

2

Reservoir containers with architectural columns filled with water which is directly implemented into houses for local use

Channels installed on walls for water flow guidance

4

Exposed storage protected through additional layers of structural wall which support future vertical expansion

5

Expansion of urban vertical development with additional collective space and vertical connection

Initial fabrics transforming into new structural dwellings with tilted roof

7

3

6

Potential urban development for the future of refugee camps

8

9

77


78


Detailed Examination of the Whole New Water System in a Selected Typical Block

79


Independent Space Private

Kindergarten / Amphitheater Collective

Collective Wall Tanks Local Tanks

Community Gathering

Deflectors

Semi-Private Supporting Structure Collective Underground Tanks Gutters Bridges

Population 113 people

Water Demand 2,474,700 L / yr

Rainfall Collection 658,400 L /yr

Total Tanks Volume 545,000 L

80

Block Typology


Inserting Deflectors + Private Tanks

Adding Structural Tanks

Connecting with Gutters and Aqueducts

2020 Collective Programing

2050 Future Growth

Phasing & Stakeholders

81


82

Different Levels of Privacy and Typical Water Travel Routes


PHASE I

PHASE II

Temporary / Light Weight

PHASE III

Semi-Permanent / Light Installation

Individual Interest

Permanent / Heavy Structure

Collective Investment

Amman Municipality Government UNRWA

(United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) 1,050 L

DPA

(Department of Palestinian Affairs)

750 L

3,600 L

324,000 L

28,500 L

DEFLECTOR STRUCTURES

Wooden Poles

Recycled Steel Tubes / Pipes

Rope Hooks

STORAGE TANKS

MCU

(8”X8”X16”)

Reinforced Concrete

Geotextile Membrane

DEFLECTORS

Recycled Refugee Tents

Canvas

Tarpaulin

Goat and Sheep Woven

FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY

Cotton Cloth

Clay

Bio-filter

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Development Phase and Materials Selection

83


Hybrid I

Hybrid II

Hybrid I

84

Hybrid System Performance


1. Private Tank

2. Planter / Orchard

3. Structural Wall Aqueduct

Canvas / Tarpaulin

Canvas / Tarpaulin

CMU

CMU

Double Cotton Cloth

Bio-filter

Overflow

Impermeable Concrete

Geotextile

Overflow

First use (private)

First Use (private)

4. Structural Column

Concrete Columns (future growth)

Overflow

(connection to other blocks)

Reinforced Concrete First Use (private)

5. Portable / Urban Furniture

Hybrid II Corrugated Metal Sheet Concrete Columns (future growth)

Cotton Cloth Filtration

Metal Gutter

Impermeable Sack

Overflow

Portable Collectors

Clay Filtration

UV Disinfection (drinkable water)

Reinforced Concrete

Bio-filter Reinforced Concrete

Aqueduct Second Use (collective)

First Use (private) Second Use (collective)

Water Storage Typologies

85


86

Seasonal Adaptability and Functionality of Proposed Water Collection Devices


87


88


Reviving Roofscapes Through the Proposed Water System

89


90

Replication of Proposed Independent Water System in Amman Refugee Camps


91


sustainability


94

Providence Innovation Center


Providence Innovation Center Integrating Sustainability and Providence Urban Fabric

Providence Innovation Center aims to encourage development in Downtown and along the city’s commercial corridors by permitting higher education institutional uses, student housing, and practicums /healthcare institutional uses including related uses such as research and development facilities and offices, in addition to a variety of commercial, entertainment, residential, public, and other uses in select areas. Compatible and appropriate mixeduses are encouraged to promote pedestrian activity at street levels while encouraging full and varied use on the upper floors. This district is intended to encourage the development of educational uses while preserving and fostering the economic vitality of the Downtown and City’s commercial corridors. One of the main missions of this project is to analyze the energy efficiency and fundamental architectural drafting through digital programs such as Rhino 5, DIVA and Revit. The materials were carefully selected in order to manage energy loss prevention from climate change and also constructing a new building which gives users a sense of innovation and technology. The center seeks to provide office space and miscellaneous gathering event holder, at the same time, examine and promote advanced architectural and engineering technology.

Rhode Island School of Design | Integrated Building Systems | Fall 2015 Group Project: Jun Seong Ahn | Tzu Yu Su | Mike Todd

95


96

FLAT ROOF

21O

ROOF AREA: 4690 sqft BUILDING VOLUME: 709,000 cft

ROOF AREA: 5326 sqft BUILDING VOLUME: 653,000 cft VOLUME LOSS: 8 % GENERATES 98,954 kWh / yr

Roof Slope and Specification Concept

42O

ROOF AREA: 6300 sqft BUILDING VOLUME: 578,000 cft VOLUME LOSS: 18 %


COMPUTER

11.4%

ENERGY TARGET

TARGET

Primary Energy 10-20 kWh/sf/year:

400,000 kWh

ENERGY TARGET

ENERGY TARGET T SUPPLY Solar Energy Gain /year*: TARGET Primary 10-20 kWh/sf/year: DEMAND Appliance energy use/year TTARGET TA RGET PrimaryEnergy Energy 10-20 kWh/sf/year:

98,954 kWh 400,000 kWh 227,068 kWh 400,000 kWh

SUPPLY Solar Energy Gain /year*: SUPPLY L LY Solar Energy Gain /year*: DEMAND Appliance energy 400,000 kWh + 98,954 kWh - use/year 300,285 kWh :

DEMAND

FLOOR HEATING

227,068 kWh

400,000 kWh + 98,954 kWh - 300,285 kWh :

33%

HOT WATER A ATER

13.4%

271,886 kWh

400,000 kWh + 98,954 kWh - 300,285 kWh :

7.3%

FLOOR HEATING

98,954 kWh 98,954 kWh 227,068 kWh 271,886 kWh

Appliance energy use/year

33% 11.4%

271,886 kWh

13.4% 14.2%

HOT WATER

LOBBY FLOOR AREA

RETAIL

LOBBY

LOBBY

COMPUTER

FLOOR AREA

LAPTOP COMPUTER FLOOR AREA COMPUTER LAPTOPMONITOR COMPUTER PRINTER (INKJET)MONITOR COMPUTER LAPTOP PRINTER (LASER) PRINTER (INKJET) COMPUTER MONITOR PRINTER (LASER) PRINTER PRINTER (INKJET) (MULTI-FUNTION)

CAFE

RETAIL T TAIL

CAFE

2 RETAIL

2 CAFE

22

22

22 12 1

2 2 2

22 21 1

1

PRINTER

1

DISHWASHER MICROWAVE PRINTEROVEN (MULTI-FUNTION) MICROWAVE A OVEN AVE REFRIGERATOR DISHWASHER REFRIGERATOR REFRIGERAT A OR AT ROUTER / DSL / ROUTER / DSL OVEN / MICROWAVE CABLE MODEM

11

LIGHT (Project)

1

1

1

1

LIGHTCEILING (Project) FAN

LIGHT (Downlight)

LIGHTERV (Downlight) VENTILATION (w/h) WATER ATER(Project) A H HEATER EATER A ATER LIGHT WATER HEATER FLOOR (Downlight) HEATING A ATING LIGHT FLOOR HEATING

1

1

1

1

11 11

11

11

33

33

101.71 101.7

44 39

39 6

44 3 14

6

4 39 6

1

14101.7 30 30 1 4 1 14 30

19

1

1

2 1

1

1

1 1

11

1

1

4 19

2 2 1

OFFICE

MULTIPUR5 SPACE POSE 5 5 20 5 5 10 5 5 1 20 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10 1 1 1

19

*Resource: http://www.energy.gov/energysaver/maps/appliance-energy-calculator WATER HEATER 1 1 *Resource: http://www.energy.gov/energysaver/maps/appliance-energy-calculator FLOOR HEATING

20 10 20 1

20

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

10

10

1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1 1

1

10

20 10 20 1 1

1

10

10

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

INNOVATION 10STUDIO 10 10

1

20% 0.7%

1 1

1

1

10

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1 1

3 3 80.1 80.1 1 4 4 15

3

3

4 26

4

3

VENTILATION A ATION

0.7% 14.2%

3

3

3

1

1

3

3

80.1 80.1 1 96.75 96.75 1 80.1 4 25

4

3

20

4

3

4 20

1

6

1

1

1

1 7

1

9

1 1

1

1

6 7 1

1 1

1

3

3

80.1 181.45 4

6

3 8 17

28

81.45 101.7 1 8

9

38

0.7%

6 1 330 6 1500 7 1 225 9 1 1 6

6

7 234 1 1 1051 6 2 7 9 3500 1 28 35 2

52 214

52 10 28 32

30

33

310

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

1

4

36 1

35 1

30

4 1 20

330 250

82.83 1506

108.432

82.83 1500 18 1506

225

330 1724.625 6

1500 473.04

33 6 99.396 234 2466.828 200 1051 791.403 33

35

32

65 250 117.468 42 1506 18 13

6409.536 12208.64 117.468 7309.12 1506 6409.536 108.432 117.468

80

9 33

36

1

42 7309.12

13 6409.536

200 225

200

ENERGY USE / YEAR (kWh)

ENERGY USE WATTAGE 12208.64 80 / YEAR (kWh) 65 7309.12 12208.64

7

32

15

32

ENERGY USE / YEAR (kWh)

200.8

7618

234 3500 45360 1051 35784

1506 108.432 1724.625 82.83 473.04 1506 200.8 1724.625

PROVI 99.396 473.04 INNOV 2466.828 200.8 CEN 791.403 99.396 7618 SEM SEMESTER 2466.828 45360 791.403 COURSE Inte COU 7847618

3 3 0.09w/m 845.1 /h 9 /h 0.09w/m 3500

101.7 8

18

1

25

4

1781.45 33 30 81 1 17

76 65 76 9 42 56 6 13 76 250 6 9

32

1

20 80.1

2

1

NO. OF 76 APPLIANCES 56 80

16

16

25 80.1

4

9

10

WAT WATTAGE A TA AT T GE

30

1

2670.65 32 32 1 4 1 26

3

1

10

101.7 310 33 89 1

ENERGY LOAD

LIGHTING

2096.75 35 36 4 1 1 20

16

15 80.1

3

70.65 70.65 1

1

76

1

1 1

1

56

10

COOLING

NO. LIGHTING OF WATTAGE APPLIANCES

NO. OF APPLIANCES

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

10

1 1 1

10

10

ENE

VENTILATION

INNOVATION MECHANICAL 10STUDIO 10 76

10

1

1 1

10

1

4

COOLING

VENTILATION

INNOVATION MECHANICAL STUDIO

INNOVATION INNOVA VATION VA ATION MECHANICAL STUDIO

1

1996.75 30 30 1 4 1 19

30

20

1 1

20OFFICE

1 1

96.75 96.75 1 44

1

INNOVATION INNOVA VATION VA ATION STUDIO

OFFICE

20

INNOVATION STUDIO

OFFICE

20OFFICE

1

1

1

1

44

3

2

1

11

1

30 1

2

OFFICE

1

1

19 55.8 30

2 RETAIL

1

55.8 55.8 1 44

1

MULTIPURMULTIPUR L LTIPUR POSE SPA P CE PA SPACE

RETAIL T TAIL

1

1

1

CEILING CEILING FAN FAN ELEVATOR

2

1

SLOW COOKER

ERV VENTILATION A ATION ERV VENTILATION CENTRAL AIR (w/h) (w/h)CONDITIONING

1

1

STEREO SYSTEMS ROUTER / DSL / STEREO SYSTEMS CABLE MODEM TV TV SLOW COOKER TOASTER OVEN TOASTER OVEN STEREO SYSTEMS ELEVATOR ELEVATOR ELEVA VAT VA ATOR TV CENTRAL AIR AIR CENTRAL TOASTER OVEN CONDITIONING CONDITIONING

2

1

1

CABLE MODEM

2

MULTIPURPOSE SPACE

RETAIL

architect

COOLING

LIGHTING

EXPERIENCE 5 CENTER 55 2 55 2 5 51 2 5 11 1 5 1 1 1

1

(MULTI-FUNTION) L LTI-FUNTION) DISHWASHER PRINTER (LASER)

SLOWREFRIGERATOR COOKER

EXPERIENCE USER CENTER

APPLIANCES

7.3% 20%

13.4% 20% 14.2%

HOT WATER

USER EXPERIENCE USER CENTER

7.3% 11.4% APPLIANCES

33%

AST

APPLIANCES COMPUTER

COMPUTER

FLOOR HEATING A ATING

214

310 9

28

4500 52

214

1044.16 10 35

13750.784

INSTRUCTOR INST 845.1 45360 STUDENTS 1044.16 784

32 3 0.09w/m /h 13750.784 845.1 DATE 17429.44 28 17429.44 30496.5 10 1044.16 4500 30496.5 32 13750.784 74736 74736 28 17429.44 4500

30496.5 74736 SCALE

*Resource: http://www.energy.gov/energysaver/maps/appliance-energy-calculator

Energy Load Analysis

97

Jun STUA

DAT

G1

SCA


A103 1

1

2

3 10

4

6

7

8

8

A103

A103

A

23

2 27 32

24

0

24

9 9 32

21

B

1 1 16

3 A103

IRRESISTABLE STAIR 24

4

4

C

LOBBY

22

11

1

A103

UTILITY

7

2 2

A103

E STAIR

28

10 9 32

3

F I

J 6 A103

4 A103

SCALE: 1" = 24'-0" 0

98

Typical Ground Floor Plan

5

10

20

50

100


A103 1

10 A103

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

8

I

A103

A

J

B

3 A103

DN

IRRESISTABLE STAIR 5

C MULTICULTURAL SPACE 6

STAIR 10 A103

UTILITY

7

7 2

A103

E CLOSET

W/C

8

9

F

6 A103

4 A103

SCALE: 1" = 24'-0" 0

5

10

20

50

100

Typical Second Floor Plan

99


11F

-

MECHANICAL 3990 sqft 63 50 gross / occupant

10F

-

INNOVATION STUDIO 3190 sqft 62 50 gross / occupant

9F

-

INNOVATION STUDIO 3135 sqft 37 100 gross / occupant

8F

-

OFFICE 3790 sqft 37 100 gross / occupant

7F

-

OFFICE 3135 sqft 37 100 gross / occupant

6F

-

RETAIL 2763 sqft 63 60 gross / occupant

5F

-

RETAIL 3790 sqft 63 60 gross / occupant

4F

-

USER EXPERIENCE CENTER 3790 sqft 76 50 gross / occupant

3F

-

CAFE 2190 sqft 146 15 gross / occupant

2F

-

MULTIPURPOSE SPACE 3790 sqft 55 50 gross / occupant

GF

-

LOBBY / OPEN SPACE* 1770 sqft 118 15 gross / occupant 354 5 gross / occupant

* 118 = assembly without fixed seats (table/chairs) 354 = assembly without fixed seats (standing space)

100

Occupancy Load


SCALE: 1" = 32'-0" 0 5 10

20

50

100

Typical Sections (10 - A103 (left) & 3 - A103 (right))

101


102

Thermodynamics (DIVA Sunlight Study)


Close investigation of daylight, thermal condition, and air ventilation has gone through iteration of analyses in order to effectively react to the weather of Providence. A result of analyzing the worst condition brought up to several decisions. Mechanical room, rather than on the ground floor, is strategically placed on the highest floor to the response of a site condition with flood area. The ventilation system occurs not only on the elevator core but also on two surfaces of the building through a decentralized ventilation system with built-in regenerative heat recovery core, LUNOS e². These fans installed in both exterior walls will provide continuous ventilation without any needs of ductwork. It creates a heat recovery that becomes the lung of this building.

Ventilation & Geothermal Study

103


104

Office Space


105


106


Upper Floors with Double Height Ceiling

107


108

Street View of Providence Innovation Center


109


work


image credit: https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/images/92592

NYU Langone Medical Center

Major Role: Master Planning, Test-Fit Study, 3D Modeling, Architectural Drafting The part-time internship at NBBJ has been a great movement for my professional architectural experience. On the first day, an immediate learning of my intern at the Healthcare team with a project located in the NYU Langone Medical Center was busy but fruitful start. I learned that each floor's specific function and a relationship among patients, employee, and the building itself is crucial, and this is an ongoing progress to understand thoroughly about the healthcare project. Site visit to the NYU Langone Medical Center with the Healthcare team principal, Bryan Langlands, gave me an opportunity to explore from the top all the way down to the ground floor. Numerous utilities such as NICU, Mother-Baby, Observatory Room, Cafe, and open space were strategically placed in the building, at the same time, there were some points where patients were overflowing which critically needed renovation and allocation of the programs. In detail of the work flow, there were numerous ongoing expansion and new constructions such as the '333-339 E.38th Street' building that had to be carefully and collaboratively examined through case studies, test fit, and masterplanning: there were several test fits such as ortho, NICU, program swap, etc. Even an inch error in a healthcare project changes the whole story which gave me a great lesson of architectural draft skill is not only required for checkmarking FGI codes, but also is essential to craft a medical space for patients who are in need. The interesting part of the project is that the Medical Center has been going on a huge renovation and new construction after the Hurricane Sandy which immediately required new code and system that have had to be applied to the architecture right away. My urban design experience at Columbia University were mainly about water urbanism which relatively speaks together how climate change is applied to both architecture and urban design.

112 Healthcare Team (New York University Langone Medical Center)

Architects: NBBJ, Ennead Architects | Client: NYU Langone Medical Center | Program: Healthcare | Location: Kips Bay, New York, NY | Completion: 2018


NBBJ New York | Architectural Intern | Spring 2017 113 Principal: Bryan Langlands AIA, ACHA, EDAC, LEED GA


Not only working on the Langone Center but I also had a great opportunity to work on the NYU Lutheran expansion project, the Philadelphia Thomas Jefferson Hospital project, and managing existing and new FGI guidelines applying to projects.

54th Street

Ambulatory Inpatient

FUTURE AMBULATORY

PARKING GARAGE

Psych, Rehab, Sub-Acute Available for Future Development

? 55th

MAIN BUILDING PSYCH & REHAB

MOTHER / BABY & M/S

AMB. SURGERY CENTER & CLINICS

2nd Avenue

56th

1st Avenue

I had a valuable experience collaborating with Ennead Architects which manages NYU Medical Centers with NBBJ together. Due to different types of vacant lots and existing buildings such as parking lot and neighboring buildings with different ownership, there were various proposals for medical center's expansion including complex organization and relocation of existing and new medical programs. Evaluating and editing construction documents through Revit was also one of the important tasks that was given to me during my project involvement.

57th

CANCER

58th Street

For the Jefferson project, I was responsible to reiterate the existing 2D draft plan into an acute level height which can later be translated into a 3D model for a precise masterplan model. Rhino and grasshopper tool were used for checking any errors and go over every single model with their unique floor heights. Due to its early phase, there were many missing or undermined data that had to be carefully investigated with initial building information and old architectural drawings that were physically drawn by hand.

54th Street

Psych, Rehab, Sub-Acute PARKING GARAGE

MOTHER / BABY & M/S

Available for Future Development

55th

MAIN BUILDING PSYCH & REHAB

Programs Used SURFACE PARKING

(FUTURE AMBULATORY)

AMB. SURGERY CENTER & CLINICS

2nd Avenue

56th

1st Avenue

Langone Center Revit, AutoCAD, Bluebeam Revu, Powerpoint

57th

Lutheran Center AutoCAD, Illustrator, Bluebeam Revu, Powerpoint Jefferson Hospital Rhino 5, Grasshopper, Excel 114

NYU Lutheran Center Expansion Masterplan Block Study (Typical Proposals)

Ambulatory Inpatient

CANCER

58th Street


Philadelphia Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Masterplan Modeling Study | 2018 FGI Guidelines Code Revision Study

115


image credit: http://www.kpf.com/projects/lotte-world-tower

Lotte World Tower

Major Role: Master Planning, Structural Parts Safety Check, 3D Modeling Baum architect is a firm that has a passion for excellence. I had a great opportunity to join a team ‘Lotte Tower’ during my internship. Baum Architects is an associate firm of Kohn Pederson Fox’s Lotte Tower design project. I learned essential informations about high-rise building and its unique architectural characteristics that gave me a different lens of visualizing architecture. Autocad and Rhinoceros were the main tool integrating with Grasshopper and V-ray for examining and analyzing skyscraper. Site visit to the tower site in progress and practicing the use of material and structure such as mega columns were experiences that were different from normal architecture project. One of the main opportunity that was given to me was checking safety and stability through the tools from 96F to 123F (top). The first assigned work was to understand a basic structure and flow of the tower. The internship started with digital tools by creating core walls, steel-frame beams and slabs to understand easily. Since every floors have different sizes, there were a lot to learn that connection between megacolumn, slab and beam is essential and complex in a high-rise building. One of my duties was to check any hazard moments or inappropriate beams in the project. My principal sincerely requested to me that nothing is more important than safety, which I had a lot of pressure during couple weeks of inspection. Fortunately, couple days before submission, I have discovered couple crucial points that were using different size of beam that could have made the upper slab very unstable. Grasshopper program were used primarily to construct various sizes of column, slab and beam.

Programs Used AutoCAD, Rhino 5, Grasshopper, Powerpoint

116 Skyscraper Team (Lotte Tower)

Architects: Baum Architects, KPF | Client: Lotte Group | Program: Mixed-Use | Location: Seoul, South Korea | Completion: 2017


Baum Architects | Architectural Intern | Summer 2014 117 Principal: Si-Hyeong Kim


New York Townhouse and Residence

Major Role: Architectural Drafting, Test-fit Study, 3D Modeling & Rendering An architectural internship in Long Island City was a great opportunity that offered lessons of how typical residence buildings in New York are structured and how to design interior spaces in a compacted or opened area. Various tips of usage on architectural programs were given out as a structural basis. Working in a small team, I was able to directly communicate with the principals who guided and taught me useful information in an architecture field. The first project started off with having iterations of draft drawings such as elevations, sections, plans for the Brooklyn townhouse project. Due to its lack of space and already existing program and structures, altering the houses' interior was not an easy task to progress. This project gave me an experience of enhancing digital drafting skills and architectural plotting tactics. The Long Island residence project was a tougher but much familiar work flow for me since I was required to render the house simultaneously with collaborated discussions of material selection, structural mend, and design. Most of the progress was done through 3D modeling (Rhino) which I was already familiar. Not only thinking three-dimensionally, but also plotting out elevation, section, and plan drawings gave me a wider sense of working in both 3D and 2D.

Programs Used Brooklyn Townhouse AutoCAD Long Island Residence AutoCAD, Rhino 5, Vray, Photoshop

118 Core Team (New York Townhouse and Residence)

Architects: Simpson Jacoby Architecture | Client: New York Local Clients | Program: Residential | Location: Brooklyn & Long Island, New York


Simpson Jacoby Architecture | Architectural Intern | Summer 2015 119 Principal: Temple Simpson, Sarah Jacoby


liberty


LIBERTY MUSEUM NEW YORK

FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE | PEOPLE TO THE FREEDOM

ARCHASM COMPETITION 2016 SELECTED WORK HONORABLE MENTION

122 Liberty Museum, New York: Freedom to the People


Liberty Museum | New York Recall the Past, Revive the Present, Relief the Future

As a voice of liberty for freedom and a risk of discrimination arise simultaneously in our society, an acknowledgment of how history made us to this point, what kinds of organization are implementing their actions for freedom, and educating that every individual’s movement matters for the future become essential assets. The Liberty Museum with its project slogan, “Recall the past. Revive the present. Relief the future” contains four main clusters; outdoor landscape, information center, leisure hall, and cultural plaza. With the museum’s full circulation, the four categories maintain and intervene their identical themes by overlapping together to revamp into a hybrid formation, where seven consecutive visual connections stretch out toward existing structures such as monuments and buildings that represent agony and freedom. By virtue of those architectures such as the Empty Sky Memorial which has a directional corridor, these networks firmly integrate to the core of the museum where the central space interprets an aspiration of people who have fought for civil rights and social justice since the past, and its roofless idea becomes a guideline heading towards the sky representing liberty. As the museum becomes a central place where it accumulates the contexts of its periphery, more visitors and various activities which users can experience will raise up their voice that will lead this society one step towards to the future we urge to visualize freedom to the people.

ARCHASM Competition | Individual Participation | Dec. 2016 123


124

FOUR MAIN CLUSTERS

MAX SUNLIGHT EXTRUSION & MUSEUM CIRCULATION

SEVEN VISUAL SPREADS

VERTICAL PENETRATION & CENTRAL CORE SPACE

HORIZONTAL PENETRATION

GREEN SPACE & MUSEUM ENTRANCE

Development Phases of the Museum


Site Development

125


A’

B

C

C’

A B’

126

Top View Outline Sketch of Liberty Island


A - A’

B - B’

C - C’

Section Perspectives

127


128

View from the Center of the Museum to the Lady Liberty


View from the Museum to the NJ Holocaust Liberation Monument

129


dmz


132 DMZ Underground Bathhouse


DMZ Intertwined Bathhouse From Complexity to Simplicity

Border can be as simple as a line from one point to the other, but sometimes it is more complicated when we think of as a stroke that has separated the Korean peninsula. The demarcation line that separates the North and South Korea has constructed and defined a buffer zone, DMZ, and moreover two distinct cultures, economies, histories and people. This project attempts to reinterpret the border zone into an intertwined bath house where both sides can easily cross and experience the borders in order to acknowledge the simplicity and complexity of the artificial line. The site has an equal amount of area for both Northern and Southern territory. Rather than immediately designing a co-use space where it will boost up tension between North and South, two equally encroached spaces maintain as their own region and the embedded programs occur closely right next to a wall. Thus none of the places are physically connected, the only network that can occur between the North and South is through vision. The entrance for the southern territory passes right next to the northern side’s bath room where users will be able to hear the activity which sound is a start of network. And the place that both sides can see each other is located at the other side’s ground floor of the bath house but still the furthest point from one another. Vision is a furthest sense that human can reach out, and the bath house delivers for North and South users to stay closely on the underground together within a wall apart. The project braced with distinctive visualization moments demonstrates proximity to the other side yet inaccessible due to fragile circumstances. Architecture and urban design cannot fully resolve the ongoing crisis of the Korean peninsula, but rethinking the border condition can step ahead by envisioning Korea’s futuristic perspective and ultimate goal, unification. The demarcation line has defined separation, but visualizing borderless natural environment is the essential asset that could start to merge and understand the other, and redefine DMZ’s condition where no longer border is treated as an intimidating line but reveal back to its origin of complexity, simplicity.

ARCH OUT LOUD Competition | Individual Participation | Feb. 2017 133


134

Development Phases of the bathhouse


South Korean Listening to Industrial Park Worker Showering Across a Wall

135


136


Perspective from the Northern Territory by Visitors Accessed from South Korea

137


138

North Korea


South Korea

139


Dedicated To My Family I Love You


JUN SEONG AHN Columbia University Master of Science in Architecture and Urban Design ’17 Rhode Island School of Design Bachelor of Architecture ’16 | Bachelor of Fine Arts ’16


Jun Seong Ahn Portfolio  

Columbia University MSAUD Architecture and Urban Design Projects www.junahn.com

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you