Page 1

JUNFENG WANG | SELECTED WORKS | 2003-2013


JUNFENG WANG | SELECTED WORKS | 2003-2013


GSD WORKS | 2011-2013

Gallery Addition

Ornamental Space

Knot Surfaces

Brooklyn Campus

Manhattan Grids

PRE-GSD WORKS | 2003-2011

Celebrity Museum

Pond Pavilion

Revolving House

OTHER WORKS

Research | Fabrication

Internship

Floating Yards


JUNFENG WANG | SELECTED WORKS | 2003-2013


GSD WORKS | 2011-2013

Gallery Addition

Brooklyn Campus

Ornamental Space

Knot Surfaces

Manhattan Grids


MULTIPLICATION & UNIFICATION ART GALLERY ADDITION PROJECT 2013 Spring Location: Winnipeg Art Gallery, Winnipeg, Canada Type: Option studio design, individual Tutor: Preston Scott Cohen


Geometric Motivation The starting point of the project is to identify a geometric system in the existing building and then take it as the motivation for generating the addition geometry, either by following or transgressing the system. By doing so, the new part of the building will be able to inherit the deep gene of the old one, thus a close geometric relationship generated between the old and the new. The addition area locates at the rear side of the existing building, which has two distinctive triangular tips. The addition takes these two tips and their intersection point as the main geometric motivation, creating a radial pattern that forms the basic plan shape for the addition. Each floor of the addition part follows this basic geometric system while they are interacting with the existing gallery space.

before

after


| Unified Multiplicity | Three Types of Spaces with a Unified Facade The basic idea of the studio is to create pedagogy which will address a certain or several theoretical conundrums of contemporary architecture. The pedagogy in this project tries to deal with the relationship between multiplication and unification in architecture, namely how to unify different elements in architecture while still preserving the diversity they have produced. The first task is to compose one faรงade, the geometry of which unifies the following spatial typologies from the ground floor up: semi-urban residual space, cellular galleries and open plan gallery space. The facade should not only unify these spaces, but also manifest their presence. In order to achieve that, the boundary of the floor changes from jagged to smooth while it arises, which generates the unified facade by sweeping these varied boundaries.


Third Floor Plan

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1:200

First Floor Plan

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1:200

Basement Floor Plan

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1:200


Roof Plan

N

ROOF PLAN 1:200

Second Floor Plan

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1:200

Ground Floor Plan

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:200


Skylight Rooftop

Open Plan Gallery Space

Cellular Galleries

Semi-urban Residual Space

Unified Facade

Spatial Typologies


steps (parallel)

skylight windows (parallel)

gallery (radial)

ROOF PLAN 1:200

N

connection (radial)

| Unified Multiplicity || Parallelism and Radialism Within Spiralism The second task is to add a strong and consistent formal order, a spiral or radial progression, to the building and force it to mutate by meeting other formal or programmatic demands. The mutation should produce composite forms of duality or even multiplicity. In the project, the open plan gallery and the skylight rooftop forms a continual spiral system, which meets different functional demands by mutating between parallel and radial composition. Specifically, the spiral system starts from the gallery space, which follows the radial pattern of the lower floors, then it mutates into parallel steps which merges with the existing steps on the roof. After that the system again changes into radial pattern in order to quickly arise to the skylight rooftop. The whole system ends at the parallel skylight window, which provides the ideal path for the natural light to come into the gallery.

Rooftop after the addition


|| Redeployment | Low Entrance Except the unified multiplication, the project also tries to form a close relationship between the old and new. The main solution is to identify either a distinctive or hidden formal element in the existing building and redeploy it in the new building by means of anothÂŹer formal language. One of the formal elements is the existing extremely low entrance. The entrance of the addition adopts such lowness, yet with a new curvy language, which seemingly sucks the outside into the lobby space. This new formal language also tackles the way the building touches the ground when it tries to create the first spatial typology, which is the urban residual space.


|| Redeployment || Monumental Chimney The other formal element to redeploy is the existing chimney. Its monumentality has been largely neglected because of its peripheral location. The new addition and the existing gallery form a courtyard space which surrounds the chimney and enables it to be a centrally dominant figure. By doing so, the monumentality is redeployed with a formal language change from peripheral to central, from trivial to dominant.

Neglected Figure


Interior View 1

Interior View 2

Interior View 3

Dominant Figure


ORNAMENTAL SPACE APARTMENT DESIGN 2012 Fall Location: Boston Type: Option studio design, individual Tutor: Christian Kerez


Ornamental Space | Ornamental Structure Ornamental space promotes others while sacrificing itself. The traditional spatial hierarchies vanish, the space becomes trivial. Space frames the structure discrepantly, creating a tension between the feeling of relevance and alienation, the normal structure suddenly becomes unfamiliar and mysterious which visually and experientially dominates, while the space itself fades away into nothing. Ornamental space is a place with no clear direction, no decisive perspective. Everything or nothing could happen, people no longer perceive them as merely users, but more importantly participators, constantly discovering or encountering new moments in the space.

concrete structure

private space

concrete walls

public space


3rd floor

bathroom

living room

bathroom

entrance

4th floor

bedroom

kitchen

kitchen bedroom

entrance living room

bedroom

bathroom

5th floor

living room

6th floor

bathroom

kitchen living room

bedroom

entrance

entrance

kitchen

living room

bedroom

kitchen

7th floor

entrance

bathroom

living room

entrance

living room

bedroom

7th floor

bathroom

entrance

kitchen

living room

bathroom

entrance

kitchen bedroom

kitchen

bathroom

bedroom

7th floor

8th floor


5

entrance 1 3

2

entrance 2

public space

view 2 4

1

view 3

view 4

view 5

staircase view 1

staircase view 2

staircase view 3


private space 1

private space 2

private space 3


public space 1

public space 2

public space 3


Structure Composition

decorative concrete 6.4m 0.2m

4m

reinforcing bars

6.4m

5th-8th floor structure

structure unit

0.4m


KNOT SURFACES

GENERATIVE GEOMETRY MODELING 2012 Fall Type: Course assignments, collaboration Collaborator: Yuan Zhan Contribution: Concept 50%, analysis 40%, 3D modeling 60%, rendering 50%, final presentation 30% Tutor: Andrew Witt


knot curve

projection to ellipsoid

construct curves on the project

knot curve

projection to ellipsoid

connect curves with the bottom


tion plane

construct guide curves to smoothly connect ellipsoid with knot surface

construct knot spanning surface

m side of projection lines

construct all necessary curves

construct knot spanning surface with thickness


knot curve

projection to ellipsoid

construct curves at where kont ove

knot curve

projection to ellipsoid

pull curves to ellipsoid


erlaped

construct knot spanning surface with internal projection curves

knot spanning surface

construct knot spanning surface with pulled curves

construct knot spanning surface with thickness


Small Scale Geometry: Base Unit and Parametric Behavior

Unit Powercopy

Openess Vairation

Unit Powercopy

0.85

Depth Vairation 1:3

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern

Layer Multipication 1 layer

Unit Powercopy

Unit Powercopy

Unit Powercopy

Unit Powercopy

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern


Junfeng Wang, Yuan Zhan

Digital Media II | GSD 2224 Fall 2012

Openess Variation Openess Vairation 0.85

0.50

0.20

1:1

1:0.5

2 layers

3 layers

Depth Vairation Depth Variation 1:3

Layer Multipication Layer Multiplication 1 layer

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern

Aggregation Knowledge Pattern


One Layer

One Layer

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 1

Two Layers

Two Layers

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 0.3

Three Layers

Three Layers

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 0.3

Openness: Openness: 0.2, Depth: Openness: 0.3 0.5, 0.2, Depth: 0.3

Depth

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2 Openness: 0.5, Depth: 1 Openness: 0.5,

Depth

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.2, Depth: Openness: 0.3 0.8, Depth: 0.3 Openness: 0.2,

Depth

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2 Openness: 0.8, Depth: 1 Openness: 0.8,

Depth

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.2, Depth: Openness: 0.3 0.5, Depth: 0.3 Openness: 0.2,

Depth

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 1 Openness: 0.8, Depth: 1 Openness: 0.5,

Depth


Junfeng Wang, Yuan Zhan

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 0.3

Openness: 0.2, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 1

Openness: 0.5, Depth: 2

Openness: 0.8, Depth: 2

Digital Media II | GSD 2224 Fall 2012


CAMPUS AS CITY REVITALIZING CONEY ISLAND’S GROUND 2011 Fall Location: Brooklyn, NYC Type: Urban design core studio, collaboration Collaborator: Yi Tu Contribution: Concept 40%, analysis 50%, 3D modeling 80%, rendering 90%, final presentation 40% Tutor: Anita Berrizbeitia


Population Density

Commercial Centers

Brooklyn is the most populous in New York City region, with nearly 2.6 million residents.

By overlapping the dense population centers and the locations of vibrant urban quarters with higher FAR, we could clearly figure out that these two populous areas has the potential for denser development.


Brooklyn’s Belt Parkway acts as a paradigmatic 20th century mobility infrastructure and one of the most significant urban interventions along Brooklyn’s southwestern edge. Conceived of by Robet Moses as a critical link in his larger metropolitan parkway network, the Belt Parkway -- constructed between 1939 and 1941 -- follows roughly 35 miles of Brooklyn's western shore edge from Owl's Head to Whitestone. Functioning as a hybrid corridor, the Parkway integrated vehicular circulation, pedestrian and bike paths, parks and other civic amenities within a singular urban structure. Through this overlay of urban systems, the project was one of the first to frame the urban as a landscape -- providing New Yorkers with the opportunity to experience the picturesque qualities of their city from an urban edge, primarily through the lens of the private vehicle. Today, as New York City at large, continues to renew the city’s relation to the water, the time is right to rethink the role of the “Parkway” in the city and conceptualize a more updated set of relationships between the water’s edge, mobility infrastructures and the city at large. Our site locates on Coney Island, the south end of Brooklyn. It has great mobility, about 30-min of car-ride to the airports in this region. Unlike Manhattan’s vertical urban image, Brooklyn has a feature of great horizontality. Brooklyn was an independent city until 1898, with a distinct culture, independent art scene, and unique architectural heritage. The figuration of Brooklyn is highly influenced by topography. Our site is one of the 7 big open spaces with an area of 55 hectares’, one fourth of the area of Prospect Park. Most open space had already become parks and cemeteries while our site is the last big vacant land that is available for development in Brooklyn.

Figuration

Most open space had already become parks and cemeteries; our site is the last big vacant land that is available for development in Brooklyn.

Open Space System

Adjacent to the Coney Island creek, the site locates in an important location in the large hydrological system. The center of the creek was filled in for construction of the Belt Parkway before World War II.


Out of Scale

External Traffic

Fragmentation

Field Force

Contamination

Connection

Challenges on Site

Site


Block Strategy By studying typical models of urban block typologies in our site, different types of urban block prototypes are used to measure the possibility of our strategies. According to the typical urban block scale on site, we choose the scheme of dividing the 450m x 250m super block into six 145m x 145m blocks, which occupies the ground of each public housing and creates new podiums for vibrant public activities. Existing subway infrastructure takes up a 400m length long side of the avenue, which is available to be divided into three 145m long urban blocks with better pedestrian permeability and more flexibility for embedding new programs. Those super-blocks on site will be transformed into open urban quarters via urbanistic approaches above. More street frontages will be created. Several new public spaces will be created and inter-connected into network. Extending and integrating this urbanistic action into adjacent public amenities would create significant anchor points; bring more pedestrian flows and activities over time.


Masterplan The campus, as one entity, connects the creek and beach. It builds interaction between two riverfronts. By reconstructing wetland, the new park will perform as a machine of processing and purifying waste water. New landforms will reduce the visual effect of belt parkway and provide stages for sculpture and temporary activities. A stripe of urban plazas formed by subway terminal and complex of outdoor theatre, institute and commercial, with wetland plaza and the new performance art park, builds pedestrian connection from the creek to the boardwalk. The linear neighbor park performs as corridor from the wetland to the amusement park. New podiums have different programs as museum, library, artist studio and retail. Galleries and new commercials will convert this corner into a new civic urban space.


Vehicular Circulation

Resident's Circulation

Visitor's Circulation

North South Section


Campus

4

3 2 1

3. Lawn + Theatre

4. Wetland + Pavilion Wetland + Pavilion

Lawn + Theatre

1. Plaza + Commercial

2. Lawn + Institute Lawn + Institute

Plaza + Commercial

Dec 08, 2011

Yi Tu, Junfeng Wang

Campus

5 6 7

8

5. Studio + Exhibition

8. Beach + Performance Park Beach + Performance Park

7. Plaza + Gallery Plaza + Gallery

Studio + Exhibition

6. Studio + Library Studio + Library

Dec 08, 2011

Yi Tu, Junfeng Wang


REDEFINE THE EDGE REDESIGN WATER EDGE OF THE MANHATTAN GRIDS 2012 Spring Location: Manhattan, NYC Type: Urban design option studio, collaboration Collaborator: Yi Tu Contribution: Concept 60%, analysis 50%, modeling 100%, final presentation 40% Tutor: Anita Berrizbeitia


1750

1856

1909

The port developed in a peace meal way

1856 Commission for the Preservation of the Harbor makes recommendations for the establishment of pier and bulkhead lines

1880 Chelsea Piers

1857 no one is allowed to build a pier without permission from the city 1870 the establishment of the NYC Department of Docks, to formulate a master plan for the waterfront and to oversee its systematic development 1880 Chelsea Piers

1880 Olmsted’s Riverside Park completed

1900s, NYC became one of the world’s major internation ports 1931 West Side Highway completed 1937 the Henry Hudson Parkway is completed

1930s shipping began to dis appear from western edge.

1880 Olmsted’s Riverside Park completed

Historical Evolution

Commision’s Plan

The Water edge | Grids Relation

Pier Begins

Railway


nal

s-

1960

2012

The deterioration of the piers began in 1950 and completed in 1960

1981, construction began at Battery Park City

1963 “Ebasco” (1962-2000)Plan, a comprehensive proposal for the entire Hudson River waterfront from Battery to West 72nd Street. 1966, the Lower Manhattan Plan

1992, The NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan released 1995, Hudson River Park Plan, three “nodes of development” 1996, the construction of Route 9A began

1973, the Miller Highway collapsed 1974, five proposals for the West Highway 1976, VSB proposed Westway Park; the landfilling for Battery Park City was completed

Elevated Highway

Expressway, Disappearing Piers


Current situation---Eight Lanes

01 Transforming the infrastructure for covinient passing through

Current Situation

Tunnel

current situation

02 Recycling ending points (piers) for continious visual and pedestrian access

Stock

Courtyard

Bar

Terrace

Deck

Landscape

tunnel

Bridge

bridge

Park

Principles

Three Testing Sites

transitional green space


03 Reconstructing ending points (piers) with low densesity, continuous fabric

04 Connecting the piers via pedestrian access

05

Waterfront Developments

Promenade

Building Developments

waterfront density

Platforms

promenade

Square

Open Space Network

Building

landscape node

building density

open space

waterfront activity

Landscape Nodes

Reorganizing adjacent blocks by small scale urbanistic interventions

open space netw

wwwvv Nodes

architecture

infrastructure nod


Site 1: Exhibition Spaces + Commercial

Site 2: Entertainment Complex

Conceptual Section | Site 1

Conceptual Section | Site 2

Model

Model


Site 3: Institution + Campus

Conceptual Section | Site 3

Model


JUNFENG WANG | SELECTED WORKS | 2003-2013


PRE-GSD WORKS | 2003-2011

Celebrity Museum

Pond Pavilion

Revolving House

Floating Yards


BURIED MEMORY CELEBRITY MUSEUM Sept. 2005 Location: Hangzhou, China Type: Studio design, individual Tutor: Associate Prof. Chen Xiang


DYNAMIC PATH POND PAVILION Aug. 2009 Location: Beijing, China Type: Parametric design workshop, collaboration Collaborators: Ma Zhiliang, Wu Liang, Sheng Bo Contribution: Concept 70%, analysis 30%, 3D modeling 50%, rendering 40%, final presentation 50% Tutor: Nikolaus Wabnitz


REVOLVING HOUSE RESIDENCE COMPETITION Nov. 2008 Location: Hypothetical graden city Type: Competition design, individual Tutor: Prof. Luo Qingping


FLOATING YARDS RESIDENCE DESIGN Sept. 2008 Location: Hangzhou, China Type: Studio design, individual Tutor: Associate Prof. Chen Fan


JUNFENG WANG | SELECTED WORKS | 2003-2013


OTHER WORKS

Research | Fabrication

Internship


RESEARCH | FABRICATION Project 1: Eco-Surface (2011 Fall, collboration with Lin Peng)

R

moss

1

rain collection

3

2

4

window

irrigation pipe

807 901 978 1037

r

1

2

3

4

water R 4 3

2

6.5

5

2

3.5

1

2 3.5 5 6.5

h

1

2

3

4

Aiming to improve the ability of the building surface to absorb the solar radiation and make the heat evenly distributed on the faรงade, a module is developed to populate on the building surface. The module has four variations with different ability of absorbing the radiation. The facade would be divided into units according to the thermograph that analyzed in Ecotect.The facade is connected by a network of irrigation pipes. The Eco-Surface, therefore, is an integrated system that reflects not only the heat accumulation on the building facade, but also the physical characteristic of the wall. Different ways of fabrication were applied to develop the Eco-Surface, including laser cutting, 3D Rapid prototyping and CNC milling. In the process, the possibility of different materials were also carefully examined in order to explore the potential of the design.

3D Rapid Prototyping

CNC Milling

3D Rapid Prototyping

Laser Cutting with Plexi Glass


12-35_39

Project 2: Manhattan Grids / Understanding Complexity (2012 Spring, collboration with Ashkan Sedigh) 12

12

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

12

1

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

23

23

23

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

52 51 50

52 51 50

49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

23

23

23

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

41 40

41 40

39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49

39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49

48 34 47 33 32 46 31 45 30 44 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38 23 37

48 34 47 33 32 46 31 45 30 44 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38 23 37

36 35

36 35

36 35

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

52 51 50

52 51 50

49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42

41 40 39 38 37 36 35

41 40 39 38 37 36 35

41 40 39 38 37 36 35

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

DENSITY OF BLOCKS

TYPE 1

Building Area: 1000 ft 2 lot Area: 457788 ft 2 FAR: 0.00

TYPE 2

Building Area: 600006 ft 2 lot Area: 599210 ft 2 FAR: 1.00

TYPE 3

Building Area: 797608 ft 2 lot Area: 550512 ft 2 FAR: 1.45

TYPE 4

Building Area: 471247 ft 2 lot Area: 161386 ft 2 FAR: 2.92

0-3

TYPE 5

TYPE 6

TYPE 7

TYPE 8

TYPE 9

As part of the “Rethinking the Manhattan Grids” studio, the first research “Scanning: Plan versus Reality” on the right compares the current Manhattan plan to the 1811 Commissioner Plan to find out the physical differences between these two plans; the second research “Understanding Complexity” on the left analyzes one of the six topics which are infrastructure, topography, density, land use, demography and historical evolution. The study of the six topics was turned into the physical model through the effort of the whole studio members.

TYPE 1

TYPE 2

TYPE 3

TYPE 1

TYPE 2

TYPE 3

9-32.33

10-29.30

8-32.33

9-32.33

10-29.30

10-27.28

8-27.28

TYPE 4

TYPE 5

TYPE 6

8-32.33

11-40.41 11-44_46

2.3-35_37

2-27_29

TYPE 12

Building Area: 1518132 ft 2 lot Area: 411065 ft 2 FAR: 3.69

Building Area: 624122 ft 2

Building Area: 941937 ft 2

lot Area: 120797 ft 2 FAR: 5.17

lot Area: 170539 ft 2 FAR: 5.52

Building Area: 972045 ft 2 lot Area: 165828 ft 2 FAR: 5.86

Building Area: 601471 ft 2 lot Area: 101697 ft 2 FAR: 5.91

TYPE 11

8-27.28

10-27.28 6-41.42

9-41.42

2-27_29 10-32.33

9-41.42

10-32.33

7-38.39 2-41_44 11-36_39

TYPE 8

TYPE 5

3-6

TYPE 10

TYPE 12

TYPE 3

6-41.42

TYPE 14

2-24.25

2-38_40

9-27_29

2-31_33

TYPE 4

TYPE 10

TYPE 1

TYPE 2

4.5-43_46 2-24.25

TYPE 7

Building Area: 819413 ft 2 lot Area: 130895 ft 2 FAR: 6.26

Building Area: 1051177 ft 2 lot Area: 149213 ft 2 FAR: 7.04

Building Area: 1537340 ft 2 lot Area: 158000 ft 2 FAR: 9.73

TYPE 13

TYPE 14

9-24.25

6-49_51

11-31_33

TYPE 13

TYPE 9

11-23_30

9-27_29

2-31_33

TYPE 6

6-10

9-24.25

TYPE 11

11-31_33

1-50.51

FAR: 0~5

FAR: 5~10 FAR: 10~15 FAR: 15~20 FAR: 20~

12-35_39

Residential

Mixed Use Open Space & Outdoor Recreation

10-34_42

Commercial Institutions

Building Area: 2134736 ft 2 lot Area: 165200 ft 2 FAR: 12.92

Building Area: 3217609 ft 2 lot Area: 160666 ft 2 FAR: 20.03

Industrial

5-37.38

Parking Transportation & Utilities

10+

Vacant Lots

12-35_39

12

12

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

12

1

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

23

23

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

33 47 32 46 45 31 44 30 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38

33 47 32 46 45 31 44 30 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

23

23

23

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

23

23

23

23 37 36 35 34

23 37 36 35 34

TYPE 4

TYPE 5

TYPE 6

11-44_46

2.3-35_37

11-44_46

2.3-35_37

11-40.41 7-38.39 2-41_44 11-36_39

7-38.39 2-41_44 11-36_39 2-38_40

4.5-43_46 11-23_30

6-49_51

4.5-43_46 11-23_30

6-49_51 1-50.51

1-50.51 10-34_42 5-37.38

10-34_42

Grid Evolution

Topography

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49 34 48

33 47 32 46 45 31 44 30 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38

TYPE 5

5-37.38

1

42 41 40 39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49 34 48

TYPE 4

2-38_40

2

42 41 40 39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49 34 48

TYPE 6

Demography

1

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34

11-40.41

Density

2

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

23 37 36 35 34

Land Use

1

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43

42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35

41 40 39 38 52 37 51 36 50 35 49 48 34 47 33 32 46 31 45 30 44 29 43 28 42 27 41 26 40 25 39 24 38 23 37

vacant

2

52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43


INTERNSHIP WORKS


JUNFENG WANG

11 Peabody Terrace, Apt 1301, Cambridge, MA 02138 (857) 600-5880 wjfarc@gmail.com

EDUCATION 2011-2013 2003-2011

Harvard University Graduate School of Design, US •Master of Architecture in Urban Design, May, 2013

Zhejiang University, China

•Master of Architecture, June, 2011 •Bachelor of Architecture, June, 2008

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 04-09/2010

06-08/2009

03-06/2008 05-08/2007

Intern

Studio Tiziano Pucci Architetto, Empoli, Italy

•Assisted with construction documents for the Real Villani Apartment project. •Assisted with interior design, modeling and rendering for the Disegno Baglieri House project. •Assisted with computer modeling for the Lantico Borgo House and the Le Tagliate Residence projects. •Assisted with detail survey of traditional Tuscany houses in Montorsoli

Architectural Design and Research Institute of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China Intern

•Assisted with concept design, modeling and rendering for the Training School of Government project.

Intern

Zone Architecture Design Corporation, Hangzhou, China

•Assisted with conceptual and detail design for a series of renovation projects.

South Architecture Design Co.Ltd., Hangzhou, China

Intern

•Assisted with concept development, CAD drawings of plans and sections for the Ningbo Aierni Complex project. •Assisted with concept design of community center for the Xian Olympic Residence project.

EXHIBITION & PUBLICATION 2012 2012 2011

Urban Design Student Work, Harvard GSD Website •Selected work: Redefine the West Water Edge of the Manhattan Grid

Elements of Urban Design 2011: Brooklyn

•Selected work: Campus as City: Revitalizing Coney Island’s Ground

Architecture & Culture Journal, 07/2011

•Published paper: Restoration and Maintenance of “Historical Expression” in Old Buildings’ Facade Renovation


HONORS 08/2007

Advanced Individual in Social Practice Award, Zhejiang University

2006-2007

3rd Prize for Excellent Academic Scholarship, Zhejiang University 3rd Prize for Excellent Undergraduate Scholarship, Zhejiang University Excellent All-Round Student Award, Zhejiang University

2004-2005

2nd Prize for Excellent Academic Scholarship, Zhejiang University ACTIVITIES & INTERESTS

02/2009 12/2008 08/2007 08/2007

Global Elite Leadership Training Program, Hong Kong

Trainee

•Selected by IAESTE China and Hong Kong Baptist University, successfully completed practical training and was highly praised for excellent teamwork.

IAESTE China, Shanghai

Assistant

•Recruited Chinese companies to offer oversea internships for foreign students. •Interviewed Chinese applicants to test their English proficiency.

Academic and Cultural Exchange Program, UCLA, LA

Trainee

•Selected for a student exchange program in California. Participated in language training and academic exchange for one month.

Volunteer, Beijing 2008 Olympics, UCLA, LA

Leader

•Organized activities with team members and local Americans to support 2008 Beijing Olympics. Awarded the title of “Advanced Individual in Social Practice” by Zhejiang University for active work in activities.

SKILLS Language

Chinese Mandarin (native), English (fluent in speaking and writing)

Software

Modeling •Proficiency in AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, SketchUp, Rhinoceros, Grasshopper, V-Ray

Graphics

•Proficiency in Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign

Animation

•Proficiency in After Effects, Premiere, Soundbooth

Fabrication

•DeskArtes, Mastercam


Junfeng Wang_Portfolio  

Junfeng Wang's architectural and urban design 2003-2013

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you