KEVIN FITZGERALD TEACHING PORTFOLIO First Year Architectural Design
Kevin Glenn Fitzgerald firstname.lastname@example.org 404.933.6845 3385 Sugar Valley Trail Alpharetta, GA 30022
I chose to attend the University of Florida Graduate School of Architecture with the hopes that I could become a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA). UF provides the unique opportunity for a select number of graduate students to have a major role in teaching first year design students, an opportunity rarely given at other universities. At UF, first year design studios are taught by a professor and a duo of GTA’s, the three of whom share planning and teaching responsibility. Throughout my four semesters of teaching my role as a teacher has expanded greatly, becoming a leader in the classroom who can be trusted to develop project curriculum, teach technical skills of modeling and drafting, introduce design vocabulary, lead class critiques and project reviews, and facilitate the daily functions of the class. I was chosen as the CORE program GTA for the Fall 2011 and Fall 2012 semesters, and received the Design Graduate Teaching Award for the Fall 2011- Spring 2012 Academic Year. I felt that making this portfolio was important because of the tremendous value I have gained from teaching. While I hardly foresaw myself in this role during my undergraduate years, it has emerged as a passion of mine, and something I can see myself involved with throughout my professional career. The amount I have learned from both the faculty and student body has made teaching the most rewarding aspect of my academic career. My approach to teaching comes directly from the inspiring professors I have taught under. As a designer and a teacher, I am continually searching to find connections between conceptual reasoning and design decision-making. The structure of the design studio and GTA system provides an environment for open dialogue between students and teachers, one which allows students to express, develop, refine, and formalize their work through a collaborative process. I have learned the value in developing assignments that encourage independent and creative thinking, yielding a range of work that will serve to challenge the other work produced as well as the assignment itself. This open-ended approach to project development breeds creativity and expands the potential of what the project can become. Rather than trying to impose a particular style or result, I provoke students to question the things that are being made. Developing students’ abilities to ask the right questions of their own work and of others is extremely valuable to the designing process. I believe that one of my greatest responsibilities as a teacher is maximizing the opportunity for students to learn from one another. My greatest strengths as a teacher are my ability to actively listen to those around me, create challenging assignments while foreseeing the development of a project, distinguish and explore the strengths of a students’ work, and express myself clearly and directly. This teaching portfolio is designed to illustrate my experience in teaching first year Architectural Design at UF, which is composed of two studio courses: Design 1 and Design 2. Each of the six projects displayed begins with an introduction of the project, its process, objectives, and skills introduced, and is followed by examples of student work with supporting text. Project curriculum and descriptions listed in this portfolio are directly from studios I have helped teach, and are a collaborative effort between myself, the professors, and GTA’s I have worked with. Teaching first year design has changed the way I see architecture, both in my own designs as well as in the things around me. The concepts taught through these six projects provide a foundation for understanding the perception and creation of meaningful space.
/ Architectural Design 1
Design One is the first in a series of undergraduate studios focused on exploring the fundamental issues of design. The course curriculum is designed to introduce and develop the skills that will foster the perception, comprehension, and design of meaningful space through model making, drafting, and sketching. The course is built around the idea of learning through making, using the iterative making of models and drawings to stress the value of the design process. Design One challenges students to actively conceptualize their work and develop a logic for decision making with respect to their design intent.
Projects_ Cube Matrix Room and Garden Semesters Taught_ Fall 2010 Fall 2011* Fall 2012*
page 11 page 23 page 37
under Professor Bradley Walters under Professor Mark McGlothlin under Professor Lisa Huang
* Semesters served as the CORE GTA, an accellerated program simultaneously teaching the fundamentals of Design 1 and Design 2.
/ Architectural Design 2
Design Two is a drawing intensive course focused on the value of analysis: both as a means of understanding the conceptual logic or process of something existing, and as a means of serving as a generator for something new. Students are challenged to analyze existing objects, buildings, and fields to discover their inner logic. This analytical process is reflective, breaking down existing things to extract its meaning and understand its reasoning. A portion of Design Two is dedicated to developing the ability of freehand sketching. Various techniques are introduced to foster the perception between hand-and-eye and encourage the utilization of sketching as a design tool.
Projects_ Object Analysis Building Analysis Campus Analysis Semesters Taught_ Spring 2012
page 51 page 61 page 73
under Professor Mark Mcglothlin
Design Vocabulary 7
Elements Operational Terms (verbs)
Direction / Orientation
• point • line • plane
• element • systems (+ systematic) • assemblage • framework • hierarchy: primary / secondary / tertiary • permeable / impermeable • transparent / translucent / opaque • light / heavy • mass / void • additive / subtractive • armature
• nodal / radial / central (centrifugal / centripetal) • linear / axial • grid / field / zone / district / territory
• grain • dimension / proportion (height / width / depth) • direction / trajectory / vector(s) • horizontal / vertical • orthogonal • angular / askew • curvilinear / circular / polar • twisting / torsional
• align • shear / tear • displace / interrupt / break / fragment • intersect / weave / interlock • fold / hinge • torque • rotate / bend / skew • expand / contract • overlap / penetrate • frame • extrude / project / extend • anchor • register • flip / invert • contrast • reciprocate • intervene / insert • map • interrogate / investigate / probe / analyze
Operational Terms (verbs)
Movement + Phenomena
• semantics / meaning • syntax / structure • idea / concept / parti • strategy / tactic / diagram • analogy / metaphor • articulation • operational
• axis / datum • center / node / focal point • intersection • compression / expansion • open / enclosed • layer / stratification • balance: symmetry / asymmetry • enclosure / envelope • linkage / connection • seam / joint / threshold • opening /aperture • static / dynamic / tension • proximate / adjacent • displacement • edge / margin / periphery / boundary • topology
• align • shear / tear • displace / interrupt / break / fragment • intersect / weave / interlock • fold / hinge • torque • rotate / bend / skew • expand / contract • overlap / penetrate • frame • extrude / project / extend • anchor • register • flip / invert • contrast • reciprocate • intervene / insert • map • interrogate / investigate / probe / analyze
• proportion / large / small • module / measure / rhythm / pattern • intimate /expansive
• light / dark • itinerary / sequence / procession / path • context / place / loci / topos • time / progression • serial • pace / tempo / rhythm • acceleration / deceleration • repetition • approach: frontal / oblique • arrival • threshold / entry / portal / gateway • anticipate / initiate / terminate
Design 1 is the first in a series of undergraduate studios focused on exploring the fundamental issues of design. As a vehicle for exploration, the semester is divided into three projects, each of which introduces a new set of skills or design motivated concepts while building off of the lessons learned in previous projects. 9
The foundation of the pedagogy at the University of Florida is the idea that students will learn through making, suggesting that these projects will provoke a series of questions that the students must explore often through drawing or model making. Making, rather than a lecture-based approach to design learning, allows students to conceptualize their ideas, explore them through the design process, and develop a hands-on understanding of space-making. The design process is stressed as a critical component of the course to reinforce this idea of iterative making. Within each project, the work is driven to build upon itself, often refining and clarifying initial design concepts while layering new information. Throughout this process students gain the ability to analyze their previous work, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in conveying their intent. As a teacher, much of my role is facilitating that process- engaging in critical conversation with the things being made, provoking the questioning that may help generate a set of answers rather than providing the answers myself. Much of first year design is taught through informal conversation and critique. Each class, the studentsâ€™ work is displayed and discussed openly amongst students and teachers. The successes and failures of the work both in terms of conceptual approach and physical manifestation typically dictate the focus of the discussion and direction of the upcoming assignments. For these reasons, the design curriculum cannot be fully developed prior to the course. It is my job as a teacher to actively recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the assignments and the resultant work, making adjustments along the way to maximize not just the quality of the work, but what the students can learn from it. While each of the three Design 1 projects can be refined to the idea of space making, it is explored in many ways. New technical skills and design vocabulary are continually introduced, layered into the assignments to challenge a studentsâ€™ means of perceiving and creating space. Each project seeks to expand the scope of how students may approach design by continually introducing challenging skill sets and design methodologies.
D1 Architectural Design 1
Mengjze Zhu / Spring 2012
Duration: _4 weeks
Cube is a model driven project that uses the integration of planar and linear systems of construction to create a spatial cubic volume. Because Cube is the first project using these physical materials, there is a heavy focus on techniques of tectonic assemblage: creating joints that are both spatial and structural. As the project progresses and grows in scale, material thickness becomes more integral in establishing hierarchy of structural systems. Students are also introduced to woodshop for cutting of thicker poplar wood planes.
Because Cube is about the practice of space-making, initial conversation and in-class exercises focus on the topic of space, in terms of how we may come to recognize it, understand the things that define it, and eventually how we may go about creating it.
Planar system: Basswood sheets_ thickness from 1/32” to 1/4” Chipboard _1ply, 2ply Poplar wood_ thickness from 1/4” to 1/2” Bristol Paper Linear system: Basswood linear members_ thickness from 1/32” to 1/4”
Project Goals: 13
_Explore the design of dynamic spatial relationships within a given cubic boundary. _Introduce fundamental design vocabulary. The first project of Design 1, Cube, uses an implied cubic boundary as the vehicle for the exploration of spatial relationships. As an introduction to the design world, the project provides an introduction to fundamental design terminology as well as the primary skills of model-making.
To inspire a logic for thinking and making space, students are given vocabulary terms which serve as the generator for spatial development. As the project advances, new vocabulary is introduced and the spatial manifestation of these terms is explored in multiple ways. To engage the students in the process of conceiving, designing, and understanding space, Cube is a model-intensive project that evolves out of a process of iterative making. Rather than developing a single cube throughout the process of the project, students are asked to continually rethink their work by creating new models. While we as designers always anticipate the fruition of our ideas, we cannot fully understand the breadth of it until it takes physical form. Throughout the process of the project assignments are designed to challenge the way students see the things they have made. Switching between drawing and modeling, introducing new design vocabulary, and expanding the project scale all serve to expand the potential of the project’s direction. Through iterative making students have the opportunity to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their work, refine their conceptual approach, and develop a cohesive project to represent their design ideas.
Basics of two-dimensional hand drafting such as section and elevation drawings are taught early in the project as a means for students to see the things they have physically created in a new, potentially generative way. Approaching the final stages of the project threedimensional axonometric drawings are taught allowing students to illustrate and diagram concentrated ideas within their project, usually related to vocabulary or tectonics.
Process An in-class exercise on day one of class gives each student a single 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper with the simple instructions, “Make space.” While each student has the same amount of material and same instructions, the results provide an insight as to how “space” is initially imagined. This exercise is repeated, usually with minor adjustments or additions to the directions such as “Make space- within an implied cubic boundary.” As the class compares their results with each iteration, discussion is generated about how we identify something as being spatial, and how we may go about the process of creating those conditions. The beginning of the cube project asks students to spatially represent a set of vocabulary terms through a series of 3” cubic constructs. For example, students may be asked to make models that represent the terms: expansion/compression, or shear/shift. These “cubes” will be physically created using planar and linear material.
models however, the range of scales in which students are now challenged to operate expands greatly, and students must now understand how this diversity in scale plays a role in changing the physical and spatial makeup of their work. Armature is introduced as a term meant to establish a hierarchy between systems of construction. Within a finished 9” cube, armature as a primary system is suggested through material thickness and tectonic assemblage. The final work consists of a 9” x 9” x 9” cubic model, two perpendicular section cuts which clearly demonstrate the central concepts of the project, and a series of axonometric drawings which diagram the model for varying ideas of tectonic assemblage and representation of vocabulary.
The scale of the cube is undefined, rather it has only relative scale to the tectonics and spaces that compose it, but has no scalar dimension. Each student is given a “kit of parts”, composed of basswood linear and planar members in order to complete the assignment. Similar to the single 8.5” x 11” paper exercise done in class, the “kit of parts” is valuable because it allows students to visually understand the range of results given the same amount of physical material. The kit of parts also forces students to utilize a given quantity of linear and planar material. In the first assignment, students are asked to construct 3 cubes: one of purely linear material, one of purely planar material, and one a hybrid of both. Through this methodology students can form an understanding of the spatial implications and physical connections of each material on its own and as a collective construction. The progression of the work and cultivation of ideas is challenged directly through class discussion. Students are continuously asked to present their ideas and the cubes that represent them. Projects are critiqued and compared amongst one another for their similarities and differences. These types of discussions allow students to see the large variety in how the given vocabulary may be interpreted spatially and manifested physically. As the project evolves, the physical scale of the cubic dimension grows: from 3” to 6”, and eventually to 9”. With the physical transformation or growth comes the increasing importance of hierarchy, both in terms of volumetric and material scale. The 3” cubic boundary only provides a minimal amount of volume to explore diversity of space. Within larger volumetric
Sara Vecchione / Fall 2011 Implied volumes made from shifting planes create spaces that fold and weave into each other. Expansion and compression establish spatial hierarchy as an armature piece grounds a planar system and a linear system. As they each emerge from the armature, they both work independently to make spaces that flow into each other. As these systems expand through the cubeâ€™s main axis, they start compressing as they find each other to create a highly dense space that balances and contracts the large space created by the armature, thus giving the cube a balance.
Axonometric / All
Axonometric / Armature
Axonometric / Planar Axonometric / Linear
Michael Stoop / Fall 2011 The cube is a basic exploration of spacial concepts, focused on the movement of space and a hierarchy of primary, secondary, and tertiary spaces. The scheme of the cube was developed over many process models. To demonstrate, the vertical space and the adjacent primary space that can be seen in the bottom right corner of the photo of the final cube, and in every process cube. This spacial sequence informed the armature, as can be seen in the sketches on the next page, and led to the final composition of the model.
Robert Sato / Fall 2012 The cube project revolved around the definition of space and hierarchy of space. In order to establish the hierarchy of spaces I decided to compress the tertiary spaces and expand into the primary space through the use of the planar and linear systems. In order to avoid the impression of the space becoming flat I shifted the position of the planar pieces in relation to other planar pieces and the armature to imply the boundaries for space. The greater amount of space implied through the shifting of pieces allowed the compression of space to be better defined. When working with the primary space I wanted to avoid compartmentalizating too much of the space within to the point where the tertiary and primary space would be unrecognizable. Here I decided to try and imply the enclosure of the primary space rather than compressing the implied space through the linear systems.
Anh Tran / Fall 2012 The cube project is the foundation of all projects as it focuses on the creating of spaces and the relationships between them. The main focus for the concept of my cube project is the designing of space through armature, hierarchy, contrast, shifting/ shearing of space, and enclosure.
Adiel Benitez / Fall 2012
Final Cube Models
Emily Whitbeck / Fall 2012
Anastasia VanDyke / Fall 2012
Kate Fisher / Fall 2012
Dijana Milenov / Spring 2012
Duration: _3-4 Weeks
_To explore a more open-ended thinking field based on Cartesian space that transcends the finite boundaries of the cube. _To develop the ability to communicate significant architectural and philosophical ideas. _To more rigorously examine the bases for decision making in the design process. _To organize and understand space, time, and materiality in conjunction with one another. _To develop the ability to perceive and model fundamental spatial orders in the build environment.
_Matrix: Something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops.
While the Cube project explores the creation of space within a confined boundary, the Matrix sets out to investigate a series of spatial relationships in unbound space. The Matrix project differs from the Cube not only in its form, but in its process and conceptual approach. The Matrix project is based on the concept that we can analyze and extract valuable information from something else. The ambiguity of that “something” in many ways speaks to the beauty of the projects’ conception, suggesting that the “something” can perhaps be anything, and that there is information, meaning, and understanding to be found in everything around us. The project begins with the introduction of a generator from which information will be extracted. As we search to extract that information, we can begin to distill, refine, and generate from the spatial relationships identified. Much like the Cube, the Matrix is understood without dimensional scale, meaning the points, lines, fields, territories, and systems which compose the matrix are spatially understood relative to one another. The work developed throughout each assignment is what drives the project forward. The “generators” that initiated the birth of the Matrix is inevitably forgotten as each new step is analyzed and layered, allowing the key concepts of the project to emerge in time.
The Matrix explores an unbound, layered, and complex set of relative spatial information. Rather than refined and calculated in its precise form, it is an evolving palimpsest of points, lines, and fields. To appropriately explore these ideas physically, the Matrix uses soldered piano wire to establish a primary linear system. The inherent physical characteristics of piano wire lends itself to a quicker, less precise construction with unbound extents. To further suggest ideas of layering and zones, a secondary language of planar material is incorporated within the model. Various types of planar material have been explored through the design process, each presenting their own advantages and disadvantages both physically and spatially. Bristol, Chipboard, and Plexiglas have all been experimented as the wire’s linear counterpart, and while none of the three create natural joints with wire, they all introduce new ways to go about creating joints and reading relationships within the Matrix. For example: Bristol and wire must be highly dependent upon one another, woven through folded planes, notched slits, and sandwiched wires. The physical limitations of the two materials must be seen as an opportunity to re-imagine the possibilities for creation. Plexiglas introduces a level of transparency which builds spatial depth within the model. Treating the plexiglas by scoring, frosting, or toning with stickyback adds alternate means of layering information into the project. Linear System: Piano Wire Planar System: Plexiglas_ thickness from 1/32” to 1/4” Bristol Paper
Drafting + Digital:
Much of the Matrix’s progression relies on the process of layering, editing, and transforming existing work to expand on and re-imagine project ideas. To explore this in as many ways possible, students are introduced to basic editing techniques in Adobe Photoshop. In an effort to continually change the way students can read into the things they have already made, often assignments are created which force the interplay between physical model building, photographing, hand drafting and toning, and photoshopping. This utilization of various media allows students to become familiar with many ways of progressing their work while building a richness to the hybrid product.
Process Given only the definition of Matrix, students are asked to bring in printed online examples of what they believe the idea of “Matrix” to be. The results cover an enormous range of ideas, from city maps to constellations, computer chips to abstract paintings. The class discussion of Matrix helps us understand that there is information, logic, order, and meaning behind all of these things. We can read into them both for what they are and what they are not. The Matrix begins by challenging students to analyze, diagram, and extract information from a given generator. Much like the brought in examples of “Matrix”, there are endless potential options for this generator being that it is simply meant to initiate the process of cultivating design ideas that will soon grow on their own. This first step in the matrix introduces diagramming to the students as an exercise of breaking down something existent in effort to better understand its components and internal logic.
formed between moment and field. As the final stages of Matrix unfold, the project typically finalizes itself through one of two directions: (1) A focus on detail with small-scaled moments that in time find their organization with one another in a larger scaled field, or (2) A focus on a field condition that when continuously layered and advanced begins to develop smaller scaled moments in space. It is critical that through both directions students can thoroughly investigate scalar hierarchy. Final work for the Matrix project typically includes a model made up of a wire and planar system, and a series of two dimensional drawings that serve to suggest spatial depth and layering of the Matrix. The model and drawing are not necessarily one in the same, rather a continuation and progression of one another.
The process of diagramming may include the interplay of hand drawing and digital editing, eventually creating a hybrid image composed of points, lines, and tones which can now be understood as its own composition. Just as in cube, many of the assignments in Matrix strategically force students to see the things they have made in a different manner. While driving design concepts should begin to slowly emerge, it becomes problematic when students develop a narrow scope for the future of the project. Students are repeatedly asked to explore the spatial makeup of the things they have made. From the two-dimensional diagram students may be asked to draw a series of sections which give the original image a physical depth. As an alternate assignment, students may be asked to interpret depth in their drawing in model form, using wire and bristol to physically define space. The consistent exchange of working methods builds a students ability to work through the design process by thinking and making in many forms. Throughout the process of drawing and modeling, new vocabulary is introduced which allows the work to gain primary design concepts. Discussions of terms such as datum give each project a grounding organizational logic, while new vocabulary terms may be identified and incorporated into the project design along the way. Cube and Matrix both understand scale as a relative condition, however Cube does have a defined physical boundary in which scale may operate, while Matrix suggests the continuation of these systems beyond their physical presence in model or drawing form. To further stretch the contrast of scales within the Matrix project, we focus on the relationships
3_Final / Model + Photograph + Drawing + Photoshop
2_Linking + Integration / Formed from existing relationships
1_Organization Proposal 1 / Organizing moment models
Mengjze Zhu / Fall 2012 This project starts with the understanding of the word “Matrix”. As a former computer science student, I first understood this word mathematically which gave me an idea of an equidistant grid with different values or status. But then, I found out that in architecture, the “matrix” is more like a starting from which everything can grow. It also can be explained as an original model or a prototype which we can read in different ways and see different explanations. This concept makes me think of the Tai Chi diagram, which you can see in different ways and interperet as the origin of all existing things (for example: it is a perspective section of a double helix in genes and so on). However, the concept of “origin” is difficult to explain by a figurative model. I chose to represent the matrix by the word “grow” as it is the way of my understanding that there is something derived from the origin. Reflecting on the model, I made both the wires and the bristol papers going through each other. Instead of first making the structure with wire and then attaching the bristol to the structure, I did the above process cyclically and made the model more organic to correspond to the concept of “grow”.
Organization Proposal 1 / “Permeability and Stratification”
Organization Proposal 2 / “Scale of Register”
Organization Proposal 3 / “Static and Tension”
Organization Proposal 1 / Section
Organization Proposal 2 / Section
Organization Proposal 3 / Section
Kate Fisher / Fall 2012 The main spatial concept behind my matrix is scale of register and the shifting of space that defines the field’s itinerary through a combination of the primary thicker bristol planes and the secondary thinner wire that pull through the fields through the material’s registration. The connecting and overlaying of the smaller spaces creates a nuanced tension that therefore supports the main break in the matrix’s main axis without distracting from the system’s primary planned route of journey. The planar folds themselves differ in scale from the smaller, more intricate scoring to the larger moves, while the extending of the planar material relative to each register contributes ot the implied connections between spaces and slight dissonance between fields. Furthermore, the depth that the bristol is buried in the matrix suggests the communication and registration between material, as well as the hierarchy in the territories.
Alyson Sylva / Fall 2011 depth| shifting| conversation This matrix is defined by a conversation between tonal systems, spatial planes, and linear fields. The conversation expresses moments of dense language merging and intertwining fragmentations to ultimately give birth to a visual infinity.
Final Matrix Model
Analytical Process Drawings
Final Matrix Drawing
Dijana Milenov / Fall 2010
Final Matrix Models
Adiel Benitez / Fall 2012
Anh Tran / Fall 2012
Clarissa Antioquia / Fall 2010
Craig Nightingale / Fall 2012
Final Matrix Drawings
Anh Tran / Fall 2012
Lindsay Wright / Fall 2011
Kirby Lin / Fall 2011
Emily Whitbeck / Spring 2012
Room and Garden
Duration: _5 weeks
Project Goals: 39
_To establish an understanding of the relationship between field and construct. _To explore the ideas of defined movement across, between, and through a range of spatial moments. _To explore the potential of narrative as a generator for spatial thinking and organization. _To introduce preliminary ideas of scale, distance, and measure.
The Room and Garden project seeks to merge concepts of Cube and Matrix while adding a series of concepts and drawing types relative to human experience. Room and Garden explores the potential of human occupation within a constructed series of fields and volumes linked together through a rich itinerary or narrative. While the Cube uses vocabulary terms to dictate a way of thinking and making space, and Matrix evolves through a layered process of analysis, the methodology for Room and Garden is motivated through the human experience. The discussions and assignments given throughout the project focus on how we understand and inhabit the space around us.
Room and Garden uses mostly familiar building material that must be met both materially and volumetrically with a new understanding of its relationship to human scale. The initial modeling assignments will focus on a particular volume or set of volumes meant for inhabitation. Plexiglas is introduced as a material that is solid yet capable of various levels of transparency through treatment of frosting, scoring, or painting. Its quality allows us to further consider an exploration of light and shadow as an integral part of the design process. Planar system: Basswood sheets_ thickness from 1/32” to 1/4” Plexiglas_ thickness 1/16” to 1/4” Chipboard _1ply, 2ply Poplar wood_ thickness from 1/4” to 1/2” Bristol Paper Linear system: Basswood linear members_ thickness from 1/32” to 1/4” Plexiglas linear members_ thickness from 1/16” to 1/4”
Cube sets up a fundamental understanding for space-making through tectonic construction. To expand upon that skill set, we now begin to integrate new components of design such as itinerary (entry/exit/circulation), program (use of the space), and enclosure. Quality of space is increasingly considered as it relates to experience- where light, shadow, and other phenomenological qualities become directly associated with how space is conceived.
While modeling provides the chance for students to physically engage with the idea of occupation, they must be able to design these spaces through drawing as well. The drawing techniques pushed throughout the project focus on occupation and scale. Accurately scaled section drawings are therefore used to engage with designing inhabitable spaces through drawing while plan drawings are used more commonly to drive a narrative of connecting these spaces.
Matrix negotiates the balance between moment and field, organizing space intently while establishing a logic for the inner-relationships between multiple components within a field condition.
Charcoal drawings are introduced as a new tool for conveying depth of tone. Students are able to engage with charcoal in a manner similar to sketching, quickly working through conceptual ideas.
“Room” and “Garden” therefore can be viewed as the symbiosis of the previous two projects. The final composition is an occupational series of volumes of differing scales linked together within a field, generated and organized by the integration of project program and spatial narrative.
Stretching students boundaries for how they go about conceiving space, perspective drawings are taught as a three-dimensional drawing technique which allows us to place ourselves within the project.
Process To associate the primary concepts of the Room and Garden project with a familiar activity, the project begins with a typical walk through campus. The path taken is meant to guide students through a variety of spaces both small and large, transitional and static, indoor and outdoor. The purpose of this trip is to initiate a discussion about the things that make up the way we perceive and occupy space. Physical walls and paths, shadows on the ground, vegetation, and other elements both visible and not collectively constitute our position and experience in space. We understand more than just Point A and Point B, but the itinerary that comes to link them and the experience in doing so. Through this project we will come to address and design based on these very simple concepts. Along the path of the campus walk students are asked to continuously asked to draw plans and sections through space, all with careful attention to scale relative to the human body. It is important to understand and accurately depict the spaces which immediately engage us, as well as our association with a much broader context within the campus. Just as in Matrix, Room and Garden generally either evolves from a smaller scale (Room) into something larger (Garden) or vice versa. In either approach, the new concepts of program and narrative serve the driving force for design decision making. Program is simply meant in this stage as the effective use of the space. From a teaching perspective, what is important when considering the project program is generating a variety of scale and spatial conditions. Degree of enclosure, light, opacity, relationship with field, entry and exit sequence, etc. are all attributes directly related to program as design elements. An example of a program that has been used to motivate the thinking and making of space is dance. From dance, each of the three spatial moments is given a more specific program such as: A) a space of exchange/ticketing. B) a space of rehearsal/ preparation. C) a space of performance. Within the program of dance students may have the flexibility to concentrate their project to a particular style of dance. The differences in street hip-hop and ballet for example lend students to a variety of decisions reflecting scale, relationship to audience, enclosure, and so fourth. Students work flexibly between modeling and drawing to intently develop these particular spatial moments and their connections to a broader context.
the opportunity to step back and approach the project from a phenomenological standpoint through the study of light and shadow as it relates to occupation. Rather than the qualities of light and shadow becoming a product of what is made, an exercise (illustrated on pages 45-46) was designed asking students to anticipate the qualities of light and shadow to suggest movement and inhabitation within their project. From this, students can build conceptual ideas through various media. Perspective drawing is brought into the project early as a generative tool to push and pull three-dimensional space from section drawings. This technique of perspective emerging from a familiar drawing style helps teach a new drawing style and enables students to explore the three-dimensional spatial potential of their section work. A hybrid assignment is also illustrated through several students work in which modeling, photography, perspective drawing, and photoshopping are used to build an inhabitable perspective of the work. The final model for Room and Garden is composed of basswood and plexiglas planar and linear material, and is typically constructed between 1/16”=1’ and 1/8”=1’ scale. The model should balance the relationships between moment and field, using a constructed itinerary to organize the project and reflect a cohesive concept.
Room and Garden
Narrative is discussed as the spatial sequence of events which structures the project as a whole. While considering the components of program, narrative as a generator gives us
Carlos Rodriguez / Fall 2011 The concentration of the development of this project was on forming a hierarchy of spaces with intricate movements within the linear, light, planer, and plexi systems, along with the systems created by the negative spaces. While creating these spaces, ideas of occupational space was highly considered. Occupational spaces played a key role in the construction of the three moments. The occupational spaces portray an itinerary within itself; reason for that being, the desire for persons to walk about the occupational space with ease, such that they know where to walk without either searching around or receiving directions although that may be interesting.
Michael Stoop / Fall 2011 The room and garden model explores the concepts of itinerary and occupation in addition to the concepts of spacial hierarchy and field explored in the cube and matrix. Like the cube and matrix, the room and garden model was the result of long series of process work and studies that helped to develop the scheme of the project. The model was based on a perspective series generated from sections of the matrix, and then given an extenrnal condition of being made to relate to a dirigible. The itinerary developed and the model evolved in accordance with this.
Jordan Merricks / Fall 2010 The room and garden model consists of two rooms. One room portrays a dance called Korean krumping that extends to the other room that portrays meditation. Within the performance room are smaller scale linear elements complimented by basswood planar elements set at different levels. The different layers of linear elements and planar elements combine inside the heart of the room to suggest that the different layers of dance (rhythm, movement,balance) come from the soul or heart of the dancer. The armature that extends to the meditation room is supported by longer pieces of plexiglass and help show an exaggerated literal and implied extension from one room to the next. The majority of the meditation room consists of linear elements with untouched ends implying a sense of infinite connection with the outside or nature (for that is part of meditation). The verticality of the liners suggests an upward stretched reach that also pulls inward to the stable core.
Dijana Milenov / Fall 2010 I started off my diagrams by looking at two very dynamic dances: free dance and salsa. While free dance has longer movements and greater dynamic in terms of the distance between the dancers; salsa has more intimate, small and interactive movements. I tried to transfer these qualities on the diagrams and the perspective series by creating the diversity of space types. Moreover, I attempted to keep the directionality and nature of the two moments I chose for further exploration of the spaces for meditation and activity. As it can be seen in my study of light on the light diagram and on the model, I percieve the meditation room as a series of small, overlapping and intimate spaces (similar to the movements in salsa) that are creating many opportunities for private and meditation spots; this space is also darker with delicate openings in different directions from where beams of light can scrape through. On the other hand, the activity room is rather monumental, wide, light and dynamic space that folds, turns, shifts down and finally flows back into the semi-open and open regions.
Dijana Milenov / Fall 2010
Process_ Charcoal Shadow Studies
Tracey Weisman / Fall 2010
Clarissa Antioquia / Fall 2010
Elizabeth Cronin / Fall 2010
Casey Furman / Fall 2010
Jordan Merricks / Fall 2010
Mengjze Zhu / Fall 2012
Final Models_Plan + Shadow
Joseph Wallace / Fall 2010
Brittany Sosa / Fall 2010
Robert Sato / Fall 2012
Alyson Silva / Fall 2011
Arianne Biton / Fall 2010
In Design 1 students learn to explore the fundamental issues of design through iterative model making. Design ideas unfold in real time, emerging and cultivating through the process of making. Design 2 on the other hand is often reflective, working backwards from a completed work to understand design ideas through analysis. Central to both courses is the driving force of process. Design 2 emphasizes the value of analysis as a process-driven exploration. The repeated process of questioning work and searching for answers through design is a fundamental skill for design thinking and making. 49
We place a value on the importance of analysis because of the active role it plays in the designers mind. Among the most valuable lessons developed throughout Design 2 is the ability of a student to be critical of their own work. Each step in the design process, each move made on paper, on model, or in the computer provokes questioning. As we refine our skills and develop our ability to bridge the gap between intention and execution we seek to answer these questions with justified reasoning. The value of analysis doesnâ€™t come purely from asking questions, rather asking the right questions and thoroughly exploring the potential answers. The assignments given throughout Design 2 ask students to bring themselves into the eye of the designer. Through drawing analysis students are able to break down a series of existing things (an object, a building, a field) to better understand the design ideas they emerged from. Each of the three projects in Design 2 progressively introduces analysis in various forms, scales, and complexities. The projects are meant to build off of one another, folding in new design vocabulary, technical skills, and layers of study as the work becomes increasingly challenging. As the role of analysis in design grows through the three projects, the ability for analysis to generate new design ideas becomes increasingly present. Design 2 builds directly upon the drawing skills developed in Design 1, expanding the drawing types and techniques for analytical investigation. As students seek to illustrate conceptual ideas through analytical drawings, they are challenged consistently through the course with the question of representation. Class discussions enable students and teachers to converse on the work- often comparing projects, provoking questioning, and refining technique.
D2 Architectural Design 2
John Fechtel / Spring 2012
Duration: _3 Weeks
_To introduce analysis through two-dimensional orthographic drawing _To refine technical drawing skills including lineweight and linetype _To introduce the primary concepts and process of diagramming _To initiate the suggestion of analysis as a generative tool for design
â€œI have learned that what I have not drawn I have never really seen, and that when I start drawing an ordinary thing, I realize how extraordinary it is, sheer miracle.â€? - Frederick Franck The first project of Design 2, Object Analysis introduces drawing as a tool for investigation, analysis, and understanding. In choosing a common object such as a camera to analyze, students go into the project with a general understanding of its size, use, and operation. While students may have a basic knowledge of the object, they will come to further understand its intricate design through analysis. Through this process an appreciation for the design of the object, its components, and its operations emerges. In the beginning the project is about precise documentation- a process which will give the students a descriptive understanding of the object, its pieces, and the active relationships between them. The scale, shape, and material of each component piece is measured and appropriately documented on section and elevation drawings. Once the object is fully documented, students use diagramming as a tool to break down the camera into systems relative to the object itself, its mechanical operations, and the way humans interact with it. This form of analysis allows students to see the camera beyond its state as an object and study it as a complex set of systems. As this process takes us from the camera itself into a set of ideas, those ideas then have the opportunity to transform into a new set of spatial relationships. The idea that we can study, abstract, and transform our understanding of an existing something based on a set of concepts is a basic example of how we will approach analysis in Design 2.
The Object Analysis project is exclusively drawing-focused. The drawing types are familiar to previous projects, using section and elevation drawings to document, analyze, and potentially transform an existing object into something new. Given an existing object, in this case a variety of mid-century film cameras and video cameras, students must first learn the process of documentation with extreme detail and precision. Using rulers and skills of relative measure/ proportion, the objects are documented on paper in a series of scaled drawings. As the drawings become more conceptual through the progression of the project, students practice methods which allow the drawings to be read beyond their documentary state. Selective content, transparency, lineweight, transparency, and tone are used to convey conceptual ideas clearly.
Process As a preliminary introduction to Design 2 and the Object Analysis project, students are challenged with the idea of analysis. What is analysis? Why would we choose to analyze something? How do we go about doing this? What should an analysis be, or look like? What can we gain from this as designers? In Design 1, we use the act of making to explore the potential manifestation of design ideas. To begin Design 2, we will use an existing object to work backwards, extracting design ideas through the process of analysis. The first (very brief) exercise of the semester asks students to explore analysis through the act of diagramming. At this point, diagramming is an unfamiliar concept. Students must gain an understanding for the process of diagramming- How something is broken down for its component systems and what the relationships are between them. As an example, students may be asked to diagram (in plan) a minute of game play during a televised basketball game. The basketball game is a useful example because its systems (the ball, players, movements, shots, spacing, etc.) are quickly identifiable. Diagramming however is more than recognizing these systems, but representing them on paper. This preliminary exercise is the students first opportunity to explore drawing representation techniques. Like the basketball game, a camera is a recognizable object that all students are somewhat familiar with. The value in choosing a camera to analyze is its familiarity, modest size that can be documented at full scale, complexity in its operations and mechanics, and relationship to the human body (physically, visually, etc.). Other objects used in this assignment include writing instruments, musical instruments, kitchen instruments, etc. Students begin analysis with documentation, producing full-scaled section and elevation drawings which re-create the object as-is. This process is meant to give students a detailed understanding of the object and how it functions. Based on these initial drawing studies students begin to identify primary concepts relative to their respective camera. The camera itself typically dictates the concentration of these ideas, for example: the relationships between the shutter and aperture, mechanics of the lens, motion of moving film, geometric relationships of the camera, the way it engages with the hand/ the eye, etc.
As students recognize these existing relationships they can begin producing drawings that move beyond the camera as an object and are more representative of an idea. By selectively drawing elements of the camera, using variable lineweights and linetypes along with tones, transparencies, and other graphical forms of representation, students are able to explore these ideas fully.
Andres Camacho / Spring 2012 The camera analysis focused on the varying apertures of a 35 Mm Balda jubilette from 1938. Depending on how narrow or wide the aperture was the quality of the image was affected; the narrower the aperture the sharper the focus and the more culminated rays that would penetrate through the opening. Meanwhile, the wider the aperture, and the blurrier the surrounding of the image was, that due to the unculminated rays. From this analysis a graph was created which began analyzing the F-Stops and how each would affect the sharpness of the image and the percentage of blur of each image. Eventually in step three the analysis began drifting away from the camera itself or what it was capturing to what occurred in between in order for the image to be captured. This still maintaining the initial concept of aperture and focal point, but began playing with the idea of threshold and altered space (undergoing constant change). The project became and exploration of the matter in between, the space being ultimately altered and from that the model was born. The model has unlimited possibilities and configuration, showing the constant change between mass and void (what was being captured and what remained a blur) and how essentially the middle of the model remain the same; similarly this reflecting the idea of a focal point and aperture and how it changes the quality of the image and what reaming in focus (the center) or what is lost to the blur.
Kalob Morris / Spring 2012 In the Camera analysis, a specific camera is assignedand to be studied. The Polaroid Land Camera Model 50A is used in this analysis. Initially pictures and sketches are taken as notes on how the camera might operate. Through a series of drawings and research one may begin to understand the process of how the artifact’s components work together to allow the camera to function properly. The analysis then is pulled away from the camera with the abstract ideas allowing to be explored further. In the Final Analysis, the Ideas of how light and dark work together to create an image are explored. These ideas are manifested from ideas and research done throughout the assignment. A good example would be the pinhole camera and how it works. Also ideas of how thresholds allow light to pass in and out and of space with tight spaces being associated with “closed” and “dark”, while broad spaces with “open” and “light”.
Michael Stoop / Spring 2012 This series of studies focused on analyzing the systems that combine to make an everyday item: a Palliard Bolex B8 Camera. Specifically, the concept of how the geometric purity of the camera was informed and then adjusted to fit the uses of the camera was explored in drawings and a model. This study tries to look at the camera through the designerâ€™s eye; to reverse-engineer the design decisions that were made, and explore the design process in another arena.
Alexis Hyman / Spring 2012 The analysis of the camera began with a study of the 1938 Jubilette made by the Balda Werke of Dresden, Germany. The analysis consisted of drawing studies that used the camera as a focus, yet looked at it in a conceptual, diagrammatic idea and less as an object. The studies began to look at the movements of light and how two different aperture sizes create the same size image. Parallel rays that pass through an aperture diverge and interfere with each other to create an image that is able to interact with the human body. The camera is a spatial design within itself, fostering diffraction, reflection, and compression. The early drawings are focused on varying apertures: larger apertures allowing more light in and smaller apertures restricting this amount. The light is forced to pass through a threshold where it is compressed and forced to intersect. The occurrence leads to the creation of the objectâ€™s perception of the three dimensional world. A model was created to embrace the various ideas of the camera and reposition them as a spatial, diagrammatic construct. The main ideas that reside in the model are based on the concept of diffraction and reflection. The model shows the idea of how a threedimensional world is captured on a two-dimensional image plane.
Xhulio Binjaku / Spring 2012 THE Camera Redux project is the first dive into the design analytical process. The process involves taking an old, now virtually useless camera from the 1920’s or 30’s- the Foth Derby Type 3 camera designed during the mid-1930’s in this case, and analyzing the camera. How it works. Why it works. Why it works that way. What does this button do. What about this one. Why is this here. Why is it this shape. Why this material. Why is it rectangular. Why are camera’s rectangular. What about the film, why is it rectangular. Why are lenses round. How does a square picture come from the round lens. How does it capture light. What is light, really. With each further question and resulting hypothesis, the camera as a camera becomes less of it- self. It becomes something else. Something completely new.
Xhulio Binjaku / Spring 2012
Duration: _5 weeks
Project Goals: 63
_ Expand the diagrammatic understanding of space at the scale of buildings. _ Develop and refine the graphical languages of analysis and diagramming. _ Expand the appreciation of spatial thinking through the conventions of plan, section and axonometric. _ Advance the role of the body in space.
The second project of the semester, Building Analysis asks students to thoroughly investigate an existing building or buildings to better understand their language, logic, and significance. The process is very similar to the Object Analysis project in terms of the drawing types and techniques used to analyze the work, however Building Analysis incorporates the phenomenological qualities of inhabiting and experiencing architecture. During the Object analysis project students are able to formulate conceptual ideas through their analysis and develop a methodology for conveying those ideas through their drawings. Building Analysis is an opportunity for students to further explore and refine those techniques as they search for clarity in their representation. While Object Analysis can be straight forward in terms of understanding its mechanical operations, Building Analysis is a much more complex analysis of many systems both tactile and not. Thoughtful consideration through the diagrammatic process is critical to the studentsâ€™ effort to convey their ideas clearly. The Building Analysis project forces students to work backwards from a completed project, asking questions of the work that will building an understanding of not only what the architecture does, but why. Students are able to further develop their ability to be critical of their own work as they take on this process. The success of the project relies on what questions are being asked, how they are explored through the drawing process, and what emerges as a result.
The Building Analysis project further investigates previously taught drawing types and drawing methods with a more complex subject: existing architecture. Because we are studying existing buildings, it is important that the work is precisely measured. In Design 1, most drawing assignments given are to be seen as further explorations of their design. Even â€œfinalâ€? drawing assignments are to be seen as another step forward rather than a documentation. Documenting the buildings precisely as they are is important to this project and allows students to practice demonstrating lineweight and linetype with appropriate clarity. Students use relative measure to transform existing plans and sections into scaled drawings. Using various plans and sections students are able to construct axonometric drawings, allowing them to study the building as a three-dimensional whole. As design concepts emerge through analysis, students must search for the drawing representation techniques that will best convey their ideas. The interplay of these drawings to contain many complex systems relies on utilizing a variety of techniques. Among these techniques include variations of: _Lineweight and Linetype _Tone (Stickyback / Hatching / Shading) _Colored pencil _Transparency _Level of detail The drawing process will enable students to be critical of their concepts and how they are represented on paper. Each of these methods as well as other hand and digital forms of characterization are valuable methods of questioning and experimenting.
To abstract what we may know of the building or buildings being studied, a quick modeling exercise using bristol paper and basswood linear members asks students to create threedimensional connections between intersecting two-dimensional drawings.
Process The Building Analysis project begins by asking students to thoroughly research the two buildings being studied. For the projects shown in this portfolio, the chosen buildings are the National Museum of Roman Art by Rafael Moneo and Therme Vals by Peter Zumthor. Those two projects in particular were chosen because of their similar scale, public nature, differing programs, and experiential quality. They are well documented and relatively easy to access spatially while still being rich for analysis. As students research the two buildings, they should be seeking to learn as much as possible regarding history, intention of design, internal spatial language, relationship to context, materiality, and the architectsâ€™ design influences or philosophies. It is important that students have a strong knowledge of the architecture going into the drawing analysis of the project. To begin analysis, students are asked to produce a set of accurately scaled plans, sections, and axonometric drawings of each building. This process of replicating the existing building through drawing brings students to familiarize themselves with every detail of the building, similar to the logic of the Object Analysis project. These drawings will serve as the foundation for a set of layered analytical drawings. While a particular drawing type may be more conducive to specific study, it is important that students can actively understand how these systems are working between drawing types. For example, light as a study can only be appropriately understood for its role in the building when studied through plan, section, and potentially axonometric drawings as well. Using trace paper, students can begin by diagramming spatial and tectonic systems within the buildings as individual components. In layering these studies on trace, students will gain an understanding of how these systems interact with one another and how those relationships begin to construct the architectural experience. By drawing analytic layers separately and studying them layered together, the significance of their relationships emerges through a process of discovery. There is a large range of analytical questions that can be asked through these drawings, some of which include:
These initial steps often provoke a more refined conceptual approach to studying each building. Once the interplay of these analytical layers is studied and the project begins to attain a conceptual focus, the layers begin to collapse into single composed plan, section, and axonometric drawings. In collapsing layers onto a single drawing, often the content can compete with itself and lose its clarity. It is important for students to selectively choose the components that emerge in the final drawings, and develop a language for graphically representing their ideas clearly. In an explorative exercise called â€œspatial couplingâ€? (shown in pages 71-72), the Building Analysis project briefly shifts away from the focus of analysis to an active focus of thinking and making. As an introductory exercise to the semesters third project, we now will look at the building studies with the idea that our analysis can be used as a generative device for something new. Using two-dimensional plan and section drawings of each building, students are asked to create models which explore to potential of their intersections. These two-dimensional drawings can now gain a physical depth and new relationships can be established.
_Fundamental hierarchy of spaces _Primary tectonic systems and their role architecturally _Circulation as it navigates to, through, and between spaces _Spatial thresholds and the architectural elements that define them _Geometry / proportion and its role in organizing space
_Light and shadow _Public versus privately programmed space _Materiality _Interior / exterior relationships _Relationship to context
John Fechtel / Spring 2012 Peter zumthor’s therme vals was constructed with a precision that demands its analysis be very specific and very thorough. the energy of the building revolves, literally, around its central semi-private pool. The four pillars which define it are each nudged only slightly out of line with each other. this deliberate change provides a subtle incentive for the visitor to enter the central pool from the one direction where this change is visible. interestingly, a choice is always presented. one may either continue past the pool, which is nearly always the dominant choice, or enter the pool, the less strongly suggested choice.
Axonometric_ Therme Vals
These four choices are subtly and almost unnoticingly suggested by the slits in the ceiling, which let in very controlled and very deliberate amounts of light. the cracks themselves propose this same choice--should one turn into the space or continue on? unlike the geometry of the masses making up this building, the light itself is unbiased, and displays each choice with equal gravity. The museo de arte romano in merida, spain, was built above the ruins of a portion of the ancient roman city which occupied this spot in spain. designed by rafael moneo, it utilizes light in a far less specific, but no less successful way, than zumthor’s therme vals. Because of the large vertical distance in this building, light had to be ‘pushed’ into the space by sheer volume. large skylights run in ribbons across the ceiling, providing strong diffused daylighting. small fissures in each side allow in supplemental light in the corners where this light does not penetrate. This light has a lot to do with the scale, human and non-human, of the space. some spaces, definitely meant to be occupied by a human, receive comparatively little light. the massive scale of the nave running the length of the building suggests a monumentality to the artwork, sculpture, and artifacts contained there. Unifying the ideas of the sectional quality of the museo de arte romano and the organization of the therme vals fell back to the two characteristics that made each successful. the plan primarily informed the way entries into space could be suggested by asymmetric volumes. the organization was helped along by the section folding to create a ‘nave’ space, into which these secondary, human-scaled spaces would insert. The repetition found in the museo de arte romano organized the structure of the model into four distinct modules. none of these modules were similar in their organization, but one flowed to the other, using the methods found in the therme vals.
Plan_ Therme Vals
Axonometric_ Museum of Roman Art
Section_ Museum of Roman Art
Section_ Museum of Roman Art
Andres Camacho / Spring 2012
The building analysis project began with the drawings of the original plans and sectiona of both Vals Therme by Peter Zumthor and the Museum of Roman Art by Jose Rafael Moneo. Through these drawing one began understanding the building and began asking question that could eventually lead to a deeper analysis of the building. With the Therme Vals questions of light, open and enclose spaces, itinerary and tectonics emerged. Through the pro- cess of layering and analysis the idea came to mind of there being a set itinerary near the entrance. But this set itinerary despairing as peopled move away from the designated center. This idea led to the exploration of how light and structure of the baths influences the itinerary. The many systems influencing the itinerary were then split for deeper analysis; these systems being the structure (mass and void) and the roof (allowing for light penetration). This began formulating and answering more question on the itinerary. Based on the finals layers of analysis a composite final layer was born. The final layer displaying how the roof ultimately creates a pattern and an emphasis on the center; meanwhile the structure controls the views and ultimately both attract people towards the middle. Once they break away from this center a designated itinerary doesnâ€™t exist. In the Museum of Roman Art, the analysis was somewhat familiar to that of the baths; however it integrated the main principles of the museum. The analysis began looking at how space was constructed to emphasis movement from one side to another, how space was broke up geometrically, and created to emphasize the massive nature of the museum. It also began looking at the idea of light and shadow and how it was manipulated. These observations began leading to the analysis of the hierarchy of space, the set itinerary emerging from the larger nave and gradually being reduced in size. The idea of rhythm was also looked at and how the structure began setting up specific repetitive volumes which would ultimately influence people and their directionality. One of the most important parts of the analysis was that of the light and how together acting with all the other systems began emphasizing the axial nature of the museum; the light emphasizing specific locations, which captivated the audience and forced them to move toward smaller spaces the space being more proportionate to their own bodies.
Axonometric_ Museum of Roman Art
Plan_ Therme Vals
Axonometric_ Therme Vals
Kalob Morris / Spring 2012
Final Axonometric_Museum of Roman Art
Alexis Hyman / Spring 2012
Final Axonometric_Therme Vals
Alyssa White / Spring 2012
Final Models_Analytical Instersection: Museum of Roman Art + Therme Vals
Andres Camacho / Spring 2012
Alexis Hyman / Spring 2012
Nick Johnson / Spring 2012
John Fechtel / Spring 2012
Duration: _5 Weeks
_Develop an understanding of spatial multiplicities within a larger constructed territory _Redeploy analytical thinking as a means of mapping the various spatial systems that make up these territories: scale, occupation, boundaries, linkages, overlaps, intersections, movement, etc. _Reinvest in spatial thinking and understanding through plan and section _Reinvest in the role of the body in space, particularly as a measure of space and scale _To examine the ideas of space-making through a detail _To introduce and/or expand upon the ideas of joinery as a designed system _To look for ideas of joints that build interdependency and/or relationships to one another
“Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context - a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” -Eliel Saarinen The final project of Design 2, Campus Analysis embodies lessons of both Design 1 and Design 2, using analysis to generate a way of making. As suggested in the quote by Saarinen, Campus Analysis operates at multiple scales, engaging the body, the room, and the context simultaneously. Rather than studying an existing room or building, the Campus Analysis project focuses on the spaces that situate themselves between existing buildings. The initial stages of the project are completed as a group, requiring collaborative documentation and analysis of a large scale courtyard on campus. This analysis gives way to a series of occupiable interventions designed individually but collaborative in their conceptual relationships. Zoomed in at the scale of a detail, students design a particular joint at full-scale to be incorporated within the intervention.
The Campus analysis project utilizes a large spectrum of drawing types from small scale to large scale, conceptual to detailed. The project attempts to collectively incorporate many of the skills acquired through the first year of design studios. Among the drawing types explored in the illustrated semesters’ work: _Analytical mappings of the Fine Arts Courtyard (typically as a set of studies) _Plan and Section drawings: _The Fine Arts Courtyard as it currently exists _Intervention placing itself within the courtyard _Detail drawings of spatial joint _Axonometric: (In a variety of techniques including “jellyfish” where transparency and toning are used to illustrate particular systems, and “exploded” in which components of the whole are extruded to demonstrate the detail as an assembly of pieces) _Intervention _Spatial Joint _Perspective: _Intervention + Spatial Joint in context: A hybrid drawing assignment grounding the joint and intervention within its context.
The beginning phases of the project ask groups of students to create an analytical model of the Fine Arts Courtyard. This model is not a direct replication of the existing courtyard, but an abstraction based on their analysis. Using cuts, folds, exaggerations, layering, and imbedded imagery with chipboard and bristol material, the analytical model generates a new way of thinking about the space before intervention occurs. Spatial Joint_ The final phase of the project is a full-scale joint to be imagined within the students’ intervention. The joint must engage with the human experience of the intervention (potentially through controlling light, acting as a physical or spatial threshold, etc.). To challenge construction methods and inspire creative joinery, students are asked to make their models of wood without the assistance of nails, screws, hinges, or other fasteners other than sparingly using glue. The spatial joint should be operative or mechanical, transforming its function and the way one interacts with it in its multiple states.
Process The Campus Analysis project begins in its largest scale, an analytic study of the Fine Arts Courtyard on campus. With each step in the project the scale of focus becomes smaller and smaller as the work becomes more and more tactile. Each step serves to generate a way of thinking for the next, giving the project a consistent conceptual foundation. Analysis_ Just as the previous two projects, the first step in the process of analyzing the Fine Arts Courtyard is documentation. Groups of four students measure every detail of the courtyard, starting with the primary physical markers and gradually breaking the space down into its details. Approaching the documentation process in this way gives students an initial understanding of physical and spatial hierarchy within the courtyard. After producing a set of accurately scaled plans and sections documenting the site as a group, the students approach the courtyard individually by creating analytical drawings and models of the courtyard- suggesting its experience, how the space works, and how people occupy it. Students study a range of characteristics of the courtyard including: circulation, material, light/shadow, directionality, proportion, vegetation, scale, etc. all of which attribute directly to the experience. The analytical work produced should begin to move away from the courtyard as a defined, completed space, and be suggestive enough to depict how the courtyard is inhabited. The conceptual thought process will emerge through the act of drawing and model-making, as material thickness, scalar exaggerations, intensity of line and tone all begin to suggest how the student is interpreting the space itself. Intervention_ As analytic studies give way to conceptual ideas of the space, students are asked to select a specific site within the courtyard in which they will intervene. Program for this intervention is refined to “space for 1-3 occupants”, therefore the courtyard itself and their analysis of it can serve as the primary generator for design decision-making. While speculating ideas for their intervention, students must consider: How can the project engage the existing courtyard physically (ground/ vertical edge/ sky)? What role does placement play in how people interact with the project? Does it facilitate circulation or obstruct it?
collaboratively in sharing a conceptual strategy for the four interventions as a whole. Entry/ exit circulation through the intervention, enclosure, and visual connectivity of each project must be carefully considered with respect to one another. Success within the intervention is relative to its conceptual approach, its relationship to the courtyard as a whole, as well as to the interventions of the group. The tectonic definition of these interventions is explored through a process of “bug” model making, in which many quick iterations expressing ideas are considered and refined in time until a final design emerges. Spatial Joint_ Zooming in one final time to a full-scaled study, students are challenged to design a specific joint within their intervention. The joint itself, while confined to an approximate two cubic-foot boundary, should embody the ideas of the intervention as a whole. The joint is an exploration of the detail and relationship to the human body, therefore, it is meant to be interacted with and should be in some way operable. Whether it engages the hand, frames specific views for the eye, or affects lighting within the space, the spatial joint studies should play a role in the experience of the intervention. To focus this assignment as an exploration of joinery techniques, students are restricted from using nails, screws, hinges, or other physical fasteners outside of glue when necessary. The final body of work illustrates the full cycle of the project from its broad conceptual state to its detailed physical form. The assignments given focus on the continuous relationships between part and whole at a variety of scales, and push students to utilize the full range of drawing and modeling skills acquired in first-year design.
Re-incorporating the group aspect of the project, students must imagine that all four individual interventions should be imagined as on the site together. Students must now work
Andres Camacho / Spring 2012 The context and intervention project began with the measurement of the courtyard, a careful examination of where everything was found that in order to create a detail understanding of the context. Form this question should emerge of the area and its surrounding. Such question began examining the environment, the changing feeling between space how space were inhabited and how people moved throughout. Based on the detailed plan analytical layers were born. The first analytical layer analyzed the primary datum that seemed to connect the courtyard as well as its interaction with overhead condition and how the appeared to be found in the center. The second layer began talking about the influence of perspectival views and how each building appeared to have a direct connection to the one in front. The last layer analyses the idea of vegetation influencing or creating specific threshold though out the courtyard. From these ideas the context model was constructed. First three process models were assembled to try to understand the though ground better and how these layers influenced the context, from then the final model was built. The final model of the context tying all the layers of analysis together, the main principle of the model include the idea of a dense center influenced by threshold created by overhead conditions, the idea of a primary datum running horizontally though out the model and the constant vertical perspectival connection between one side of the model with the other. Once the context was finalized, the process began to analyze the perfect location of an intervention. Layers were constructed emphasized by the context to try to determine the spot. The location selected was in the middle which was influenced by the datum and the ideal view points from the other locations. Based on the intervention of other group member the model began acting as a nexus, which would link all intervention without interfering with the itinerary yet influencing people to take a look at the other interventions. Therefore the model had to have some sort of transparency in order to not obstruct the views or paths while emphasizing certain views.
Courtyard Analysis Series_ 1 Thresholds
2 Datum + Overhead
3 Perspectival Connections
The joint consist of two main pieces which basically hold one another, allowing each other to slide yet holding the whole frame together. Once the front piece begins to slide, it opens up a new view which rotates to a specific location depending on how far the piece is slid. Once the piece is slid completely a person can close an existing view and cause an arm rest to slide down, allowing for the space to become personalized and inhabited.
John Fechtel / Spring 2012 The ground condition of the courtyard was broken down and rebuilt by examining the confluence of texture and shade, and how that gradient could create a relief which draped over the structure of the courtyard and its planters, depressions, and ditches. Significant attention was paid to the perfectly square central courtyard, and by the final resolution of this base, had come to maturity. its depression pushed aside potential spaces for intervention along its back edge. in addition, where the texture and shade was most intense, the ground broke apart, pushing up and down in an attempt to suggest possible habitation. The site for the intervention was picked because it lived along a strong axis created by the library and lecture hall, and because it was tangent to two of the most important pathways through the courtyard. The initial angular gesture was suggested because of the location of the other interventions in this project. this space is intended to be a place to be viewed. it directly confronts the next space, the space to view out of, and is related only via itinerary with a space for exhibiting.
Artists and the full process of creating artwork were the inspirations for these three interventions. an artwork would be created by viewing this intervention from the one locked with its view. from there, the artworks would be viewed by passersby along the most frequented routes through campus. The gesture of this intervention is very deliberate. one enters the space by walking from the lecture hall toward the planter, and then up and into the space. first, the visitor passes a small inhabitable niche, which is open to its surroundings. Drawn along by a view framed through this axis of the model, the model turns at an extreme 120 degree angle and back into a raised, private space to escape from the inevitable view from the adjoining intervention. proceeding downward and outward projects the occupant over the pathway and into the full view of the intervention across the pathway.
At this stage in the process, a small slit through the overhead condition of this main space began to show up. the intent is to control lighting conditions for artists. Courtyard Analysis Series_ 1
This slit in the overhead condition was rationalized by flattening the overhead and narrowing it to a comfortable enough size to make it feel contiguous when filled. the detail for this model arose from a demand for the lighting in the space to be controlled in specific ways. the space is intended for one person to occupy, and more specifically for certain lighting conditions to be painted onto the person to serve the purpose of artists in the adjoining intervention. the ever-changing conditions of the sun and the artistsâ€™ needs demanded that this detail by operable. An exploration of hinging and unfolding led to a model which layers bariers to entering light, creating both a carving and a puncturing effect. the arms themselves blot out entire spots of light, while the perforated arm distills the remaining light into small points.
Joint Section Series_ Light + Shadow Studies
Sara Vecchione / Spring 2012 The final projects emerges from studying a space at its full scale. The Fine Arts C courtyard, a space familiar to many. Through the study of geometries, rhythms, itineraries, and movement; a new courtyard emerges. This new analytical interpretation of the courtyard serves as astarting point for a full scale intervention. A folly for framing views and discovering spaces finds its home in the courtyard, within it, a smaller detail meant for human interaction, reveals and conceals views of the courtyard that were not previously evident to the eye.
Joint_ Axonometric Series
Emma Caldwell / Spring 2012 This project began with an analysis of a courtyard and the movement that exists in it everyday. The movement of a particular area of the courtyard became important to address. The area that I chose to focus on became the area that I would design a folly to draw people in and change the way they move through the space. The model of the folly is built within the context of the area it would be held. The folly is about drawing people through the space and slowing down otherwise rapid movement through the area. Light and views to the outside contribute to this program.
Joint Movement Series
Within the folly I designed a detailed joint that would be held on a corner. The detail would draw the people in from the outside in and the people on the inside to it. The materials that I chose contribute to drawing the attention to the detail. The detailed joint creates views out of the folly as well as compression on the inside as the walls of the detail slide in. The drawings of the detail demonstrate exactly how the joint would move within the space, and the perspective drawing shows exactly where the folly would be located within the courtyard as well as the detailed joint within it.
Alexis Hyman / Spring 2012 The analysis of the Fine Arts courtyard on the University of Florida campus was intended to examine how the space works, how we occupy it, and its scaled experience. Questions began to arise about how people experience the site, overhead conditions, surrounding geometries, and the multitude of views throughout the courtyard. After multiple plan drawings, an analysis of the area, and site models, a site was chosen to hold a folly that tectonically defined a set of specific views of the courtyard. The armature of the site model was designed from section cuts through the courtyard space that show a variety of elevations. Horizontal planes and surfaces identify, analyze, and speculate on the spatial ideas that occur, and how a folly would sit in certain areas. Layers were created that analyzed the way people move under the overhead conditions, the repetitive geometries in the courtyard, and the amount of people that pass through the thresholds. The folly is designed to hold three to five people, specifically as an area of rest. The area that the folly is placed in is near a main threshold of the courtyard, intending to break up this movement and direct people towards other follies that are located nearby. It is placed in a site with no overhead conditions, yet there is light provided nearby making it functional at night. As the analysis continued, we began to look closely at a joint within the folly. The joint is located at the corner of a main threshold of the folly. The joint directly relates to the human eye, giving people the ability to adjust their line of vision to the other follies in the courtyard. In comparison to the main idea of the camera analysis, the joint has adjustable apertures, allowing the inhabitants of the folly to completely close it or slide it open.
I have been extremely fortunate to teach under amazing professors, alongside great friends, and for inspiring students.