Meredith Hall - ASU ADE 521 - Fall 2021

Arizona State University | Fall 2021 ADE 521 Advanced Architectural Studio I

ARCHITECTURE OF RENEWAL INSTRUCTOR:

Elizabeth McLean

STUDENT TEAMS:

Nilo Exar | Mia Hammerstrom | Mathew Varghese John | Solana Pearson Sheifali Bansal | Lylaine Flores | Goran Rajesh Ojha Radhika Uday Dhande | Brady Hettinger | Austin Lind | Helen Ross Nicholas Kalas-Hernandez | Clara Riess | Jake Rosenberger Miguel Ceniseros | Niharika Kuruvada | Priyanka Nakkella | Purva Pansuriya

Th e E x pa n s i o n G a m e Focus and Structure Of The Course

This studio focuses on architectural expansions as a ‘game’ with a set of rules that allow improvements and innovation. The goal is to learn from previous buildings through new expansions and programs, giving them a second life with a sustainable and bioclimatic approach. The course has four modules:

1 2 3 4

RESEARCH: Make contextual approaches to the overall topic (history, urbanism, technologies, geometries, materials, programs, author’s biography, etc.).

RECONSTRUCTION: Reconstruct all plans and relevant information on the existing building.

EXPANSION: Propose a new expansion or renovation with a new program.

IMPROVEMENT: Create architectural improvements to the previous constructions.

Architecture Of Renewal Purpose of Proposed Expansions

This studio moves around the following question: What kind of architecture will be necessary to support higher education in the 21st century? When studying a group of unique academic buildings on selected college campuses across the eastern United States, we review the various constraints that were faced during the surge of construction in the post-WWII era to support rapid increase in academic enrollment and space. The goal is to propose expansions, modifications, and new educational and public architecture to philosophically and physically reinvent highereducation to support the 21st century learning landscape.

Case Studies Buildings of Focus for the Course

Ferry House Cooperative Dormitory | Vassar College ARCHITECT: Marcel Breuer YEAR BUILT: 1951 LOCATION: Poughkeepsie, New York STUDENT TEAM: Exar, Hammerstrom, John, Pearson

Burlington Nuclear Laboratories | North Carolina State University ARCHITECT: G. Milton Small, Jr. YEAR BUILT: 1953 LOCATION: Raleigh, North Carolina STUDENT TEAM: Bansal, Flores, Ojha

Boiler Plant | Illinois Institute Of Technology ARCHITECT: Mies Van der Rohe YEAR BUILT: 1950 LOCATION: Chicago, Illinois STUDENT TEAM: Dhande, Hettinger, Lind, Ross

Meredith Hall | Drake University ARCHITECT: Mies Van der Rohe YEAR BUILT: 1965 LOCATION: Des Moines, Iowa STUDENT TEAM: Kalas-Hernandez, Riess, Rosenberger

Art Gallery | Yale University ARCHITECT: Louis Kahn YEAR BUILT: 1953 LOCATION: New Haven, Connecticut STUDENT TEAM: Ceniseros, Kuruvada, Nakkella, Pansuriya

4

Meredith Hall- Drake University

5

65

Drake University

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

Narrative- M e r e d i t h

Hall

Our change to Meredith Hall at Drake University is primarily centered around creating a holistic class environment. Our changes primarily focus on the integration of what we call “Cohorts”, which are groups of 20 to 30 students who spend their student career amongst each other with a single mentoring professor. The classrooms are built to allow more open discussions among both teachers and the students, and spaces nearby emphasize group study. There are also separate dedicated group-study spaces for each cohort, designed to allow them to study and work together even when they don’t have classes together.

The new design features a cut through its center, to improve circulation space, as well as a place to gather and collect excess rainwater. All of the changes attempt to mimic the original architect’s vision by staying in line with the building’s original structural grid.

6

5th Year, Masters of Architecture Three Plus Program Project Lead, Book Editor

Jake Rosenberger 5th Year, Masters of Architecture Two Year Program 3D Design

Nicholas Kalas-Hernandez

Structural Design

7

Meredith Hall

5th Year, Masters of Architecture Two Year Program

The Students-

Clara Riess

B u i l d i n g Lo g i c s

5

Structural Clarity Simplicity of Design Expression of Technology in Architecture Repetitive Building Members Building Circulation

8

Research of the pre-existing structure shows strong contextual forces including Miesian design staples like structural clarity, simplicity in aesthetic, and expression of technology in architecture.

These are evident in Mies’ grid overlay, non-structural I beam facade, and repeated facade treatment. Additional research focused on the impact of the site on the building in hopes of reconnecting the building back to its context.

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

Natural Paths Study

Overlay Grid System Daylight Study

Interaction Zone Study

Materiality Study

Views Study

Pre-Existing Structure

First Floor

1”= 80’

Second Floor

1”= 80’

12

10

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

North Elevation 1”= 80’

East Elevation

N-S

E-W 1”= 80’

1”= 80’

11

1”= 80’

Improved Floor Plans

12 Site Plan

Scale 1”=50’ 12

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

This site plan and floor plans show the reconnection to the natural by bringing circulation paths outside. Students’ well-being is brought to focus by creating peaceful pockets for working and studying instead of long corridors maintained between block walls. These paths open opportunities for rainwater collection and zero scaping. These openings also reduce cooling and heating loads as the footprint is reduced. Instead of isolating groups from popular lectures and performances as the old auditoriums did, the new indoor amphitheater can be used casually by those passing by and act as its advertisement during use.

2nd Floor

1st Floor

2nd Floor

Scale 1”=100’

Scale 1”= 100’

Scale 1”=50’

65

Section - C l a s s r o o m

Highlight

Meredith Hall

This site plan and floor plans show the reconnection to the natural by bringing circulation paths outside.

Students’ well-being is brought to focus by creating peaceful pockets for working and studying instead of long corridors maintained between block walls. These paths open opportunities for rainwater collection and zeroscaping. These openings also reduce cooling and heating loads as the footprint is reduced.

Instead of isolating groups from popular lectures and performances as the old auditoriums did, the new indoor amphitheater can be used casually by those passing by and act as its advertisement during use.

12 Longitudinal Section Scale 1”=17’ 14

E

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

S-N Scale 1”=17’

12 15

Iteration As Design

This project tended heavily towards iteration explored through BIM modeling, physical model making, and diagram. These images celebrate some designs that informed the final design but were ultimately not used.

1st Iteration Model

2nd Concept Iteration Model

12 Third Concept Section Model

16

17

Wat e r C o n s e r vat i o n

By pulling the circulation paths to the outside a swell found naturally in the site is opened up. A porous walkway connected to the building’s radiant floor heating system floats above the swell for rainy or snowy days making the space walkable and allowing runoff to collect below. This collection will help naturally water a green space that will require little to no maintenance and no additional watering. The second level is set slightly back as the roof gently slopes towards the opening acting as a runoff cleaning and slowing system mitigating dirt and quick water runoff on the walkway.

This beautiful cut will allow nature to grow up and around the walkway and above as a way of nature taking back such a cold and lifeless form.

Design - F o r

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

65

Drake University

Mies | 1965 | Des Moines, Iowa

Wall Detail

- Th e C l a s s e s

Our additional skin has given new life to the existing I beams covering the facade of the building. Before the beams were only decorative and served no structural goals. With reinforcement to the attached interior columns these decorative beams now act as the support for the suggested skin, that now powers, insulates and protects the old facade. The wall detail highlights the round built up classroom spaces again giving new life to those spaces.

18

Waterproof Barrier Insulation Steel Plate Tube

Steel Facade Plate Tube Steel Insulation Metal Trim Glass Pane

Metal Facade Hidden Concrete Footing

Concrete Floor Corrugated Steel

Steel Beam Gypsum Board Concrete Wall

Waterproof Vapor Barrier Rigid Insulation Gravel Drainage Hidden Concrete Footing Perimeter Drainage System

Steel Rebar Concrete Footing

Collage Th e f o r c e s a t M e r e d i t h H a l l

Framework For Design Excellence

1 2

The framework for Design Excellence can be expressed as a set of questions to ask one’s self throughout the design process

Design For Integration

What’s the big idea behind this project? What is its purpose?

How do its separate pieces fit together into a coherent whole?

Design For Equitable Community

Who gets to use this building and how does it benefit its users and the community?

How has the community been engaged to shape the design? Who is invited in, who is excluded? How does its location and design promote equitable access to its benefits, strengthen its community, and reinforce means of transportation that support health and reduce emissions?

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Design For Ecosystems

How does this project benefit the earth? How does it impact the living systems around it?

Design For Water

How does this project work with and delight in water, and how does it use water wisely?

Design For Economy

How do you provide abundance with an economy of means?

Design For Energy

How does the design work with, rather than fight, local climate to provide a comfortable place for people with the least energy use and carbon emissions?

Design For Well-Being

How does the design promote the health of those who spend time in it?

Design For Resources

Why did you select the materials you did? Where do they come from, what’s their impact (including the pollution and carbon impact of their manufacture), and where will they go after the building is gone?

Design For Change

Why did you select the materials you did? Where do they come from, what’s their impact (including the pollution and carbon impact of their manufacture), and where will they go after the building is gone?

Design For Discovery

How does your design allow the building to learn from its users, and allow its users to learn from the building? What lessons have you learned from the project? Where have you failed, fallen short? What will you carry forward?

Acknowledgements We would like to thank each of the following professionals for volunteering their time and energy for our reviews throughout the duration of the semester:

Robert Cannavino, RA Johanna Collins, RA Kyle Fiano Mikayla Krager, Associate AIA Andrew Marriott, AIA, NCARB Carrie Perrone, AIA, LEED AP Eduardo Robles Whitney Warman, AIA, NCARB We appreciate the many suggestions that were made and realize that you have each contributed to our final designs in one way or another.

We would also like to thank the staff at The Design School, including the employees running the design labs, printing services, cafe, cleaning protocols, and the library, for bearing with us and assisting us throughout this semester.

Finally, we would like to thank our professor, Elizabeth McLean, for providing countless desk crits, professionals within the community for reviews, an organized framework for the course that kept us all on track, and being there to assist us in the day-to-day operations of the studio.

- Fall 2021 ADE 521 Classmates 23

Arizona State University | Fall 2021 ADE 521 Advanced Architectural Studio I