Issuu on Google+

Midterm  Por+olio:     Arch  102,  CCSF   Nicole  Biewenga  


Developing  Communica?on   •  How  to  bridge  the  internal  &  the  external   worlds…  If  your  audience  doesn’t  understand   what’s  in  your  mind,  YOU  take  the   responsibility  to  change  how  your   communica?ng…  try:  diagram/model/image/ verbal  explana?on.   •  Right  vs.  Wrong  is  irrelevant.  Ask  instead:   “What  is  effec?ve,  and  what  is  not?”  


Developing  Process   •  Distance  yourself  from  assump?ons   •  Just  because  you  think  it  doesn’t  mean  you   have  to  believe  it.   •  Thought  Process  =  Crea?ve  Tool  


The  Cube:  (Paper)  

 “What  Does  the  Material  Want  to  be?”  –  Lewis  Kahn   To  be  installed  as  a  ‘wall’  of  cubes,  class  project  

Build  a  cube:  itera?on1:  6”X6”    Itera?on2:  18”X18”   My  assigned  Material:  Chipboard,  aka:  PAPER  


Strengths  

Itera?on  #1  

Itera?on  #2  

 &

   Weaknesses  

•  Implied  surface   makes  it  more   dynamic   •  Use  of  color  works  to   evoke  ‘paper’   •  Using  the  material  in   a  way  that  suits  it  

•  Seems  incomplete   •  Some  minor  issues   of  crag   •  Some  complexity,   but  could  be   intensified   •  Connec?ons  may   not  translate  well   to  larger  scale    

•  Successfully   translated   language  to  larger   scale   •  Maintained  a   dynamic  quality   despite  using   repe??ve   geomety  

•  Again,  the  center   could  have  been   further  u?lized   •  Overreliance  on   the  larger  chip   board  elements   makes  this   itera?on  more   clunky  


Term  Project:   •  Design  a  Space  to  house  Diego  Rivera’s  mural:   “The  Pan  American  Unity  Mural”  


Step  1:  Research:  

‘Cul?va?ng  Resonance’  

Make  it  personal,  take  inspira?on  from  content…Filter  content  through  an  idea/theme…   BUT,  assessment  based  off  of  internal  evalua?on  alone  is  not  terribly  valuable.  

CREATION,  A  CELEBRATION  OF  CRAFT  


Step  2:  Gesture  Models  

Itera?ons  #  1-­‐3  

•  Good  first  aoempt  at   connec?ons  without   using  glue.   •  But  too  jumbled  to  be   terribly  compelling    

•  Decisive  use  of  ver?cal   space  

•  Using  the  center  element   in  tension  to  create  the   curve  allows  the  material   to  preform  op?mally  

•  Could  be  more  mul?-­‐ •  But  fails  to  be  provoca?ve   dimensional  &  more   complex   from  mul?ple  angles  


Itera?on  #  4   Pros  

•  An  experimenta?on  of  adding              a  central  volume    

Cons  

•  A  step  backwards  by  loosing  the   hierarchy  of  itera?on  3     •  The  dele?on  of  the  curving  spine   •  The  central  volume  seems  out  of  place  


Itera?on  #5   •  Using  two  dimensional  trace   overs  of  the  mural  to  dis?l  a   gesture  directly  from  the   composi?on  of  the  mural   •  Interes?ng  as  a  way  to   develop  new  connec?ons  to   the  mural,  but  this  par?cular   itera?on  con?nues  to  be   limited  in  its  crea?on  of   space  &  its  complexity  of   form   •  Use  of  connec?on  &   counterbalance  could    be   promoted  


Itera?on  #6  

Pros:     •  Introduc?on  of  interior   elements  add  new   poten?al   •  Use  of  overlapping   surfaces  add  to   tectonic  language   •  Reintroduc?on  of   ‘spinal’  element  orders   the  gesture   Cons:   •  The  closed   geometry  of  the   volumes  limits  their   expressive   capaci?es.  Too   ‘resolved’  


Itera?on  #7  

A  sort  of  HALF  STEP     •  Introduc?on  of  a  new  material,  wood,  seems  to  force  this  model  into  being  too   disjointed,  the  elements  seemingly  thrust  together.  


Itera?on  #8   •  A  study  as  to  how  voids  in  the   planes  could  create  a  more   visually  s?mula?ng  gesture   •  Taking  the  idea  of  elements   penetra?ng  through  one   another  to  suggest  the  same   curved  element  as  before  but   in  a  more  interes?ng  way  


Itera?on  #9   •  Reintroducing  the  spine  as   the  primary  element   •  Also  folding  back  in  a   deconstructed  version  of  the   previous  mesh  cubes   •  This  model  hit  on  something   approaching  being  more   elegant  

•  The  presence  of  the  wood  was   all  but  lost,  loosing  some  of   the  play  between  the   materials   •  The  gesture  is  perhaps  to   confined,  too  closed  


Itera?on  #11  

The  first  aoempt  at  integra?ng  all  3     Materials…  

Too  out  of  control:  with  liole   dialogue  between  the  three   parts,  again  they  seemed   adjacent  but  not  connected.  

In  previous  models  the  chip  board   was  quite  clearly  the  primary   material,  here  I  wanted  to  begin  to   balance  the  presence  of  the  three   materials  


Itera?on  #10   •  The  use  of  the  wire:  both   taking  cues  from  and   dicta?ng  the  placement  of   the  other  materials,  the   three  begin  to  integrate     •  There  started  to  be  more   intensity  to  the  gesture,  but   in  that  intensity  it  closed  in   on  itself  rather  than  being   expansive  

The  reintroduc?on  of  the  wooden  spine  and  the   Wooden  s?cks  projec?ng  outwards  were  both  handy     In  kepping  the  gesture  from  just  being  all  balled  up  


Itera?on  #12   Introduc?on  of  a  new  material:  plas?c  

•  The  folding  plas?c  was  an  innova?ve  way  to  create   a  more  open    internal  volumetric  system.     •  Also,  the  use  of  thin  board  to  act  as  the  ‘spine’   made  for  a  much  more  elegant  wooden  element     •  The  use  of  the  metal  mesh  &  wire  however  was   dynamic  but  lacked  focus  &  intent  


Itera?on  #13  

Pros:     •  More  expansive   •  Strong  hierarchy   •  Didn’t  sacrifice  density,              or  complexity    

Cons:     •  Although  the  materials   are  beoer  systemized   they  lack  cohesion  


Step  3:  Charcoal  Drawings  


Step  4:  Introducing  the  Site   CCSF  Campus,   North  of  the  ‘MUB’   West  of  Sci-­‐Hall   Located  on  Phelan  Ave.  

Central  Axis  

Phelan  Ave.  Axis  

•  Visual  connec?on  to  the   site  from  Sci  Hall  &  the   Mul?-­‐Use  Building   •  Ac?va?on  of  both  axis   •  Rela?ng  to  the  topography   of  surrounding   neighborhoods  &  campus  


Itera?on  #14  

•  Ac?vates  both  axis,  but  in  a  limited  &  predictable  way   •  Barely  begins  to  morph  to  accommodate  direc?onal  site  forces:   wind,  sun,  circula?on   •  Remains  primarily  a  gesture  model  placed  on  the  site,  hasn’t  yet   adapted  


Developing  an  Architectonic  Response   to  Site…  


Itera?on  #15   •  Aligns  with  the  axis  in  a  more  specific  &  useful  way   •  The  metal  acts  a  wind  buffer  along  the  west  side   which  receives  the  most  wind   •  Makes  use  of  the  area  between  the  exis?ng   building  and  the  proposed   •  Finds  a  use  for  the  central  volume,  pulling  from   previous  itera?ons  

•  Needs  more  considera?on   of/sensi?vity  to  circula?on    


Itera?on  #  


Itera?on  #16   •  Proposes  a  circula?on  strategy,  and   con?nues  to  make  use  of  the   tectonic  language  of  the  previous   gesture  models,  but  s?ll  remains   unresolved…  

•  How  could  the  western   side’s  swooping   circula?on  path  be   beoer  refined?   •  How  could  the  gesture   be  beoer  oriented  to   reference  the  axis,  thus   ordering  the  design?  


Midterm portfolio 102 nbiewenga