Publicness of research 'space'

Parth solanki

Thesis dessertation 2021-22

School of environment and architecture of research ‘space’ Publicness

Publicness of research space

This is to certify that the dissertation titled is the work of

Parth Solanki

This is to certify that the document is original work carried out by the Author and is not paraphrased, or copied in whole or in parts (except for those statements a graphics mentioned along with references) or submitted in any form to any other institution for obtaining an academic degree.

The Supervisors whose names and signatures appear below confirm and certify that the above mentioned dissertation is the original work of the above Author; that it is carried out under their supervision; and that the work is of acceptable quality necessary for partial completion of the course to obtain the Bachelor of Architecture Degree. The ExternalExaminers whose names and signatures appear below confirm and certify that: they have evalusted the Author’s work in a Viva-Voce; and, the work is of acceptable quality necessary for partial completion of the course to obtain the Bachelor of Architecture Degree.

The Director whose name and signature appears below certifies that the Supervisors and External Examiners are appointed by the School of Environment and Architecture for mentoring and evaluating the above mentioned work. Based on the evaluation of the Supervisors and Examiners, the above work is acceptable for the partial completion of the course to obtain the Bachelor of Architecture Degree from University of Mumbai.

Dushyant Asher

External Examiner 1 External Examiner 2

Author Director School Of Environment and Architecture

Supervisor Supervisor

Parth Solanki Prasad Shetty

Shreyank Khemalapure

Aknowledgement

I would like to thank my family for helping me with the necessary tools to work on this thesis. This thesis would have been not possible without their constant motivation and support not only in this thesis but also in life.

I would like to thank the school of environment and architecture(SEA) to give me this opportunity to do this thesis. I am grateful to my supervisors Shreyank Khemalapure and Dushyant Asher for giving me critical advice to elevate my thinking towards this thesis. I also want to thank Prasad Shetty who pushed me to think differently about my thesis.

I want to specifically thank my friends, with their help I have grown as a person in the last few years. They are some of the best people I have met in my life and they have provided me with experiences that I will never forget. They have been of constant support throughout this thesis helping me with references, ideas, and motivation.

I am also grateful to all the writers and filmmakers of the books and movies who helped to conduct the research.

Abstract

Today, science research spaces do not directly share the knowledge they generate with the public. Instead, the knowledge obtained is filtered and censored. This thesis examines what led to this disconnect as well as how it affects the spatiality of the research spaces. What is the relationship between a research space and the public?

This thesis starts with theoretical readings which talk about concepts that become the lens of the study. The readings I read were mostly written by scientists, architects, and historians who talk about the separation of their fields. The thesis expands these concepts to become a framework to analyze five different knowledge-producing spaces to identify spatial elements. These five spaces are chosen to focus on three actors- the public, the researchers, and the apparatus. Initially, the architectural element was the apparatus itself, that the researchers interacted with to perform their study. This invited the public to move around it or interact with it irrespective of the knowledge generated. I explain these spatial elements using diagrams and then a drawing explaining the ecology that those elements generate around the apparatus.

As science and technology advanced, the world realized that knowledge is infinite and always growing and can be commodified to generate income. The thesis identifies how various factors led to the spatial shift in the publicness of the research spaces. That shift has led to the emergence of new kinds of programmatic spaces like planetariums and science centers. I then respond to this research dessertation by doing a design intervention an institution to reduce this gap between science and the public.

In the book Societal Impact of Spaceflight( Steven J. Dick Roger D. Launius, 2007) there is a chapter called “Spaceflight and Popular Culture” which expands on the history of how fantasy opened up thinking about space. Science and technology could not cope up with the ideas and stories earlier. The chapter divides the timeline into two parts, the era of the dreamers where fantasy was the only way to think about the cosmos, and the era of the rocketeers where science had the technology to explore the cosmos beyond the fantasy stories. Later in the chapter, the engagement of the stories went beyond the reach of science again. This constant competition between fantasy and science is what leads to new novelty discoveries which are important for the progress of society as a whole. Science was later divided and knowledge became monetized. This reading was the trigger that led to my thesis.

Analysis

El Caracol, Mexico | 11

Jantar Mantar, Jaipur | 15

Einstein Tower, Potsdam | 19

McMath-Pierce Telescope, Arizona | 23

Teide Observatory, Canary Islands | 27

Dessertation Conclusion

Scope and Ambition

Context Study

Introduction

We see that spaces like the planetariums and science centers have become collections of installations for people that tend to just give specific information about the cosmos. The architecture of these spaces does not contribute to this communication of the information generated by them. These spaces operate at a certain time of the day and the public is only allowed at that time. Historically, civilizations observed stars to track time and figure out seasons for agriculture.

The spaces of research have become too private because of which there is a mediation of the information (knowledge) that comes from it. The information that usually the public gets is through social media or websites which are very filtered. There are a lot of questions about national safety that are asked when sharing such information comes to picture. The thesis wants to ask how science can become as basic as a dinner table conversation. The research spaces have become confidential and there is immense suspicion amongst astronomers and astrophysicists as well.

The thesis investigates how research spaces have become disconnected from the public over time. How historically this relationship has changed and what are its effects?. This study looks at five such research spaces to see the spatial elements leading to such a disconnect.

Research Aim

is to rethink the relationship between a public space and research spaces.

Hypothesis Objectives

Research spaces are not engaging enough to generate curiosity and provide a sense of outer space in itself.

To Analyse 5 Observatories and understand what they were seeking to do and how they changed from being a public space to a highly private space.

Hierarchy and Horizontally

The Architecture of Science- Peter Galison, 1999

Factory, Laboratory,

and

Studio- Disappearing spaces of production, Peter Galison and Caroline A Jones

Peter Galison talks about how centralization and industrialization changed the lab and the studio space. It changed from an individual conducting research to many researchers working for a single entity as a means to increase productivity. This increase in productivity led to the formation of the ‘factory model’.

The author gives various examples explaining this shift. He opens up quoting Andy Warhol, who says “I think everybody should be a machine.. . . I think somebody should be able to do all my paintings for me.” The essay argues that the ‘factory’ model in the postwar era changed the fields of experimental science and art. The post-war era led to the formation of “Big science” and “Executive art”(Pg no. 498). The author then talks about the companies that built factories for the military during World War II, now started producing fast and big post-war laboratories which were climate controlled. As the company had invented standardized trusses it was easy to make large long-span laboratory spaces that are highly flexible and could be expanded. In the post-war era, centralized, hierarchical, collaborative, and mission-directed production was identified as the key to power and discovery.

The essay also expands on the European physicists who did not have wartime experience, working in factory-type labs. It talks through the example of a professor named Louis LeprinceRinguet, who set up his small-scale cosmic ray observatory with a few of his colleagues on the tip of Jungfraujoch in the Alps. Many scientists and researchers and artists wanted to escape the trap of industrialization of the post-war era and resisted the “factory model” of working. The so-called “factory model” entered the field of art much later. Artists already had a resistance to this model because of the ethos of the avant-garde.

To conclude, the essay gives an overview of the shift that happened in the laboratory and studio spaces especially in the post-war era. I believe this industrialization and centralization led to research spaces becoming highly disconnected from the public. The spaces either became too big in scale for the public to be involved or they went too far away from the public reach.

Generic and Flexible

Thoughts of architecture on Scientific workspace, Robert venturi

In this essay, Robert Venturi talked about the Lewis Thomas Laboratory at Princeton University in the USA. which he had designed and said that in his opinion, a research laboratory needs to be ‘generic’. He says so because he feels generic architecture comes from tradition and traditional structures are all about function rather than expression. He gives an example of a traditional American loft house and how its flexibility allowed various functions.

He then characterizes the generic architecture form into three elements. Firstly he says it needs to be flexible, as inspired by the traditional loft. He argues that rather than form the following function, the form of a generic building should accommodate function. He says,” In our time, functional ambiguity rather than functional clarity can accommodate the potential for things not dreamt of in your philosophy.” (Pg no. 390)

The next thing he talks about is the imagination of a setting and a place. He gives various instances to describe a setting and places. He says that to concentrate, one requires a setting, and to communicate one needs a place. A setting can be a background to work and focus, but a place can be for a meeting.

Robert Venturi says that symbolism and ornamentation are necessary for an academic lab building as it accommodates and adds to the campus context. Rather than expressing function, one should accommodate function and hence the symbolism and ornamentation on the outside are required. The machine aesthetic during the industrial revolution came from the traditional vocabulary of the American loft because of its advantages and hence it allowed various functions inside.

The Lewis Thomas Laboratory was built in the context of a university campus, and while it allows for a variety of functions, it does not allow for public participation due to the university model’s constraints. The laboratory is only open to chemistry students and a select group of scholars. During his design process, Robert Venturi failed to consider the city. The traditional American loft model is based on traditional industrial mill architecture, which evolved and became very popular after WWII.

Type and Function

The architecture of the city, Aldo Ross, 1984

Critique of naive functionalism

Aldo Rossi in his book “Architecture of the City,” suggests two different meanings for the city. First, the city is seen as a gigantic man-made object, growing over time; second, as urban artifacts that are characterized by their history and form. These two aspects relate to the quality and uniqueness of urban artifacts.

In the chapter critique of naive functionalism, he talks about the concept of function. Aldo Rossi writes, “Once the concept of function is established, in fact, one immediately arrives at obvious classifications: commercial cities, cultural cities, industrial cities, military cities, etc.” The concept of function is assumed in all architectural thinking.

In the previous chapter, Aldo Rossi describes the word type, saying that it is not so much something that has to be copied but it’s a model where one can conceive works that do not resemble one another at all. Two different works of similar type can resemble things that are completely different. Type in architecture is an element that cannot be further reduced. Thinkers have tried to address the problem of typology in architecture but some have displaced it to pursue the idea of function.

“If alternatively, we begin with a classification based on function, the type would have to be treated every different way; indeed, if we insist on the primacy of function we must then understand the type as the organizing model of this function. But this understanding of type, and consequently urban artifacts and architecture, as the organizing principle of certain functions, almost totally denies us an adequate knowledge of reality.” (Pg no. 47)

Laboratory spaces, or spaces where knowledge is created, have become so private that they have fallen into the trap of becoming a type of architecture themselves. The idea of being a laboratory or an institution morphed into the reality of becoming an ivory tower. Where the public is completely cut off from the architecture. Making it highly functional for conducting research for its own sake also leads to a disconnect with the public.

Fragmentation

The Evolution of Knowledge- Science of the Anthropocene, Jürgen Renn, 2020

History of Science in the Anthropocene

Anthropocene is the period during which human activities have had an environmental impact on the Earth regarded as constituting a distinct geological age Most scientists agree that humans have had a hand in warming Earth’s climate since the industrial revolution

The author states that the era in which the Anthropocene started is very unclear. But it is known that the transformative power of humanity is based on knowledge. The knowledge accumulated over generations and the rate of that accumulation increased even more during the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution. The author states,” science and technology have contributed much to bring us into this situation, and were not unaware of the consequences. Global capitalism, industrialization, traffic, and population growth would not be possible without the advances of science and technology. They have catapulted us from the age of horse-drawn plows and carriages to the age of industrialized agriculture and self-driving cars, and they have blessed us with the unequally distributed benefits of modern medicine.”(Pg no. 6)

The division of scientific knowledge into smaller contributions has led to the fragmentation of science to such an extent that it excludes the relevant challenges of the Anthropocene. The science that is driven by economic globalization is mostly oriented towards international competitiveness and in turn leading to limiting the scope of curiosity-driven research. “ The dynamics of international competition strengthen globalized models of science and education and the tendency toward fragmentation of knowledge.” (Pg no. 8)

Knowledge comes from encoding experiences to enable individuals to adapt to certain problems. The author says knowledge can be stored mentally and can be repurposed for new goals. He says knowledge is not only mental but also it has social and material dimensions. Knowledge can be passed on from individual to individual across generations through various external representations, such as writing or symbols that include drawings. Before the industrial revolution, the science that was practiced had its effects on societal progress. Almost all scientists are personally convinced that they can see farther than their predecessors because they can build on their achievements.

Hence, this text opens up what led to the shift in the knowledge of science that was earlier driven for social progress to a highly private one. This text will support the studies I do to identify the spatial shifts that occur with this shift in knowledge. The hypothesis is that as scientific technologies got advanced over time the space of research became less open to the public as well as the knowledge produced became more confidential.

The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, James Gibson, 2015

Theory of Affordances

The author James Gibson in this chapter starts by describing affordance. In simple words, the affordance of an element is to offer a subject what it can provide it with. For example, “a terrestrial surface is nearly horizontal (instead of slanted), nearly flat (instead of convex or concave), and sufficiently extended (relative to the size of the animal) and if its substance is rigid (relative to the weight of the animal), then the surface affords support. It is a surface of the support, and we call it a substratum, ground, or floor. It is stand-onable, permitting an upright posture for quadrupeds and bipeds. It is therefore walk-on-able and run-over-able. It is not sink-into-able like a surface of water or a swamp, that is, not for heavy terrestrial animals.”(Pg no. 119)

To perceive an affordance is not to classify an object. The object which is tending to afford a certain thing does not imply it cannot do other things also. The text opens up the ideas of ‘to invite’ and ‘to perceive’. I will explain this with the help of an example of a staircase. A set of staircases invites a person to climb up from one level to another using their feet. The person might perceive the staircase to climb up or maybe not. The person can sit in the staircase, document the staircase, or the staircase may act as just a landmark to meet another person. The author says “The theory of affordances rescues us from the philosophical muddle of assuming fixed classes of objects, each defined by its common features and then given a name. As Ludwig Wittgenstein knew, you cannot specify the necessary and sufficient features of the class of things to which a name is given. They have only a “family resemblance.” But this does not mean you cannot learn how to use things and perceive their uses. You do not have to classify and label things to perceive what they afford.

I am using the idea of to perceive and to invite to define public space for myself, as the thesis rethinks the relationship between public space and research space, and hence The theory of affordance opens up the idea of invite and perception. If space affords to invite the larger mass to perform social activities then it becomes a public space. It also depends on the public to perceive that space for them to perform social activities and become a public space. When both of the above mentioned perform together with space and transform themselves into a public space.

Apparatus

The readings generated certain concepts that led to the selection of cases to study and prove the aim of the thesis. For this sites had to be five observatories over a span of 3 . The five cases selected are classified into 4 eras of time -

1 - Ancient - 905AD - El caracol, Chichen itza, Mexico

2 - Pre-war era - 1734AD - Jantar mantar, Jaipur, India

3 - Industrial revolution - 1920 AD - Einstein Tower, Potsdam, Germany

4 - Post-war era - 1950 onwards - McMath-Pierce Telescope, Arizona, USA - Teide Observatory, Tenerife, Canary Islands

Drawing Strategy

The strategy is to understand the relationship between the public, the researcher, and the apparatus. The diagrams depict the spatial elements that either engage or disconnect the public. The diagrams are coloured in three ways: blue for the elements of public engagement, black for the apparatus, and red for the researchers. The synthesis drawing is a collage of images that highlight the public and the researchers, as well as a line drawing of the apparatus. The drawings are meant to depict the ecologies highlighted in the diagrams.

This research is done only with the help of data that is available through secondary sources. The drawings have been made using photos, videos and articles found online or in books.

Affordance becomes the main lens to look at all the sites as it defines the idea of “The public”.

Renaissance

Invention of telescope

Scientific Revolution Industrial Revolution Digital Revolution

1734 AD 1921 AD 1964 AD 1970 AD

Jantar Mantar

Chichen Itza context Publicness of El Caracol

Einstein Tower

Context of Jantar Mantar Publicness of the Jantar Mantar

Mcmath- Pierce Telescope

Location of the public park Publicness of Einstein Tower

Tiede Observatory

Difficulty to access due to location on mountain

Research Spaces Being fragmented

Being on an island adds to the disconnect

No public allowed in the research spaces.

Change of programe

Scale over trees Technology Knowledge for Farming

Historical Advantage Solidness of the Objects

Shadow invites Play and research

Materiality extends life of the apparatus

Layers between the City and the research Space Form attacts the public.

Foliage framing the structure.

Daytime payed tours are available for the public

Tours change to workshops during the night

Delicate technology demands less public

Fragmentation of researches with the apparatus.

Fig 3.1 - Chichen Itza context

Fig 3.2 - Publicness of El Caracol

Fig 3.3 - Change of programe

Fig 3.4 - Knowledge for Farming

Fig 3.6 - Technology

Fig 3.5 - Scale over trees

El Caracol is located in Chichen Itza which was a large preColumbian city built by the Maya people of the Terminal Classic period. The archeological site is located in Tinúm Municipality, Yucatán State, Mexico. The El Caracol is an observatory built by the people of Chichen Itza to locate the position of the sun and venus. The Chichen Itza was one of the largest Maya cities and it was likely to have been one of the mythical great cities. The city may have had the most diverse population in the Maya world, a factor that could have contributed to the variety of architectural styles at the site.

Chichen Itza is located very close to a settlement called piste as well as it is very close to the airport (fig - 3.1). The structure of El Caracol is located on the main spine of the city of Chichen Itza. To reach the central market people used to cross the observatory. The observatory is was built using stone masonry hence making it very solid. The solidity of the structure allows the act of play without hindering the observations. The public and move around the structure. As per the theory of affordances, the solidity and the material of the building invite the public to carry many social activities and invariably it becomes a public space. In fig 3.2 the blue becomes the area that the public can occupy either around the structure or on the structure itself. The red is the central chamber that where there are fenestrations which allows the people to study the stars.

The building was built as an observatory to study the movement of the sun and venus. Then later over time it became a ruin until an archaeologist discovered it and it became a study site for historians. Now the Chichen Itza is a tourist destination. It attracts lots of people interested in the history of the Mayans and their civilization (fig - 3.3). During the Mayan civilization, farming was the essential way to survive. To do terrace farming the Mayans needed information of the seasons which came from observing the cycle of the sun. El caracol was directly involved to give information about the seasons to the farmers of the city (fig - 3.4). The observatory is located in between a dense forest, due to which the structure had to be elevated on a high platform and in turn increasing the scale. This big-scale can be a reason to afford people to interact with it (fig - 3.5). Also, Mayans were excellent master builders and had knowledge of many mechanical systems using gears made of wood and stone. The structure had a pair of curved walls around the main observation chamber made of stone with holes in it. These pair of walls were built on a moving platform that could manually move as per the position of the sun (fig - 3.6).

Now the observatory is a tourist destination where visitors are allowed to move around the observatory. The organization under which the site is has made lodges for people to stay and explore the city. The point being that as time goes the actual function of the building fades away. Over time the building has developed

and is responsible for some of the major economical shifts that happen in the settlements nearby. The characters of the public, the researchers and, the apparatus acted as a single ecology for the city of Chichen Itza to function (fig - 3.7). Now that ecology has transformed into a tourist space. Even even though there is this spatial shift over time the El Caracol remained a building a knowledge-producing building that is open to the public.

The drawing on the right (fig - 3.8) has 3 parts, the upper part talks about what that observatory studies, the middle part shows the subject and the spatiality of it and the bottom part shows the public and the researchers. The drawing is overlaid with the geographical coordinates of the site because the spatiality depends on it. The location and the size of the fenestrations change with the change in location of the observatory. The publicness in the bottom part of the observatory also has its own temporality where the public changes from being the citizens to archeologists and now being tourists.

I believe that the materiality of the structure, its solidity, was the reason for this structure’s public engagement. During that time, the public and researchers both relied on the apparatus’ knowledge to survive.

Apparatus

Researcher Public

Fig 3.7 - Relationship of the characters in El caracol

Fig 3.8 - Ecology of El Caracol

Fig 3.9 - Context of Jantar Mantar

Fig 3.10 - Historical Advantage

Fig 3.11 - Publicness of the Jantar Mantar

Fig 3.12 - Solidness of the Objects

Fig 3.13 - Shadow invites Play and research

Fig 3.14 - Materiality extends life of the apparatus

Jantar Mantar

The Jantar Mantar is a collection of 19 astronomical instruments built by the Rajput king Sawai Jai Singh II, the founder of Jaipur, Rajasthan. It was completed in 1934. The instruments allow the observation of astronomical positions with the naked eye. Jai Singh noticed that the Zij, which was used for determining the position of celestial objects, did not match the positions calculated on the table. He constructed five new observatories in different cities in order to create a more accurate Zij. The astronomical tables Jai Singh created, known as the Zij-i Muhammad Shahi, were continuously used in India for a century. The observatory consists of nineteen instruments for measuring time, predicting eclipses, tracking the location of major stars as the earth orbits around the sun, ascertaining the declinations of planets, and determining the celestial altitudes and related ephemerides. Built from local stone and marble, each instrument carries an astronomical scale, generally marked on the marble inner lining. Bronze tablets, bricks, and mortar were also employed in building the instruments.

The Vedas mention astronomical terms, measurement of time and calendar, but do not mention any astronomical instruments. The earliest discussion of astronomical instruments, gnomon, and clepsydra, is found in the Vedangas, ancient Sanskrit texts. The gnomon found at the Jantar Mantar monument is discussed in these 1st millennium BCE Vedangas and in many later texts such as the Katyayana Sulbasutras. Jantar Mantar is located in the middle

of the city of Jaipur(fig - 3.9). The major gates to enter the city leads to a public bazaar. There is a gate in that bazaar that lets the public in the Jantar Mantar(fig - 3.10). Mostly the emperors who came to meet Sawai Jai Singh enters through these major gates and went through Jantar Mantar to enter the city palace.

Sawai Jai Singh had appointed twenty-three astronomers to work in Jantar Mantar with him. It became his main base out of all other Jantar Mantar’s. The observatory was open for the public to come and move around. It is located on the way towards Deewan-i-aam. The instruments are fragments of objects in the landscape and the public move around it (fig 3.11). Currently, most of the instruments are restored which allows tourists to engage with the instruments. Like El caracol here as well as the solidity invites to play in the public (fig - 3.12 and fig - 3.14). The public perceives the Jantar Mantar as a space where they can meet other people or do any social activity which makes it a public space. The instruments are fragmented and the different shadows cast by each of these allowed Jai Singh to carry out his observations. similarly, these shadows become the element with which the public interacts. It is something that cannot be regulated and hence it is open for the public who wants to study and use the instruments to gain that knowledge that the apparatus gives( fig - 3.13).

Here, the three characters of the apparatus, the researcher, and the

public act similarly to the previous study. The relationship between the public and the researcher is more blurred here( fig 3.14). The drawing on the right (fig 3.15) shows the relationship between the apparatus and the celestial bodies and how the materiality shifts over time. The location and context directly affect how much engagement the site allows from the public.

In both these case studies of El caracol and Jantar Mantar, we see that that knowledge is transparent irrespective of who uses it. The spatiality of Jantar Mantar allows group involvement to either study or perform social activities.

Apparatus

Researcher Public

Fig 3.14 - Relationship of the characters in Jantar mantar

Fig 3.15 - Ecology of Jantar Mantar

Fig 3.16 - Location of the public park

Fig 3.17 - Publicness of Einstein Tower

Fig 3.18 - Layers between the City and the research Space

Fig 3.19 - Form attacts the public.

Fig 3.20 - Foliage framing the structure.

The Einstein Tower is an astrophysical observatory in the Albert Einstein Science Park in Potsdam, Germany built by architect Erich Mendelsohn. It was built on the summit of the Potsdam Telegraphenberg to house a solar telescope designed by the astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich. The telescope supports experiments and observations to validate (or disprove) Albert Einstein’s relativity theory. Although Einstein never worked there, he supported the construction and operation of the telescope. It is still a working solar observatory today as part of the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam. Light from the telescope is directed down through the shaft to the basement where the instruments and laboratory are located. The park had already been designed by the middle 19th century according to plans by the architect Paul Emanuel Spieker. Einstein tower, along with various astronomical, meteorological, and geophysical observatories were integrated into an English country garden. It was always open to the public and the public was allowed to enter and move around all the research spaces in the park.

The park itself is not located far away from the city(fig - 3.16). It is on a hill making it easier for observation and to carry out study and helps to block out lights glare from the city. The research spaces are surrounded by the public, then the public is surrounded by the landscape and then the hill, and eventually the city( fig 3.17. 3.18). Einstein Tower, designed by the German architect Erich

Mendelsohn, is one of the best-known examples of German expressionist architecture. Designed as the anamorphic structure of reinforced concrete, Mendelsohn wanted the tower to represent as well as facilitate the study of Einstein’s radical theory of relativity – a groundbreaking theorem of motion, light, and space. Between 1917-1920 Mendelsohn made numerous sketches of the facility, attempting to create a dynamic structure that would give form to Einstein’s groundbreaking theories. The resulting plan revealed a centralized observatory tower, banded by rings of windows, raised on top of a wavelike platform that would house the laboratories. Influenced by the work of expressionist artists of the time, such as the painter Wassily Kandinsky and designer Hermann Obrist, Mendelsohn began to search for new methods of construction that would allow expressional freedom. This fluid expressionist form of the building became a landmark of the city and was used to attract lots of visitors to the park. In the years following its construction, the Einstein Tower, a potent symbol of expressionism, figured centrally in the German architecture debates about whether architecture should prioritize expression of pure functionalism, as represented by the International Style(fig - 3.19). The structure sits between tall pine trees that frame the structure which adds to the play element of the building(fig 3.20).

The relationship between the apparatus and the public reduces to just the form of it. The form attracts the public and the public

usually strolls in the park and looks at the historic research spaces in the park. The research has a direct relationship with the apparatus. Here mostly we see the research space was built for only one mission and for only one person to work on. The telescope in the structure is used by an individual at a time making the relationship of the researcher and the apparatus very personal. The public is not allowed to interact with the researchers nor are they allowed to enter the structure. The form of the einstein tower does not translate so much into the interiors other than the windows as most of the research spaces are in the basement(fig - 3.21)

The drawing (fig 3.22) talks about how the from acts as a cover to the research going inside the building but still the form becomes the element of spatiality that allows the public to engage with the park. The form generates a certain kind of curiosity to know what is happening inside. That curiosity may translate into gaining knowledge about scientific research. We see that in the Einstein tower, there are few spatial elements that attract the public and there are few Spatial elements that separate the public to gain knowledge that the apparatus produces.

Apparatus

Researcher Public

Fig 3.21- Relationship of the characters in Jantar mantar

Fig 3.22- Ecology of Eintein Tower

Fig 3.23 - Difficulty to access due to location on mountain

Fig 3.24 - Research Spaces Being fragmented

Fig 3.25 - Delicate technology demands less public

Fig 3.26 - Daytime payed tours are available for the public

Fig 3.27 - Tours change to workshops during the night

Mcmath-Pierce Telescope

McMath–Pierce solar telescope is located in the Kitt Peak National Observatory campus which is an observatory located on Kitt Peak of the Quinlan Mountains in the Arizona-Sonoran Desert on the Tohono O’odham Nation, 88 kilometers (55 mi) west-southwest of Tucson, Arizona. With more than twenty optical and two radio telescopes, it is one of the largest gatherings of astronomical instruments in the northern hemisphere. It is designed by SOM architects in 1964. The telescope was mainly designed for studying the physical and chemical features of the sun and is the world’s largest unobstructed aperture optical telescope.

The campus of kitt peak national observatory is located very far away from a settlement. The campus is located on a hill as it generates the best conditions to carry out experiments and clear skies to do observation. As much as it benefits the knowledge being produced it becomes harder for the public to access them( fig - 3.23). The observatory is now divided into various telescopes for different purposes and the function of each of them is fixed. The researchers working there have their own network inside the campus to work within their field of expertise. This also leads to the fragmentation of knowledge that is produced(fig 3.24). This fragmentation was possible because science and technology grew over time which leads to highly complicated telescopes for observation. The telescopes were required to be very accurate as

the range of observation increased and hence they became more and more delicate. This lead to the reduction of allowing the public to engage with the apparatus more(fig - 3.25).

Few observatories over time have figured out other ways to generate income out of tourism and try to engage the public. The Kitt Peak National Observatory has a visitors center that allows public visitors to come and be involved in a few of the activities that are open for the public. During the daytime, there are tours that are organized for the public to go around the campus. The public can either see the telescope from outside the campus through the fence or can pay to go near it (fig 3.26). During the night, the tours transform into workshops for stargazing and observing stars(fig - 3.27). The public is kept out using fences and barb wires. The visitors center is a very basic structure with installations that give direct information about certain scientific topics to the public. It has a shop where people can buy souvenirs and gifts. In the tours, the public is still not allowed to interact with the researchers or the apparatus now they are allowed to know what exactly the research is going on in the observatory. The public has a very indirect relationship with the apparatus and no relationship with the researchers(fig - 3.28). The researchers have some tours are few spatial elements attract networks amongst them on the campus which is very different from the public movement in it.

The drawing on the right (fig - 3.29) shows the different networks that the telescopes generate and shows how the knowledge generated stays inside. The drawing shows that knowledge keeps building up inside and we see that mostly there is highly filtered or censored information that the public gets. From the readings, we see that this is due to the high competitiveness of humans to become the first to generate a novelty in science.

We see that over time as science advances it becomes complicated and I believe to make it simpler for the public to understand, new kinds of spaces start emerging like the visitors center. This assumption to simplify knowledge to make the public understand also tends to disconnect the public from the knowledge.

Apparatus

Researcher Public

Fig 3.28- Relationship of the characters in Mcmath-Pierce Telescope

Fig 3.29- Ecology of Mcmath-Pierce Telescope

Fig 3.30 - Being on an island adds to the disconnect

Fig 3.31 - No public allowed in the search spaces.

Fig 3.32 - Fragmentation of researches with the apparatus.

Teide Observatory is an astronomical observatory on Mount Teide at 2,390 meters (7,840 ft), located in Tenerife, Spain. It has been operated by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias since its inauguration in 1964. It became one of the first major international observatories, attracting telescopes from different countries around the world because of the good astronomical seeing conditions. Modern Astrophysics took its first steps in the Canary Islands in this Observatory, in the early sixties, in the area of Izaña, at an altitude of 2,400 m, where the municipal boundaries of La Orotava, Fasnia, and Güimar converge. The first telescope started to operate in 1964, to study zodiacal light, the light scattered by inter-planetary matter. There are currently telescopes and other astronomic instruments from over 60 institutions of 19 different countries that can be operated off-site as well.

In the chapter Factory, Laboratory, and Studio- Disappearing spaces of production by peter Galison, he talks about the individual Avante garde studios. What had happened was that when the industrial revolution hit, most of the scientific research spaces were taken under the military or the center. Most of the artists or people who really wanted to not get into this influence of the factory model were there are hundreds of people working under an organization, those people usually ran away and made individual workshops finding various locations which are harder for people to reach and communicate with others. In the chapter, the author

gives an example where Nicola tesla and his workshop were deep in Forrest on a hill far away from a settlement. Also The Sonnblick Observatory, Austria, 1954. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many European particle physicists conducted their experiments at high-altitude stations like this one. In the aftermath of World War II, such small-scale, romantic mountaintop sites served as a dual symbol: both, as a refuge from American accelerator prowess and, provisionally, as a way of maintaining an older, less-industrialized form of experimental life.

The Teide observatory has similar properties to an Avante garde workshop but it is for an institution. The observatory is located on the Canary islands which becomes a factor that led to the disconnect of the public with the research space(fig 3.30). Since the whole campus is used by the institute and the countries whose telescope there is hardly any public engagement. Only twice in the full-year public is allowed and recently there is a visitors center made for the public. The book, The Evolution of Knowledge- Science of the Anthropocene, talks about fragmentation as the concept that led to the decline of knowledge. It says the fragmentation of science did would have helped individual branches of science but it reduced the spread of knowledge as a whole.

With the growth of technology, it has been possible to work with apparatus without physically interacting with it. The Teide

observatory was built in the digital revolution which led to the disconnect between the researchers and the apparatus itself (fig - 3.31). It became easier for the researcher to not operate the apparatus himself but a set of commands and controls will make the apparatus carry out operations on its own. This directly affected the spatiality of the observatory. The telescope became a separate space with just the mechanism and a shelter to protect it from the climate and the research space transformed into a separate room that can operate the telescope. The Teide Observatory is similar, the researchers themselves have an indirect relationship with the apparatus.

The separation of the researcher and the apparatus opens up new kinds of relationships. Here the researcher has a different kind of engagement with a screen in allows a group of people together but that group is limited within the institution. This does allow larger and more collaborative opportunities for different researchers within different fields of research but it is limited to that institute or that campus(fig - 3.2)

Researcher

Apparatus

Fig 3.33 - Relationship of the characters of Teide observatory.

Fig 3.34 - Ecology of Teide observatory.

The thesis argued that the spaces of production of knowledge, observatories to be specific, have now become very private. Before when astronomy was starting to emerge these spaces were highly public. The readings hint that this shift has happened recently due to the world wars and the increase in competitiveness of the countries.

According to the case studies, the scientific research spaces were very public during the ancient and pre-war eras. The layers of the public, the researchers, and the observatory, all collapsed. This collapse led to the growth of science and technology. In El Caracol, the public needed the observatory. The observatory used to provide information about seasons to the people and people used to use that to grow food that grows best in that season. The available materials and knowledge about construction made the form of the structure to be monumental and this increased the element of play for the public.

Jantar Mantar is similar to El Caracol. Here the research spaces are fragmented into smaller object-like structures. This fragmentation affords the public to gather around the apparatus as a group. The apparatus casts shadows that researchers use for their study. The shadow acts as knowledge for the researchers as well as something to interact with for the public. In both the above cases the built-form allows the idea of play to flow through them in various different ways.

Einstein Tower was built during the industrial revolution. There is a mix of publicness and privateness of spatiality. The architectural form of the building acts as a landmark in the city attracting the public. But, The difference between the relationship of the public with the apparatus is more evident here than in the previous two cases. The space for the researcher here becomes smaller, as space is more for individual study and it is meant for a single person to interact with the apparatus.

In the last two cases, the Mcmath-Pierce Telescope and Teide Observatory this fragmentation is evident in spaces as well. In the Teide Observatory, the use of the telescope as a group starts coming back, but on a screen in a separate room. In the McMathPierce Telescope, there is a separation of the knowledge produced and the public, yet there are hints of new kinds of spaces emerging to engage, like the visitors center. New types of public spaces are emerging more and more nowadays like the planetarium and

science centers. These try to engage the public in science but they give a similar filtered kind of knowledge. The information given to the public in such spaces does not change over a long period. The installation inside a planetarium and a science center remains constant. A planetarium has shows which are planned and have specific timings.

The study indicates that there have been two types of shifts over time. One is a programmatic shift and the other is a spatial shift.. In the programmatic shift, the research space was earlier a collapsed ecosystem between the public, the researcher, and the apparatus. The public used to feed onto the information given by researchers. But they are now fragmented. This shift enabled new programs for the public like the visitors center, planetarium, and science centers to emerge.

As it is evident from the studies, the monumental nature of older structures is conducive to the public. Its solidity mobilizes the idea of play to flow around and inside the structures. Since the structures were monumental, they accommodate a larger amount of the public. Being bigger in scale and being monumental are two separate things. The structure may not be big in scale, but it can be monumental, thereby making it more public.

Before the invention of the telescope, the space of research itself was used to carry out observations. The architectural elements like fenestrations and walls were tools, which were limited to one aspect but yet it made it more rigid for the public to interact with it.

But, in the current research spaces, the apparatus is very delicate. The space of research is separate from the apparatus, the architecture itself is just a shelter for the apparatus. Most of the research work requires special equipment which requires specialized environments to work in. This is where architecture came in. The architecture from being the apparatus for the research became the shelter for the apparatus to function efficiently. All these shifts combined led to the disconnect between the public and the research space.

The thesis opens up questions to rethink research spaces in a way to engage more public. How can science be accessible to the public? Spaces like the planetariums or science centers that are emerging can be rethought to be more integrated with research facilities. The architecture itself can be the mechanism for engaging the public and conducting research.

Dessertation Conclusion

Intervention

Design Scope

The thesis opened up the ideas to rethink any kind of institution to engage more public.

There needs to be a smudge between the researcher, the public and the apparatus.

The new emerging spaces like science centers and planetariums have the possibilities to be integrated with a research space. These new spaces also need to be re-thought to be more aligned with contemporary research.

Ambition -

To rethink a research space of an institution to engage more public

To introduce the idea of play for the public as well as the researcher using architecture (since architecture have just become a shelter and does not contribute for research)

Revamp of the campus

Mumbai university had floted a tender in 2017 to redesign the whole campus for better access and connectivity between the depatments. Since most of the departmental buildings are old and delaptated this revamp was required. The plan was to add more private insitututions in the campus since they provide better infrastructure and the university will give a part of the land to them. The MMRDA got the tender and has decided that the kalina univversity will become the part of the BKC master plan. In the proposed design the edges of the campus will be for commercial use with offices and hotels.

The department of science is supposed to become one nine floor building. Which i feel will further disconnect the public from the research. The edge and the gates will become more concrete and the campus will loose its porous nature

Questions for intervention

Why will the public come? Why will they be intrested in science?

Active research is not proven so does it make sense to involve the public? At what stage does the public engages?

How will my intervention not become another Science Center or a planeterium?

Since science is now dependent on technology whatand how architecture play a role in the research?

As my intervention site, I chose Kalina University. The institution is west of the western express highway, and the Bandra Kurla Complex, a planned business district, is to the south. The north and east are dominated by apartment complexes, while the south is dominated by a slum community. The north side is thickly packed with nurseries from which the city purchases plants. The nurseries, on the other hand, have no relationship to the campus because they are divided by a compound wall. The eastern edges are a lot softer; the university gate is mostly open, and no one is stopping people from entering.

I realised that the campus functions as a closed ecosystem after observing the movement patterns of the three key actors on-site, the public, faculty, and students. The fact that it is a university makes it impossible for the general public to enter or cross. But the campus and its huge scale can afford to absorb the public as well as Smudge itself within the city.

I discovered that the university is willing to revamp the campus. It would become part of the Bandra Kurla Complex, which, according to the current proposal, will further restrict the public.

My project was charged with a few questions: first, why will people be interested in research?

Second, How will my intervention not become a science center or a planetarium?

Lastly, What function does architecture play in science and research now that they are so reliant on technology?

As a result, my design strategy was to use landscape and interventions to create play, which served as a reason for the public to come. Magnets such as the playground, nurseries, and landscape areas that are shaded or have dense trees that will draw the public were identified on the site. Then, with relation to the setting and the magnets, I filtered the existing flows and identified prospective movement patterns of the various actors. By overlapping these paths, a trail is created in which all of these characters can intrude at various points.

I identified four types of areas along this trail where potential interventions could take place, the first of which is the walk itself. The second is the areas where the trail passes through no existing research space, therefore I had to create a new research space that engages the public.

Third, if the trail goes through an existing research space, the intervention should establish a relationship between the researcher and the public.

Lastly, nodes located at trail intersections will serve as public utilities.

I chose four conditions along this trail for this thesis, two of which have existing research spaces and two of which do not.

Physics and Chemistry Department

Bio-tech Department

Department of Life Science

Greenhouse Science cafe Open labs New Chemistry lab

The first condition is where the trail passes by the physics, chemistry, life science, and biotechnology departments. There is a dilapidated small greenhouse that the life science department used to use.

Open labs and a Science cafe were two of the programs I proposed. I wanted to redesign the greenhouse which thus serves as a magnet that generates the spark of play for the public to enter. The open lab is a space where artists can collaborate with researchers and students to help them visualize their research data. The science cafe acts as a public space where peer reviews and presentations can take place.

The greenhouse sits in the way of the trail and forms a ramp leading down to a small exhibition space for the open labs. The trees on the site define the form of the open labs. The science café serves as a canteen for students as well as a rest space for the public. The central court act as an open presentation space during evenings.

The roof joins the first floors of the department building enabling the students and the faculty to move across departments. It is a redpigmented decking slab that sits on a light steel frame structure.

Physics and Chemitry department

Science Cafe Open labs

-3m +-0m Greenhouse

New Chemistry Lab

+0.1m 7.5m 1 5

-3m

Department of Life Science

Green house Biochemistry Department 0

15 Cut plan

+3.6m 0m

-3m

+4.4m

+3.6m 0m

+4.4m -3m

Science Cafe

Exibition area

Green house

Assistant prof. cabin

Public Existing relationship New relationship

Nursery

Students Students

Compund wall Public

Faculty Faculty

Nursery

Botany lab Tennis court

Bus Stop

The northern boundary of campus, where there is a lengthy stretch of existing nurseries, is the next condition. There is already a relationship between the city and the nurseries. The compound wall, on the other hand, prohibits such relationships from entering the campus. The plan was to build a new botanical research facility and repurpose the nursery as a market to attract visitors.

Instead of being constrained by a compound wall, I rethought the nursery’s existing typology to make it an independent shop. The shopkeeper’s rest space is in the middle, and plinths radiate out from there. They provide a space to keep plants as well as a means for people to get around. The soil and fertilisers are kept in a pit behind the rest area. The frame above the plinths makes it easier to hang nets to shade low-light plants.

I developed three sets of such shops with radially expanding plinths. These modules are then connected to create a market for the general public to wander through. The public’s tour through the market is transformed into an experience. This market has a botany lab that runs parallel to it. As a result, researchers will be able to communicate with nursery store owners, and students will be able to learn from them. The architecture allows passers-by to see inside the laboratories.

Soil Pit

Rest Plinth for plants

Frame to fabrichangfor shading or planters

Botany labs

Assistant profs offices

5mm thin corrugated roof

50x50mm square framing to hang fabric for shading or planters

+2.7m

+2.2m

Rest space for the nursery owner

200mm high plinths help to keep the plants and directs movement for the public

+0.2m

The trail also branches off from the market to go to a tennis court.

The trail itself rises into three ramps that become the steps of the stands. The students can hang out in an intimate amphitheater created by a section of the stands that comes down from behind.

This draws other students from different departments to come through the nursery and botany labs.

Amphitheather

Amphitheather

Stands

Tennis courts

Tennis courts

Public going to Bandra Kurla Complex

Public going to the playground or nursery

Exibition hall + Observatory

Students, faculty and researchers

Sky observatory acts as the magnet to attract students and public.

Cut outs in the roof that brings light for the grass

The landscape becomes the partition for the exibition

Movable panels further segregated the space for thr exibition

The floors moulds to become mounds around the grass for people to sit and climb

fiber cement board

100mm decking roof with red pigmented concrete

100x200mm steel beams

+3.8m

C channel on the periphery

150mm dia circular columns

+3m

+0.5m

2m to 2.8m tall dry grass 0m

+0.5m

The third condition takes place on dry land, with very little immediate context to respond to. However, the area is overgrown with dry, tall grass. The site is in between two overlapping movement paths of the people using the trail to cross the campus vertically.

The program I proposed here was to create an exhibition hall for the entire campus. A sky observatory here will serve as another magnet for students of the campus and the public walking along the trail. The trail thickens to form the exhibition hall and is divided into three zones by patches of grass scooping inside.

The form of the roof is dependent upon the patch of grass that comes into the exhibition space. The roof bends and becomes a skylight, allowing the grass in that region to grow taller. The floor also bumps up, around the grass patches, allowing a person to stand and feel taller than the grass.

The sky observatory is a semi-underground space that has a dome structure with an oculus at the center. The landscape flows over its roof and also can be occupied. The interior is a dark space with light coming only through the oculus which forces the people to look at the sky.

Courtyard ramp + pantry

The ramps enter the buidings and becomes the common space

The last condition is a small intervention in a building that contains multiple departments on various floors. The building has a U-shaped typical plan with a 12m thin courtyard that the students are not allowed to access. To attempt to bring the public in as well as to start interaction between departments, the intervention becomes a series of ramps that climbs around the courtyard. The ramps end by activating the terrace with a light roof.

The ramp at certain floors turns and breaks into the buildings creating a larger space for the students and faculty to either go down or go to any other department and enabling different transactions to take place.

A small canteen space is provided that acts converging point for all the students to gather. They use this area to share what they are working on and gossip. Unlike the existing staircases, this intervention tries to add a layer of circulation in a more playful way.

Gibson, James. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Classic., 2015.

Aldo Rossi. The Architecture of the City. eds The MIT Press, 1984.

Aveni, Anthony F. Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. University of Texas Press, 1983.

Galison, Peter, and Emily Thompson, eds. The Architecture of Science. The MIT Press, 1999.

Hentschel, Klaus. The Einstein Tower- An Intertexture of Dynamic Construction, Relativity Theory, and Astronomy. Translated by Ann M. Hentschel. Stanford University Press;, 1997.

“Kitt Peak Visitor Center Activities.” Accessed June 10, 2021. https://visitkittpeak.org/.

Renn, Jürgen. The Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton University Press, 2020.

Steven J. Dick, and Roger Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. reateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.

Sveiven, Megan. “McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope, Kitt Peak National Observatory.” Accessed June 14, 2021. https://www.archdaily.com/121364/ad-classics-mcmathpierce-solar-telescope-kitt-peak-national-observatorysom.

“The Jantar Mantar, Jaipur.” Accessed June 14, 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1338.

References

Parth solanki

School of environment and architecture