THE GALLERY CENTER
JASMINE ZHANG ARCH 383 STUDIO | SPRING 2020 PROFESSOR DANIEL CHUNG DREXEL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN, AND URBANISM ALL PHOTOS NOT CITED ARE PHOTOS PERSONALLY CAPTURED FOR USE.
WINTER STUDIO
3
LANDSCAPE FEATURE
8
MASSING DEVELOPMENT
13
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
18
REFLECTIONS
25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WINTER STUDIO
MORAVIAN POTTERY + TILE WORKS
LONDON PLANE ALLEE
SITE HISTORY Henry Chapman Mercer built the Fonthill Castle at Doylestown, Pennsylvania on a 70-acre property with no prior architectural experience. He constructed the castle between 1908 to 1912 using a mix of Medieval, Gothic, and Byzantine architectural styles. The interior was decorated with various tiles including Mercer’s own designs and collections from around the world. Mercer’s tile design was made on the Fonthill site in the Moravian Pottery and Tile Works, which he constructed 1911 to 1912. These two concrete landmarks are part of the Mercer Mile, a belt of Mercer’s three historical structures; the third structure, the Mercer Museum, lies in the heart of Doylestown.
SITE ANALYSIS The Fonthill site is vast, empty, and difficult. Entry to the site is through the London Plane Tree allee off of E. Court Street. The driveway is narrow with no clear sign indication that it is the entry, which momentarily confuses drivers. The parking lot is no more than a plot of gravel - unclear that it is the parking lot. Relocating the driveway and parking lot o a more obvious location and a more obvious design is perferable. Fonthill Castle, the Visitors’ Center, and the Moravian Pottery and Tile Works are the only buildings on site, leaving the majority of the 70-acre property forested. There are walking trails through the forest that winds around the plot of land, but besides the trails and the structures, there is nothing else to do. Programming the site would add to the much-needed activity of Fonthill. Moving forward, I will be developing a new area of activity for the Fonthill site and its relationship to the existing landscape.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
4
PROGRAM ARRANGEMENT AROUND GATHERING
ATLANTIC CENTER FOR THE ARTS | MARYANN THOMPSON ARCHITECTS; CHARLES ROSE ARCHITECTS
Atlantic Center for the Arts. Res Artis. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://resartis.org/wp-content/uploads/job-manageruploads/main_image/2019/06/LSC-Roofs-overview-1183x800.jpg.
CENTRAL GATHERING SPACE
WHITE FLOWERS BOULEVARD| PARK; PROJECT GROUP 8
Shvedov, Daniil. White Flowers Boulevard. ArchDaily. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://images.adsttc.com/media/ images/5d2e/473e/284d/d1c4/2c00/015d/slideshow/005.jpg?1563313899.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
5
SW
NO
RT
H
ST
RE
ET
A (R MP TE R . 3 OA 13 D )
E
CO
UR
TS
TR
EE
T
P
EA
ST
ST
RE
ET
DOYLESTOWN BOROUGH
MERCER MILE CONNECTION
VEHICULAR + PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
PROGRAMS:
FONTHILL TOWN CENTER WETLAND GARDENS PLAY PARK MEADOW
PROGRAM ZONES
“THE TOWN” SCHEME
6
PRIVATE RESIDENCES
MORAVIAN POTTERY & TILEWORKS TOWN CENTER ART CENTER
NEW PARKING LOT ENTRY
ART STUDIO DINING HALL FAMILY PARK
NEW PARKING LOT
PRODUCTION CENTER RESTING ZONE
FONTHILL VISITOR CENTER
WETLAND GARDENS
AMPHITHEATER FONTHILL CASTLE
ADVENTURE PARK MEADOW
PRIVATE RESIDENCES
SITE PLAN
N
0’
100’ 200’
400’
“THE TOWN” SITE PLAN
600’
1000’
7
LANDSCAPE FEATURE
WALL ENCLOSURE
CLEAR ENCLOSURE
VEGETATED ENCLOSURE
SEMI-SOLID ENCLOSURE
RAILING ENCLOSURE
SOLID ENCLOSURE
The Rest Pocket aime to be a private oasis for visitors. They are moments of getaway from the overall Fonthill program, acting as picnic grounds; meeting spaces; and observatories of the site. They begin to introduce privacy, moments where people can focus on the event in front of them. To achieve the idea of oasis, I tested the Rest Pockets as areas underground or aboveground. I want them to be enclosed so it defines the area of refuge and personal activity, while still being able to interact with the surroundings, in the sense that people know what is happening around them should they decide to leave their bubbles. Having a clear enclosure aboveground allows people to have their private spaces while still being part of Fonthill.
REST POCKET PRIVACY DEVELOPMENT
9
PLAZA LOCATION | PRIVACY | LEVELS OF CIRCULATION + GATHERING GLAZOV’S TOWN CENTER | NPO FOUNDATION FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT “GARDEN CITY”
Bazhenov, Pavel. Glazov’s Town Center. ArchDaily. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5d2e/094f/284d/d1c4/2c00/00f3/ slideshow/39.jpg?1563298082.
STEPS
STEPS + SEATING, HIGH
STEPS + SEATING, LOW
Glazov’s Town Center lowered their plaza, separate from the pedestrian paths above, creating a small, gathering space. It creates a new space in the area. To give the plaza better focus, the grade change was accompanied not only be stairs to access the lower level, but also step seating to allow people to enjoy the events in the plaza.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
10
PLAZA ENCLOSURE | LEVEL OF PRIVACY ELIANE SQUARE| HANAZAKI PAISAGISMO
Serodio, Yuri. Eliane Square. ArchDaily. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5ea8/5451/b357/653a/fd00/0503/slideshow/ IMG_2924.jpg?1588089928.
LOW WALLS
MIXED WALLS
LAYERED WALLS
Eliane Square is a small plaza surrounded by greenery and walls. The elements vary in type, size, and density, providing various levels of privacy in the space. Walls bring a strong intimate feel as they border the square and conceal views.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
11
SUNKEN PLAZA
GREEN TRELLIS FEATURE
LANDSCAPE ONTO MASSING
DIVISION OF PRIVATE SPACES
I sunk the plaza by several feet so that it can feel like a small, private, gathering space. There are step seating to allow an area for people to sit in. I envision a place to showcase or discuss art like an outdoor exhibit. The plaza is deep enough underground that artwork could be hung up against the wall to view. It’s also dug into the ground enough so that the massings could have enough clearance inside.
PLAZA DEVELOPMENT
12
MASSING DEVELOPMENT
LOW MASSES
LOW CARVES
HIGH MASSES
HIGH CARVES
MIXED HEIGHTS
SPLIT MASSES
The massing concept is three-in-one buildings as one. Each part of the building holds a different set of program and are located in different parts of the building: studios towards the Tileworks, exhibits towards the Castle, and the support in the center. I wanted each program space to be different from each other to fit their programmatic needs and be private from each other, but also to be unified to make the building read as an art space - if it was weird, it would be fine as it’s following the Fonthill Castle in creativity. I tested different heights and carving of the massing to create an unique building that would privacy in each of its entities. I also tried splitting the masses to give more privacy, but it loses its unity.
MASSING CONCEPTS
14
EDGE OF PLAZA
DUG INTO GROUND, ORTHOGONAL
SURROUNDING PLAZA
DUG INTO GROUND, ROUND
SURROUNDING PLAZA, CONTINOUS In the process of integrating the massing into the landscape, I realized that the massing is sitting on the land. It’s not part of the landscape. I saw an opportunity to incorporate the massing as part of the plaza design. I had already planned the plaza to be enclosed, so I figured that I could use the massing as a form of enclosure. The massing was made of three parts, two of which - the studios and exhibits - went underground, forming the boundaries. This left the support space aboveground, serving as the entry point. While the underground masses became more integrated and unique, the support mass stayed the same - a box, alone. It didn’t read that there was more to it than a box, and certainly didn’t read as an entry to the underground studios and exhibits.
INTEGRATION INTO LANDSCAPE
15
SUNKEN MASSES | CONNECTING TO UNDERGROUND + PRIVACY
PIAZZA + ART SPACE | ATELIER TEAMMINUS
Piazza & Art Space. ArchDaily. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5cfe/4893/284d/d16d/6a00/0c26/slideshow/室外_4. jpg?1560168585.
LINEAR ROOF
HIGH CURVED ROOF
LOW CURVED ROOF
I studied the Piazza + Art Space to understand sunken masses and how it connects to the underground while creating privacy. The roof plane is risen high to bring attention to the ground by its slope. It draws the eye to the angle where the roof meets the ground, where elements disappear below. This works by concealing the views to the underground and compressing the ground elements, and can only work with a steep slope, enhanced by curves.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
16
LOW LINEAR PLANE
CURVED PITCHED ROOF
HIGH LINEAR PLANE
LOW PITCHED ROOF
CURVED PLANE
HIGH PITCHED ROOF
Using the cues from Piazza & Art Space, I focused on changing the mass of the support space to bring attention that happenings are occuring below people’s feet. This is especially important because the landscape flows onto the sunken masses, so it is less likely for people to know the underground programs. The sloped planes doesn’t clearly indicate that there is more to what meets the eye, but the pitched roofs do as they point to the ground - pointing to the sunken masses on either side of the plaza. Privacy can be gleamed from how much compression is being shown at the intersection of the roof and ground planes.
UNDERGROUND CONNECTION
17
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PRIVATE RESIDENCES
MORAVIAN POTTERY & TILEWORKS
THE GALLERY CENTER
FAMILY PARK
NEW PARKING LOT ENTRY
NEW PARKING LOT
RESTING ZONE
FONTHILL VISITOR CENTER
WETLAND GARDENS
FONTHILL CASTLE
ADVENTURE PARK REST POCKET
MEADOW
PRIVATE RESIDENCES
SITE PLAN
N
0’
100‘ 200’
400’
600’
1000’
THE GALLERY CENTER SITE PLAN
19
PATH TO GALLERY CENTER
IN THE REST POCKET
SITE VIGNETTES
20
A
TRELLIS
DOWN
DOWN
TRELLIS
PLAZA
B DOWN
B
0’
10’
20’
40’
ROOF FLOOR PLAN
A
A
STUDIO
STUDIO
STORAGE MECH
14 RISERS (6 55/64")
14
13
9
8
7
11
10
12
PLAZA
EXHIBIT
7 RISERS (13 23/32")
B
7
6
5
4
3
B
14 RISERS (6 55/64")
9
8
7
11
40’
14
20’
13
10’
12
0’
REST ROOMS
10
STUDIO
STUDIO
REST ROOMS
A
FIRS T FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING PLANS
21
0’
5’
10’
20‘
30’
40’
SECTION A-A
Building Section B (3) SCALE: 1/16" =
0’
5’
10’
20‘
30’
1'-0"
40’
SECTION B-B
BUILDING SECTIONS
22
OVERLOOKING PLAZA
LOOKING TO FONTHILL CASTLE
VIGNETTES
23
GALLERY CENTER PLAZA
THE GALLERY CENTER
VIGNETTES
24
REFLECTIONS
CRITQUE COMMENTS One of the earliest comments was my decision to continue improving upon the town center area from winter term. The town center, during winter term, was like a boulevard, which a juror said that many times town centers do end up being. The trellis feature added a nice touch to the plaza, but it currently does nothing more than sit along the roof planes. It could be integrated more into the massing, letting it fly through the buildings. It would create a more interesting section. There were several comments regarding the materiality chosen for the ground planes and the massing facades. The materials were clearly defined, but could have benefited from being more abstract.While the wood material chosen was good and connected with the trellis, the gray panels next to them made the facade less interesting. The program for the plaza - primarily as an outdoor art exhibit space - fits well in the space and the jurors could envision the events happening. The interior programs were a contrast to the unique design of the massing. The plans seemed too rigid for the more fluid mass. The circulation and experience to the plaza was too defined for certain groups of people. It’s not well-suited for the handicapped The carving of the masses into the earth was a bold move, but it doesn’t integrate well into the landscape. The building placed into the doesn’t enhance the landscape itself. The rest pockets stand alone, and doesn’t seem to add any effect to either the building or the landscape. The landscape should be coupled with the building to create a progress of destination.
CRITQUE RESPONSES One of the reasons that I decided to move forward with the town center scheme from winter term was to eliminate the boulevard’s presence. While working on the scheme in winter term, I had difficulty in sizing it down, but I was able to turn the scheme into a much smaller and useable space. I was happy to that my effort to do so was recognized. I thought of the trellis feature quite late in the design, so I didn’t have the time to work out the idea more. However, I did think that the trellis, while an unique addition, could be a more prominant feature. In the future, I would look more into trellis design, or any overhead features, to try to integrate them more into the massing so it has a stronger purpose. Since I had a wooden trellis, I knew I wanted to continue the wood materiality onto the facades. However, I wasn’t sure of what material would complement the wood in the plaza, so I went with gray panels so that it wouldn’t stand out too much. Unfortunately, the decision backfired as the gray panels were pointed out as a strange part of the facade. I did think the plans were too simple. They were just rooms next to each other with a hallway for access. There was nothing particularly noteworthy about them. I didn’t want to spend too much time thinking about how to make the plans better since I was already having difficulty working on the landscape scale. I decided to leave the plans as-is. If I were able to work on the building plans more, I think I would have changed the massing volumes so they weren’t boxes; it would have created a more fluid and special program organization that would accommodate people with different needs better. My difficulty in grasping how to connect each part of my design together was likey what prevented me from designing a landscape that worked with the building and vice versa. I realized exactly what I needed to do to create moments of privacy in a progression of destination much too late. Thinking back on the process now, I think it would have been easier if I were more specific in what I wanted to occur and went straight for that goal. I spent a lot of time going back and forth. It was difficult to see this during the process, but reflecting back on it, I realized so much more of what I could have done.
FINAL CRITIQUE
26