Sci-Arc Portfolio 2015-2019

2

S C I - A r c PROTFOLIO 2015

FALL

S I C H E N G

-

2019

( D E X )

H U

SPRING

CONTENTS DS 1

VS/AS

CD/DD

HT/LA

5

4B Design Studio

139 2B Visual Studies

171

4A Design Development

197

21

4A Design Studio

147 2A Visual Studies

183

4B Construction Document

299

33

3B Design Studio

155 1B Visual Studies

49

3A Design Studio

163 4A Detail Detail...

65

2B Design Studio

93

2A Design Studio

107 1B Design Studio 123 1A Design Studio

201

History of Architecture III Philosophy

I

History of Architecture I

STATEMENT Creation is a powerful skill, an intriguing ability evolving from our originalities and perspectives.

By formulating our own unique creations, we may endeavour to create a parallel between our imagination and the world in which we live. Winston Churchill once emphasised the fact that “we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us”. In my mind, these buildings personify and embody the diverse cultures that exist today, reflecting the power and endless potential of man’s genius. Self expression is what differentiates us as an individual. It is my passion for Architecture that acts as a catalyst for inspiration and therefore provides me with a prominent sense of ambition and desire. Four years in SCI-ARC I have been given an opportunity to appreciate the aesthetic beauty prevalent in the world today. This insightful demonstration has allowed my passion to evolve further, hence determining my decision to continue at a more advanced level. I believe the course will challenge my creative potential, culminating in the formulation of my own, authentic designs. In effect, Architecture is a potent, influential force in my life that has given me a sense of direction and meaning. I agree with the ideology that an individual will rarely exceed its own expectations. Architecture installs in me a belief that I can achieve and reach new heights, therefore acting as a foundation for success and fulfilment in the future.

2

3

DESIGN

STUDIO

4

DESIGN STUDIO

4B STUDIO 2019 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: DEVYN WEISER 5

For the past few years in architectural discourse we find ourselves among many revivals - historicism and post-modernism, digital and systems design, the reemergence of emergence and various materialisms.

In a time of unprecedented reduplications, to make the next move will require the construction of an apparatus of fiction - a new ontology of representation and redefinition of the concept of authorship.

In support of this discourse on Appropriation and Representation the studio is working with drawing and imaging apparatus that involves both digital and analog processes. Defamiliarizing the ways in which images and objects are constructed and perceived, this visual regime has the potential for a new architectural syntax.

MORE OR LESS

6

DESIGN STUDIO

7

By using the No.1 poultry located at the junction of Poultry and Queen Victoria Street design by James Stirling as the precedent, we are be able to break this building into parts and reconstruct as well as recompose through digital process. It result in various compositions in the image format.

MORE OR LESS

Top

Front

Back

Left

Right

Bottom

8

DESIGN STUDIO

9

Compisition I

Compisition II

MORE OR LESS

10

Compisition III

DESIGN STUDIO

11

Elevation

MORE OR LESS

12

DESIGN STUDIO

F-Elev_Lg

L-Elev_Lg

B-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Lg

FPodm_Lg

B-fBox_Sm

B-fBox_Lg

F -Elev_Lg

L -Elev_Lg

B-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Lg

FPodm_Lg

B-fBox_Sm

B-fBox_Lg

F-Elev_Lg

L-Elev_Lg

B-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Lg

FPodm_Lg

B-fBox_Sm

B-fBox_Lg

nB-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Sm

FPodm_Sm

nB-fBox_Sm

nB-fBox_Lg

nB-fBox_Sm

nB-FBox_Sm

nB-fBox_Sm

nB-FBox_Sm

13

F-Elev_Lg

L-Elev_Lg

F -Elev_Lg

L -Elev_Lg

nB-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Sm

FPodm_Sm

F-Elev_Lg

L-Elev_Lg

nB-FTri_Lg

HPodm_Sm

FPodm_Sm

By breaking down and transforming all the “elevations” and all the “inside boxs” into indivisual plans and sections, allowed us to work on plans and sections for each composition in a analog way.

MORE OR LESS

B-FBox_Lg

B-fBox_Lg

B-fBox_Sm

B-FBox_Lg

B-FBox_Sm

B-FBox_Lg

B-hBox_Lg

B-hBox_Sm

B-HBox_Lg

B-HBox_Sm

B-FBox_Lg

B-hBox_Lg

B-hBox_Sm

B-HBox_Lg

B-HBox_Sm

14

nB-FBox_Lg

nB-fBox_Sm

nB-fBox_Lg

nB-FBox_Lg

nB-FBox_Sm

nB-FBox_Lg

nB-hBox_Sm

nB-hBox_Lg

nB-HBox_Lg

nB-HBox_Sm

nB-FBox_Lg

nB-hBox_Sm

nB-hBox_Lg

nB-HBox_Lg

nB-HBox_Sm

DESIGN STUDIO

15

Compisition I Plan

MORE OR LESS

16

Compisition I Section

DESIGN STUDIO

17

Compisition II Plan

MORE OR LESS

18

Compisition II Section

DESIGN STUDIO

19

Compisition III Plan

MORE OR LESS

20

Compisition III Section

DESIGN STUDIO

4A STUDIO 2018 FALL INSTRUCTOR: RAMIRO DIAZ-GRANADOS

21

By identifying oppositional aspects of a thing we reduce it to a confrontational problem which we then pick a side. This mode of making sense of the world is deeply ingrained in our individual and collective psyches and operates in a background capacity. It is part of a covert shared sense of engaging with each other and the world of objects that surround us. As far as strategies of abstraction go this one has served us well but perhaps its form of reductionism is keeping at bay possibilities for breaking the world down and putting the pieces back together into new kinds of objects. Rather than structure the pedagogy of the studio around oppositions, the studio will proactively nest them within a multi-dimensional four-fold (Precedent, Tectonics, Aesthetics) diagram for the purposes of abstracting and reimagining the world towards a contemporary architectural proposal.

AMIGAA POSITIONS

22

DESIGN STUDIO

23

Taking on Church of the Year 2000 competition by Peter Eisenman as the precedent for the project. By merely changing the scale of the project and rotating the ground upside down, the core architectural problem is being transfer from objects and ground condition to roof and objects condition. It completely deflects the precedent programmatically (Church to Hosing Complex) while the formal approach is still intact.

AMIGAA POSITIONS

24

DESIGN STUDIO

25

Plan

AMIGAA POSITIONS

26

Sections

DESIGN STUDIO

27

Site plan

AMIGAA POSITIONS

28

DESIGN STUDIO

29

AMIGAA POSITIONS

30

DESIGN STUDIO

31

AMIGAA POSITIONS

32

DESIGN STUDIO

3B STUDIO 2018 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: RUSSELL THOMSEN

33

The 3B Studio introduces students to the comprehensive design and development of a large scale, building on an urban site. Advancing on the pedagogy established in previous studios, this studio focuses on the design, development, and tectonic logic of the building envelope and its ability to articulate contemporary formal organizations. Assemblage versus monolithic form, surface versus mass, iconicity and image, the intentional obscuring of hierarchical mass, layered, and graphic assemblies, tectonics and materiality, constitute a range of concerns in the design work.

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

34

DESIGN STUDIO

„“Š“„ „ˆŠ„…

„ˆŠ‘… „…Š“‰

„…ŠˆŽ “Š‘‡

” €

…„Š‘‰

…„Š‘‰

„‘Šˆ‘ „…ŠˆŽ “Š‹’

€

„ŽŠˆ‹ „…ŠˆŽ

„‘Š‹‹ „…ŠˆŽ

Œ €

„ˆŠ„…

‹Š‹‘

€

35

€

The surrounding building facades were analyzed to create a formal abstraction for our massing strategy.

The abstracted figures maintain the uncontentious void spaces found in Mexico City. These void spaces were then utilized for other purposes like public gather spaces, although they were unintentional.

The void space has a subtle presence of its original form with referential shapes suggesting its contextual identity to the surrounding buildings. Similarly the relationship of spacing and building height was maintained in order to create a scale which is driven by its surrounding environment.

Â

€ •

Â?

ƒ  Â

–

 •

– • Â? Â

ƒ • Â? Â

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

MARKET

RETAIL

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

GALLERY

36

DESIGN STUDIO

37

Site plan

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

38

DESIGN STUDIO

A

6

B1 B2

7

C

18.93 m

39 D

7

1

2

3 4

Plan

18.93 m

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

6 7

18.93 m

A 4

3

18.93 m

4

5 B1 B2

40

18.93 m 18.93 m 18.93 m

8

C

2

18.93 m

1 D

1

1

N

1:100

PLAN

GALLERY

SHOPPING MALL

1. EXHIBITION 6. RETAIL STORES 2. LOBBY 7. RESTAURANTS 3. ARCHIVE 8. OUTDOOR COURTYARD 4. OFFICE 5. CONFERENCE ROOM

5

6 7

DESIGN STUDIO

41

Elevation

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

42

DESIGN STUDIO

6

6

6

9

43

9

Section

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

9th FLOOR

37 M

1

8th FLOOR

33 M

1

6 1

7th FLOOR

30 M

1

6

6th FLOOR

27 M

1

6

6 5th FLOOR

21 M

1

7

1

44

4th FLOOR

17 M

8 2

5

3rd FLOOR

11 M

8 2nd FLOOR

6M

GROUND FLOOR

1:100

0M

SECTION

GALLERY

SHOPPING MALL

1. EXIBITION 2. LOBBY 3. ARCHIVE 4. OFFICE 5. GIF SHOP

6. RETAIL STORES 7. RESTAURANTS 8. LOBBY 9. ADMINISTRATION

DESIGN STUDIO

45

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

46

DESIGN STUDIO

47

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC II

48

DESIGN STUDIO

3A DESIGN STUDIO 2019 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: ALEXIS ROCHAS

49

The uses of precedent and antecedent are being considered in 3A studio design, while the main investigation examines the particular impact of the building envelope and its material and geometrical determinations on site. The design work focuses on a tall building form and the capacity to use transformation as a methodological tool to guide a rigorous approach to decision making. By studying the specificities of the tall building envelope, we are exposed to the tight dependency existing between serial determinations of: the geometric and material order of the outermost surface and the spaces it encloses, including the building’s core and structure; construction technologies and its tectonic and environmental implications; and its iconographic performance in today’s metropolis.

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

50

DESIGN STUDIO

Early study of the facade model reveals our interest in the multiscaler shading, created by the different scale of the tessellated panels and the angles of the facing panels in relation to each other.

The issue of the multiscaler shading is futher developed by overlaying a soft shadow rendering onto the surfaces, further blending the shadings, allowing for misreading of the surfaces.

Creases are being introduced into the facade system as an oppotunities to break up the mass, turning the mass into surface while surface is being able to imply volume.

51

10 STOREY FACADE STUDY

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

The axon view of our facade chunk study further illustrates our interest on the multiscaler shading of gradient, depth and softness that the overlay of rendering against the physical shadowing produces. Though having hard edges with as a physical form, the soft rendering blurs the physical edges of the surfaces creating a soft tissue form, allowing the misreading of the surfaces.

52

DESIGN STUDIO

53

+0’

FACADE UNROLL DIAGRAM

Facade unroll diagram

NORTH FACADE UNROLL

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

54

WEST FACADE UROLL

SOUTH FACADE UNROLL

DESIGN STUDIO

INI AN SIO

55

INT STE CO TH CR ALL TH OR

MASSING CATALOG

Massing evolution

MA

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

INITIATING WITH LINES WHICH ROTATES AND TWISTS ONTO A TRIANGULAR EXTRUSION.

USING THE TWISTING LINES AS A RULE OF REGULATION FOR THE TESSELATION PATTERNNING, CREATING STRIPS OF CELL SURFACES TWISTING AND MORPHING ONTO A TRIANGULAR MASSING.

56

INTERIOR MASSING AS SERIES OF STEPPING TOWERS SERVICED BY TWO CORES, THE NEGATIVE SPACES BETWEEN THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MASSING CREATES CATHEDRAL LIKE ATRIUMS ALLOWING OCCUPANTS TO EXPERIENCE THE INBETWEEN SPACES AND THE EXTERIOR SURFACES.

MASSING AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEM DIAGRAM

PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF BUILDINGS RELY ON THE CORE AND MEGA COLUMNS, WITH EXTRUDING BEAMS SUPPORTING FLOOR PLATES AND A DEFORMED DIAGRID SYSTEM SUPPORTING THE SURFACE GLASS PANELS.

DESIGN STUDIO

57

Elevations

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I +800’

+800’

+545’

+545’

+528’

+528’

+350’

HOTEL ATRIUM/ LOUNGE

HOTEL ATRIUM/ LOUNGE

+438’

MEP

MEP

+350’

+350’

+350’

+374’

+374’

MEP

MEP

HOTEL

HOTEL

+374’

+374’

+374’

MEP ZONE

+438’

+438’

HOTEL

HOTEL

+374’

+528’

HOTEL

+438’

MEP ZONE

+545’

+528’

HOTEL ATRIUM/ LOUNGE

HOTEL ATRIUM/ LOUNGE

HOTEL

+545’

MEP ZONE/ OBSERVATORY LOBBY MEP ZONE/ OBSERVATORY LOBBY

MEP ZONE/ OBSERVATORY LOBBY MEP ZONE/ OBSERVATORY LOBBY

528’

+800’

SKYROOM

SKYROOM

528’

+800’

+350’

+350’

58 OFFICE

OFFICE

HOTEL

+204’

MEP ZONE

+180’

OFFICE

OFFICE

HOTEL

+204’

+204’

+204’

MEP ZONE

+180’

MEP ZONE

MEP ZONE

+180’

+180’

+204’

+204’

MEP ZONE

MEP ZONE

+180’

+180’

OFFICE

OFFICE

OFFICE

OFFICE HOTEL

HOTEL

+52’

+52’

HOTEL LOBBY

HOTEL LOBBY

+52’

+52’

+52’

+52’

LOBBY/RETAIL

LOBBY/RETAIL

LOBBY/RETAIL

LOBBY/RETAIL

+0’

+0’

+0’

+0’

+0’

+0’ PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

-13’

-13’

SECTION B-B’ 1/16”=1’

-13’

-13’

SECTION B-B’ 1/16”=1’

Sections

A’ 3

OPEN TO BELOW

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

3

B’

B’

B

B

B’

B’

2

4

4

3

A’

A’

DESIGN STUDIO

3 5

Plans

GROUND PLAN

1_HOTEL LOBBY 2_OFFICE LOBBY 3_RETAIL MALL 4_CAFE 5_PUBLIC RESTROOMS

1_HOTEL LOBBY 2_OFFICE LOBBY 3_RETAIL MALL 4_CAFE 5_PUBLIC RESTROOMS

A

GROUND PLAN

1 1 A

S. Bixel St. A

S. Bixel St.

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

6

6

3

3

3

3

2

2

5

5

3

W 7th St.

W 7th St.

6

59

A’

A’

A’

B

B

B’

B’

B

3

60

OPEN TO BELOW

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1_HOTEL ROOMS 2_BUSINESS LOUNGE 3_CASUAL MEETING AREA 4_MEETING ROOMS 5_STUDIOS 6_PUBLIC RESTROOMS

1 1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1

1

F/36 HOTEL PLAN

F/36 HOTEL PLAN

1_HOTEL ROOMS 2_HOTEL SKYROOM

1_HOTEL ROOMS 2_HOTEL SKYROOM

A

F/16 OFFICE & HOTEL PLAN

1_HOTEL ROOMS 2_BUSINESS LOUNGE 3_CASUAL MEETING AREA 4_MEETING ROOMS 5_STUDIOS 6_PUBLIC RESTROOMS

A

1

1

F/16 OFFICE & HOTEL PLAN A

A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

4

1

4

4

6

6

6

6

1

1

3

3

3

3

OPEN TO BELOW

2

5

5

5

3

6

6

5

5

6

6

5

5

B

OPEN TO BELOW

3

OPEN TO BELOW

2

2

A’

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

DESIGN STUDIO SILVER FRITTED GLASS PANELS

MEGA TRUSS STEEL STRUCTURE EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM MULLIONS MEGA TRUSS COATED COVER

W40x278 I-BEAM

3” STEEL JOINERY PLATE

CONCRETE SLAB

SILVER FRITTED GLASS PANEL

2” CONNECTOR BOLTS CONCRETE SLAB

PROFILED STEEL PLATE

SPANDREL PANEL

61

FACADETECTONIC ASSEMBLY DETAIL

Interiror massing of the tower is depicted as a series or a collection of stepping towers, nesting within the triangular massing. The inbetween space between the two releases large atrium spaces, lounges for the particular program; These spaces also allow occupants to experience the large scale panels of the exterior facade.

Floor plates are supported by periferal beams stretching from the cores and the mega cloumns towards their outer boundaries.

The exterior facade is supported by a deformed diagrid resting onto the core and column supported beams. Facade cells are then divided into smaller panels by horizontal spandrels and diagonal mullions, following the direction of the twisting mass.

STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

MEGA TRUSS

RETAIL/OFFICE ELEVATOR SHAFT

RETAIL/OFFICE ELEVATOR SHAFT FIRE STAIR SHAFT LAVATORIES LAVATORIES

LAVATORIES

HOTEL ELEVATOR SHAFT

FIRE STAIR SHAFT

LEVEL 16 EL . 231’

LEVEL 15 EL . 218’

LEVEL 14 EL . 205’

LEVEL 13 EL . 192’ MEGA TRUSS LEVEL 12 EL . 179’

LEVEL 11 EL . 166’ EXTRUDED ALUMINUM MULLIONS

LEVEL 10 EL . 152’

LEVEL 9 SLIVER FRITTED GLASS

SEMBLY DETAIL

SPANDREL PANEL

EL . 140’

62

DESIGN STUDIO

63

AMIGAA ARCHITECTURE &TECTONIC I

64

DESIGN STUDIO

2B STUDIO 2017 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: DAVID FREELAND

65

The 2B studio follows the lessons of previous semesters by designing material form (Massing/Interiority) in close relationship to techniques of drawing and modeling. The studio expands from building massing models to constructing materially specific models that emphasize building systems that are necessarily composed of parts rather than wholes. This shift addresses material constraints, such as size and thickness, structure, and finish which, in turn, produce interesting limits and problems of translation between digital and physical media.

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

66

DESIGN STUDIO

5°

5°

67

Developable Surface Transfrmation Diagram

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

5°

68

5°

DESIGN STUDIO

5°

69

5°

Developable Surface Unfold Drawing

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

70

DESIGN STUDIO

71

Juan O’Gorman - Diego Rivera & Fida Kahlo House Material: Juan O’Gorman - Diego Rivera & Fida Kahlo House Grid ceiling with tile and concrete Material: Grid ceiling with tile and concrete Juan O’GormanDigital -Digital Diegoproduction: Rivera & Fida Kahlo House production: 1. draws 5x5grid gridwithin within 7x7 in rhino.

1. draws 5x5 7x7square square in rhino.

Material: 2. Offsets 0.2 inches of each border lines.

2. Offsets inches of and eachconcrete border lines.

Grid0.2 ceiling with tile Manual production: Digital production: Laser cut the 5x5 grid and a 7x7squre using 2 ply museum board. draws 5x5 within square rhino.to the 7x7 square.

3. Spray 94 Pearl 1.

Grey color to grid the 5x5 grid7x7 and white in sunset Manual production: 2. Offsets 0.2 inches of each border lines.

4. Assembles them together.

3. Laser cut the 5x5 grid and a 7x7squre using 2 ply museum board.

Manual 4. Spray 94 Pearl Grey color to the 5x5production: grid and white sunset to the 7x7 square.

Laser cut the 5x5 grid and a 7x7squre using 2 ply museum board.

Assembles them together.

3. Spray 94 Pearl Grey5. color to the 5x5 grid and white sunset to the 7x7 square.

4. Assembles them together.

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

72

Paul Rudolph - Yale School of Architecture Paul Rudolph - Yale School of Architecture Material:

Concrete Material: Concrete

Digital production: Paul Rudolph - Yaleproduction: School of Architecture Digital 1. draws a diagonalline line withi withi nn7x7 in rhino.

1. draws a diagonal 7x7square square in rhino.

Material: 2. Off set the diagonal line alone the other corner to corner 1 inch 4 times on both side of the diagonal line.

2. Off set the diagonal line9alone corner to evenly corneron1 the inch 4 times on both side of 3. Draws circles the with other 1/4 Concrete inch diameter square. the diagonal line.

Digital production: Manual production: 3. Draws circles 1/4fabrication inchwithi diameter evenly on theblank square.

1. drawswith awith diagonal line non7x7 square in rhino.

4. Laser cut 7x7 9 square digital it and another 2 7x7 squares 2. Off set the diagonal line alone5.the other corner to corner 4 square. times on both side of the diagonal line.

Spray 94 Pearl Grey color1toinch both 3. Draws 9 circles6.with 1/4 inch them diameter evenly on the square.

Assembles together.

Manual production: Manual production: 4. Laser4. cut 7x7 withwithdigital onit and it and another 7x7 squares blank squares Laser cutsquare 7x7 square digitalfabrication fabrication on another 2 7x72blank 5. Spray Pearl Grey Grey color both square.

5. Spray 9494Pearl colorto to both square.

6. Assembles them together.

6. Assembles them together.

DESIGN STUDIO

Tile (Actual material)

Concrete (Wallpaper)

Tile (Wallpaper)

Tile (Actual material)

Concrete (Actual material)

Color Grey (Wallpaper)

0.29’

12’ 12’

0.21’

4.95’

94° 12.2’

4.95’

3.92’

0.2’

3.92’

85°

0.26’

73

6’ 6’

6’

6’

0.2’ 94°

4.47’

0.26’

3.43’

4.47’

3.43’ 85°

0.19’

12’ 12’

Concrete (Wallpaper)

Box model unfold drawing inside

0.19’

Concrete (Actual material)

Tile (Wallpaper)

Tile (Acutal Material)

Concrete (Wallpaper)

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

Concrete (Acutal material)

0.29’

12’ 12’

0.21’

4.95’ 94°

4.95’ 3.92’

0.2’

3.92’

85°

0.26’

74

6’ 6’

6’

6’

0.2’ 94°

4.47’

0.26’

4.47’

3.43’

3.43’ 85°

0.19’

0.19’

12’ 12’

Color Grey (Wallpaper)

Box model unfold drawing outside

DESIGN STUDIO

75

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

76

DESIGN STUDIO

77

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

78

DESIGN STUDIO

Circulation via Hierarchy We broke down hierarchy into 3 levels by the primary principle of point, line, plane. The number of points of contact is inversely proportional to importance. Site A.

Collision of Boxes We wanted to investigate the moment of impact between both boxes as well as each box with the site.

We mapped out a collision course of the red box falling onto the green box as forcing it to shift from a planar interaction of the ground into a point-based interaction. Best suited for Site B via the corner opportunity.

Subtle Unfold We wanted to create shifts in our grids as well as apertures by subtlely unfolding the bottom face of the red box. Site A for linear procession from sidewalk onto site.

Penetration We wanted to explore the limits of physics of each box by pretending the red box was native to the site while the green box served as a meteor that penetrated into the existing environment. Based of the point-line-plane hierarchy, the collision causes the green box to make contact with the red box as well as the adjacent building via one point of contact, as well as forcing the red box from its planar contact with the ground into a linear contact. Site B for corner opportunity as courtyard.

Seating Regulation We wanted to explore the opportunity by using one box to regulate the organization and layout of the seating grid while the other box dictates the spacial volume. Double Site B.

Unfolded Continuity We unfolded one face of each box to create a seamless continuity between two completely not identical boxes. This gives us a first attempt to explore material combinations.

Site B for longer side condition.

Aperture Slippage We wanted to explore the aperture of the green box. This presented us with a possibility of sliding the red box in and allowing the green box to dictate the spacial envelope. Site A for linear approach.

Expansion Boolean We wanted to explore the unfolded geometries and its boolean with each other, this creates an integrated response to the site as both boxes becoming one. Site B for longer side condition.

79

Iteration Catalog

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

Point

Geometry Distinction (Dull Exterior)

Line

Geometry Distinction (Rich Interior)

80

Plane

Color Distinction (Dull Saturation) Color Distinction (Rich Vibrance)

Material Boxes

Continuing the Urban Fabric

Projected Envelope

Breaking the Street Facade

Concept Diagram

DESIGN STUDIO

81

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

82

Elevation (Front & Back)

DESIGN STUDIO

83 2

2

1

1

G

G

Section

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

A

A

A

C

C

84 B

B

A

A

A

Plan

DESIGN STUDIO

Bush Hammer Concrete Roof Panel

Steel Frame Structure

Steel Frame Structure

Stucco panel

85 Thrid Floor Slab

Second Floor Slab

“Construction” Grid

Glazing

Underside Wrapper

Ground Floor

Exploded Axon

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

Second Floor

Storage

Projection Room

First Floor

Seminar/Break Room General Theater

86 Offices

Restroom

Theater Lobby

Exclusive Theater

Green Room Ground Floor

Restroom

Circulation & Program Diagram

DESIGN STUDIO

87

Sicheng Hu

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

88

DESIGN STUDIO

89

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

90

DESIGN STUDIO

91

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES II

92

DESIGN STUDIO

2A STUDIO 2016 FALL INSTRUCTOR: ERICK CARCAMO Building on the rigorous geometric and formal studies of the first year, the 2A studio serves as an introduction to buildings as material artifacts, on specific sites, that are organized by Grid, Object, and Vector that address form, program, and site in ways that are both coherent and speculative.

93

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

94

DESIGN STUDIO

95

Precedent analysis diagram

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

96

Precedent analysis transformation diagram

DESIGN STUDIO

97

Grid, object, and vector materialization

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

98

Superimposition

DESIGN STUDIO

99

Parti diagram

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

100

Worm eye oblique drawing

DESIGN STUDIO

101

Elevation 1 & 2

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

8

8

8 8

4

9

3

7

5

102

1

6

2

Plan 1

DESIGN STUDIO

10

11

15

103 14

12

12

13

Plan 2

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

104

Section A & B

DESIGN STUDIO

105

OBJECT TO WORLD: GROUND AND APERTURES I

106

DESIGN STUDIO

1B STUDIO 2016 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: BETTY KASSIS Building from the tools and techniques of formal thinking developed in the first semester, this course introduces us to an expanded vocabulary of architectural fundamentals. Notions of scale and order are considered as the work through formal investigations of mass and interiority.

107

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

108

DESIGN STUDIO

109

Formal precedent analysis diagram

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

110

Three-dimensionalized the extraction of the 2-D image from the precedent

DESIGN STUDIO

111

Transformation catologe diagram

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

112

Using constraction geometry extract wireframe from the object

DESIGN STUDIO

113

Private

Public

Public/private figure ground diagram

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

114

Elevation unfold

DESIGN STUDIO

115

Site Axon

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II a

a

c

c 4

Open to below

6

Open to below

b

b

7

7

116

a

a

c

c 3

2

1

b

b

a

Plan 1 & 2

DESIGN STUDIO a

Open to below

4

5

+36’-6” Open to below

a

+28’-6”

c

c

Open to below

Open to below 8

b

b

a

117

Open to below

5 +28’-6” 4

a

+22’-6” Open to below

7

c

c

7

Open to below

Open to below Open to below

b

b

a

Plan 3 & 4

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

9

4

4

4

3

3

5

2

4

118

2

3

1

1

9

Secion C 4

8

4

2

DESIGN STUDIO

4

2

3

1

1

9

4

8

4

119 3

3

2

6

7

2

2

1

1

1

9

Section A

4

4

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

120

DESIGN STUDIO

121

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY II

122

DESIGN STUDIO

1A STUDIO 2015 FALL INSTRUCTOR: DAVID ROSS The first studio of the foundation sequence introduces us to different means of working abstractly and spatially thru a series of carefully calibrated exercises, focusing on formal ordering systems and geometric manipulations. Throughout the semester, we are offered a range of tools, skills and conceptual manners of working and developing ideas. The multiple exercises developed throughout the semester are to be interpreted as a catalogue of formal and spatial geometric investigations.

123

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

124

DESIGN STUDIO

125

Precedent geometry (top view / side view)

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

126

Precedent geometry (isometric view)

DESIGN STUDIO

127

Transformed geometry (top view / side view)

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

128

Transformed geometry (isometric view)

DESIGN STUDIO

129

Transform process diagram

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

130

Albers color study

DESIGN STUDIO

131

Interior transformation diagram

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

132

Interior section

DESIGN STUDIO

V2

V1

V1

133

V2

Plan

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

134

Section V2

DESIGN STUDIO

135

OBJECTS: MASS AND INTERIORITY I

136

137

VISUAL & APP

PLY STUDIES

138

VISUAL STUDIES

2B VISUAL STUDIES 2017 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: MIRA HASSON HENRY & JENNY WU

139

Perhaps no other genre of art production is more concerned with the detailed representation of the ordinary and the base as the still life. Art historian Norman Bryson describes the still life as depicting the life of the table, the everyday world of routine and repetition, at a level of existence where events are not at all the large-scale, momentous events of History, but the small-scale, trivial, forgettable acts of bodily survival and self-maintenance. While historically criticized as low level and discursively under represented, this humble genre has been the site of technical and conceptual experimentation.

VISUAL STUDIES III

140

VISUAL STUDIES

141

VISUAL STUDIES III

142

VISUAL STUDIES

143

Single fruit photography

VISUAL STUDIES III

144

Single fruit rendering with texture

VISUAL STUDIES

145

Multiple fruits with cloth and paper photography

VISUAL STUDIES III

146

Multiple fruits with cloth and paper rendering with texture

VISUAL STUDIES

2A VISUAL STUDIES 2016 FALL INSTRUCTOR: DAVID FREELAND & DAVID RYAN ESKENAZI Visual Studies II expands on the tools and techniques introduced in Visual Studies I and introduces new software and a more expanded consideration of studio technique beyond the conventions of drawing.

Advanced solid modeling in Rhino and an introduction to polygon modeling in Maya also serves to introduce students to a wider range of non-classical, spline based geometries and their transformations.

147

VISUAL STUDIES II

148

VISUAL STUDIES

149

Light/shadow on sphere study

VISUAL STUDIES II

150

Light/shadow reflection study

VISUAL STUDIES

151

Posterlizing the rendering of light/shadow

VISUAL STUDIES II

152

Using light/shadow to imply depth V. 1

VISUAL STUDIES

153

Using light/shadow to imply depth V. 2

VISUAL STUDIES II

154

VISUAL STUDIES

1B VISUAL STUDIES 2016 SPING INSTRUCTOR: DWAYNE OYLER & EMMETT ZEIFMAN

155

Visual Studies I introduces the mechanics and principals of two and three dimensional geometry, both as descriptive and transformative operations. It introduces basic tools and operations in two and three dimensional software and places all these operations within the context of the role of drawing in the culture of architecture. The exercises move from general geometric transformations to the precise translation of them into models and orthographic views thereby placing them within the conventions of plan, elevation, section, and other architectural projections.

VISUAL STUDIES I

156

VISUAL STUDIES

157

Trafic cone top/side view

VISUAL STUDIES I

158

Trafic cone seciotns

VISUAL STUDIES

159

Trafic cone conbine

VISUAL STUDIES I

160

Boolean operation V. 1

VISUAL STUDIES

161

Boolean operation V. 2

VISUAL STUDIES I

162

Relief in box

APPLY STUDIES

4A DETAILS DETAILS...

(Column to truss detail) 2019 SPRING INSTRUCTOR: DWAYNE OYLER

163

According to tural Detail, abstract buil sills, drip mo minimal or in between pan be exaggerat dimensions t a distance.” details as ab ture, attemp tion between ing.

According to Edward R. Ford in the Architectural Detail, he claims that “modern abstract building copings, molding, windowsills, drip molds, and gutters are often made minimal or invisible. Other elementjoints between panels or between materials may be exaggerated far beyond their necessary dimensions to ensure they will be read from a distance.” Ford is seemingly describing details as abstraction in modern architecture, attempting to hint at the interconnection between the various avenues of detailing.

The Implicat the transition and detail as drastically tr seen in other discreetly int

The implication of ones emphasis lies on the transition between detail as abstraction and detail as constrction logic, it can be drastically transformed into one another as seen in other projects, or it can be morphed discreetly into one another.

Our detail br an Abstractio tion Logic. Fo are rotated c ing through a illusion of a s folding onto impossible s of this detail edges as me serve as the against the w

This column to truss detail bridges the gap between Detail as an Abstraction as well as Detail as Construction Logic. Formally, the column and truss are rotated copies of one another; connecting through a single spine and providing the illusion of a single sheet metal bending and folding onto itself to create an almost impossible structure.

WIREFRAME

DETAILS DETAILS...

164

APPLY STUDIES

0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint

0.125” Dia Steel Rod Weld Joint, Detail 1 (Rod to Plate Joint Detail)

0.5” x 1.5” Steel Hollow Section (0.09 Thk)

0.75” x 2” Steel Hollow Section (0.09” Thk) 0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint

165 0.125” Dia Steel Rod Weld Joint, Detail 1 (Rod to Plate Joint Detail) 0.25” Head Cap Screw Bolted to Base

0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint

2”x 6” Timber Support Glue Joint

0.75” Thk MDF Wood Base Glue Joint

DETAILS DETAILS...

166

APPLY STUDIES 1.

0.125” x 0.5” steel plate

0.125” Dia Steel Rod 0.125” x 0.5” Steel Plate Steel Plate Weld Detail

2.

Drill 0.125” dia hole on plate 0.125” Dia Steel Rod

0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint

0.125” Dia Steel Rod Weld Joint, Detail 1 (Rod to Plate Joint Detail)

0.125” x 0.5” Steel Plate

0.5” x 1.5” Steel Hollow Section (0.09 Thk)

1.

3.

0.125” x 0.5” steel plate

Drill 45° with counter sink 0.125” Dia Steel Rod

0.75” x 2” Steel Hollow Section (0.09” Thk)

0.125” x 0.5” Steel Plate Steel Plate Weld Detail

2.

Drill 0.125” dia hole on plate 0.125” Dia Steel Rod 0.125” x 0.5” Steel Plate

3.

Drill 45° with counter sink

167

Steel Weld Joint 0.125” Thk Steel Plate Steel Weld Joint 0.125” Thk Steel Plate

4.

Place 0.125”Place steel rod at 0.125” steel rod at desired angledesired angle

4.

0.125” Thk Steel Plate

5.

Steel Weld Joint

Weld joint

0.125” Thk Steel Plate

0.125” Dia Steel Rod Weld Joint, Detail 1 (Rod to Plate Joint Detail)

0.125” Dia Steel Rod

5.

Weld joint

6.

Grind off excess weld

0.5” x 1.5” Steel Hollow Section (0.09 Thk)

Steel Weld Joint

0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint ROD TO PLATE WELD DETAIL

STEEL PLATE WELD DETAIL

0’

0”

0.0625 ’

0.125 ’

0.25 ”

0.125” Thk Steel Plate, Weld Joint

0.5”

0.125” Dia Steel Rod 6.

Grind off excess weld

0.5” x 1.5” Steel Hollow Section (0.09 Thk)

0.25” Head Cap Screw Bolted to Base 2”x 6” Timber Support Glue Joint 0.75” Thk MDF Wood Base Glue Joint

ROD TO PLATE WELD DETAIL 0’

0.0625 ’

0.125 ’

STEEL PLATE WELD DETAIL 0” 0.25 ” ANNOTATED

0.5”

DETAILS DETAILS...

168

169

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT &CO

ONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

170

APPLY STUDIES

Espacio de Ladrillos

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

People’s Construction Committee Bucareli 50, Colonia CentroCentro, , 06600 Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico , Project Team: Chulwoong Na, Dex Hu, Hongjian Qin, Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan, Nick Wu, Yipeng Liu, Zixiao Zhu

People’s Construction Committee

Site Area:

Design Development & Documentation

26,392 sqft

Building Net Area: 102,850 sqft Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

171 Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu Sheet Title: Cover Sheet

Status Sheet No.

A0 Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

People’s Construction Committee

0.5” PSC Glass Panels

Design Development & Documentation 20”x20” Steel HSS

Brick Veneer 5” Fiber Insulation R-38

2”x6” Aluminium Stud

Brick Veneer 4” Concrete Sheet

3/4” Stainless Steel Panel Frame

Waterproofing Member

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

3/4” Plaster Interior Wall

3”x3” Tertiary Structure Frame HSS

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

Gallery

172 Entrance/Lobby

Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

3/4” Stainless Steel Panel Frame

Public Area

6” Concrete 1/16” Steel Decking W16x36 I-Beam Joist 3/4” Mineral Fiber Ceiling 1/8”ø Rod Suspension Hanger

Mechanical Retail/Restaurants

Designed & Drafted Underground Parking Chilled Beam

1.6”ø Aluminium Rail 0.5” Glass Panel

3/4” Mineral Fiber Ceiling 2’ Concrete

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

2’x2’ Conrete Columns

Sheet Title: Mega Chunk Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A1 Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Brick Veneer 5” Fiber Insulation R-21 4” Concrete Sheet Waterproofing Member

2”x6” Aluminium Stud 20”x20” HSS 3” Plaster Interior Wall 2”x6” Aluminium Stud 4” Concrete Sheet

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

3”x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS 6” Concrete 1/16” Steel Decking

0.8” Aluminium Tube 0.6” Glass Panels

173

W16x36 I-Beam Joist

Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

1/8”ø Rod Suspension Hanger 3/4” Mineral Fiber Ceiling

3/4” Plaster Interior Wall 2”x6” Aluminium Stud 20”x20” HSS

3”x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS 5” Fiber Insulation R-21

4” Concrete Sheet

Brick Veneer

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu Sheet Title: Facade Chunk Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A2 Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

3x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS

4” Concrete Sheet

20x20” HSS

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico ø1.5” Storm Drainage Pipe Brick Veneer 4” Concrete Sheet

Waterproofing Member 20x20” HSS

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

3x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS

174

5” Fiber Insulation R-21 3/4” Plaster Interior Wall

Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

2”x6” Aluminium Stud

3/4” Stainless Steel Panel Frame

Designed & Drafted

0.6” Double Paned Glass

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

Aluminium Mullion

Sheet Title: Wall Section Assembly Detail Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A4 Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Aluminium Mullion 0.6” Double Paned Glass 3/4” Stainless Steel Panel Frame

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

6” Concrete 1/16” Steel Decking Brick Veneer

4” Concrete Sheet Waterproofing Member

175

W16x36 I-Beam 20’x20x HSS

Issue Dates: Description

LoremNo. ipsum

Date

3”x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS

5” Fiber Insulation R-21 Chill Beam 1” Mineral Fiber Ceiling

Designed & Drafted 2”X6” Aluminium Stud

3/4” Plaster Interior Wall

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu Sheet Title: Wall Section Assembly Detail Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A5 Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

2”x6” Aluminium Stud

Brick Veneer 3”x3” Tertiary structure frame HSS 4” Concrete Sheet Waterproofing Member 20’ X 20’ HSS

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Project: Espacio de ladrillos

Storm Drainage Gutter

Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico 2’ Concrete

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov 3/4” Mineral Fiber Ceiling Chill Beam

176 Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

12x8” Concrete Column

2’ Concrete

Aluminium Mullion 0.6” Double Paned Glass

Designed & Drafted

3/4” Mineral Fiber Ceiling

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

Chill Beam

Sheet Title: Wall Section Assembly Detail Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A6 Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018 Fire Engi

ne Unde

rground

Fire Res

Entrance

cue Lan

EGRESS STAIR 2

Width: 4’ 6” Capacity: (0.3” per person) 180 people

Width: 5’ 6” Capacity: (0.3” per person) 220 people

e

Lane

EGRESS STAIR 1

Fire Res cue

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

4th Floor, Office

4th Floor, Art Gallery

Floor Area: 4700 sqft Occupany Group: B Occupancy Ratio: 1:100 Max. Occupancy: 47 people

Floor Area: 7700 sqft Occupany Group: A3 Occupancy Load Ratio: 1:30 Max. Occupancy: 256 people

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Fire Rescue Lane and Egress Assembly Point Diagram

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

3rd Floor, Office Floor Area: 5200 sqft Occupany Group: B Occupancy Ratio: 1:100 Max. Occupancy: 52 people

177

2nd Floor, Office Floor Area: 4900 sqft Occupany Group: B Occupancy Ratio: 1:100 Max. Occupancy: 49 people

3rd Floor, Art Gallery Floor Area: 3800 sqft Occupany Group: A3 Occupancy Ratio: 1:30 Max. Occupancy: 126 people

TO PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR Bucarelli Pedestrian Exits EXTERIOR GRAND STAIRS Width: 12’ Capacity: (0.3” per person) 480 people

TO PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR Ayuntamiento Pedestrian Exit

2nd Floor, Art Gallery Floor Area: 9600 sqft Occupany Group: A3 Occupancy Ratio: 1:30 Max. Occupancy: 320 people

Issue Dates: No. Description

EXTERIOR GRAND STAIRS Width: 12’ Capacity: (0.3” per person) 480 people

EGRESS STAIR 2 Width: 5’ 6” Capacity: (0.3” per person) 220 people

Ground Floor, Lobby Floor Area: 13400 sqft Occupany Group: A3 Occupancy Ratio: 1:30 Max. Occupancy: 446 people TO PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR Morelos Pedestrian Exit TO PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR Morelos Vehicle Exit

TO PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR Bucarelli Pedestrian Exits

B1 Floor, Retail Floor Area: 23200 sqft Occupany Group: B Occupancy Ratio: 1:100 Max. Occupancy: 232 people

Date

EGRESS STAIR 1 Width: 4’ 6” Capacity: (0.3” per person) 180 people

3rd Floor Gallery Egress Plan

Floor

Assembly

Business

Storage

Total Sqft

4/F

7,700 sqft

4,700 sqft

--

12,400 sqft

3/F

3,800 sqft

5,200 sqft

--

9,000 sqft

2/F

9,600 sqft

4,900 sqft

--

14,500 sqft

G/F

13,400 sqft

--

--

13,400 sqft

B1

--

23,200 sqft

--

23,200 sqft

B2

--

--

30,000 sqft

30,000 sqft

TOTAL

34,500 sqft

33,300 sqft

30,000 sqft

102,500 sqft

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

Building Area Type Sheet Title: Egress

B2 Floor, Parking Floor Area: 30000 sqft Occupany Group: S2 Occupancy Ratio: 1:200 Max. Occupancy: 150 people

Building Egress Diagram

Floor

Assembly

Business

Storage

Total Sqft

4/F

256

47

--

303

3/F

126

52

--

178

2/F

320

48

--

368

G/F

446

--

--

446

B1

--

232

--

232

B2

--

--

150

150

TOTAL

1,148

379

150

1,677

Building Max. Occupancy

Plan Check Status Sheet No.

A9 Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

Passenger Elevator Access to all Floors Dimensions: 60” x 72”

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018 Freight Elevator Access to all Floors Dimensions: 60” x 102”

60"

Wheelchair Turning Circle Diameter: 60” 60"

People’s Construction Committee

72" 102"

Design Development & Documentation

60"

Elevator Shaft 1

Elevator Shaft 1 Passenger Elevator Dimension: 6’ x 5’ Freight Elevator: 8.5’ x 5’

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Passenger Elevator Access to all Floors Dimensions: 60” x 72”

72"

Wheelchair Turning Circle Diameter: 60”

Elevator Shaft 2

Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Passenger Elevator Dimension x 2 : 6’ x 5’ Passenger Elevator Access to all Floors Dimensions: 60” x 72”

72"

Wheelchair Turning Circle Diameter: 60”

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

ADA Access Ramp Ramp Ratio 1:12 60"

Elevator Shaft 2

Fire Refuge Area FROM PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR

El. 20"

Ayuntamiento Pedestrian Entance

ADA Access Ramp Width: 120” Length: 840” Height: 72” Length to Height Ratio: 1/12

Issue Dates: No. Description

178 Date

El. 26"

ADA Access Ramp 216"

FROM PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR

168"

FROM PUBLIC WAY

Morelos Pedestrian Entance GROUND FLOOR Morelos Vehicle Entrance

FROM PUBLIC WAY GROUND FLOOR

Egress Stair 1 Width: 4’6”

Bucarelli Pedestrian Entrance

Area of Refuge 30” x 48” Wheelchair Space

ADA Parking

42"

Fire Refuge Area ADA Accesible Parking

ADA Accesible Parking

Dimension: 18’ x 9’

Dimension: 18’ x 9’

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

Van Accesible Parking Dimension: 18’ x 9’

Sheet Title: ADA Plan Check Status 18’

Sheet No.

A11

4’

Building ADA Diagram Direction to Entrance Distance: 20’ 9’

ADA Parking

5’

9’

5’

9’

8’

Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

North Facade Unroll

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Project: Espacio de ladrillos

Overhang Ceiling Unroll

Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov Truss and Structural Cores No.

Details

Slabs Rate

Quantity

Unit

Total

No.

Details

1 Basement

$250.00

13,574.36

CY

$3,393,597.50

1 Corrugated Metal Decking

2 Plinth and Entry Stairs

$250.00

4526.12

CY

$1,131,530.00

2 Precast Concrete Slabs

3 Concrete Cores

$250.00

7400.00

SFT

$1,850,000.00

3 Concrete Finishing

4 Trusses

$120.00

41,587.00

FT

$4,990,440.00

Rate

Unit

Total

$80.00

257,568.21 SFT

$20,605,456.80

$108.00

Quantity

257,568.21 SFT 257,568.21 SFT

$27,817,366.68

$65.00

East Facade Unroll

Buidling Roof Unroll

$16,741,933.65

$65,164,757.13

Total

$11,365,567.50

Total

West Facade Unroll

179

South Facade Unroll

Issue Dates: No. Description

Building Envelope Unroll

Precast Concrete Slabs

Brick Veneer w/ Adj

HSS (200mmX20mmX20mm)

Project Cost Summary No. Details 1 Truss and Structural Cores

$11,365,567.50

2 Slabs

$65,164,757.13

3 Structural Steel

$19,800,845.00

4 Facade System

$48,065,373.85

5 Mechanical System

$18,675,846.45 $79,546,458.00

6 Finishes Structural Steel 1 I-Section Beam

$4,500.00

1,677.25

FT

2 Primary Columns

$5,000.00

426.13

FT

$2,130,650.00

3 Secondary Columns

$5,000.00

124.15

FT

$620,750.00

Details

4 Lower Columns 5 Diagrid Columns

Total

7 Mechanical System

Facade System Total $7,547,625.00

No.

Rate

Quantity

$5,000.00 $4,500.00

Unit

241.25 1,843.46

FT FT

$1,206,250.00 $8,295,570.00

$19,800,845.00

No.

Details

Rate

Quantity

Unit

Total $30,395,638.80

$45.00

675,458.64 SFT

2 Air and Moisture Barrier

$55.00

64,845.45 SFT

3 Typical Glazing System

$160.00

2,747.23 SFT

$439,556.80

$25.00

546,547.14 SFT

$13,663,678.50

1 Brick Veneer w/ Adj

4 Waterproofing

Total

$3,566,499.75

$48,065,373.85

Total

Shell Cost

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu Sheet Title: Cost Estimation Plan Check

$42,546,754.00

Land Cost

$285,165.602.93 $179,457,000.00

Soft Costs (@23%)

$151,547,571.00

Sheet No.

$616,170,173.93

A12

Total

Date

Status

Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

Summary The initial structural system consists two layers of surface frames, exterior and interior, allowing the shell to activate itself as a steel frame system. Floor plate packages consists of 200mm of concrete slab, steel decking and reinforced by i-beams at 4500mm apart. The floor packages are held and connected to the shell’s steel framing system. Without any bracing the building could be kept light, however immense stress of the bridging and the overhangs of the stresses cannot be held without bracing.

The initial problematic regions of this project were mostly found in the North wing gallery and West wing gallery which were cantilevering. The secondary problem was the load forcing the under belly of the mass which was holding massive load of the floor plates and the structure framing without getting. To solve these problematics, concrete shear walls wrapping the core and concrete slabs gave additional support to pull back and tie the steel structure framing together, to reduce the displacement of the beams and slabs. By connecting the west wing gallery to existing party wall of the existing building the load of the canti-lever got pulled back, while the diagonal trusses tie the framing and the slabs together. The underbelly of the framing acts mostly as core that generates the branches of the trusses which vertically rise to support the load of the 20m wide slabs cross the massing.

Braced Frame:

Allows column-free, uninterrupted open floor plans to happen due to its long span and the light weight of the structure.

The revised structural system consits of three load distribution and grounding systems. Shear walls, extensive bracings and structural fastener. To have a stronger grounding of the overhangs structural forces on Ayuntamiento and Av. Morelos, shear walls are used at moments where the walls are vertical, where the steel framing are attached and forces are transfered through and downwards. In the case of the overhanging structure on Bucareli, a structural fastener is used to be bolted into the adjacent existing building, securing the structure of the overhang.

People’s Construction Committee Design Development & Documentation

Project: Espacio de ladrillos Address: Bucareli 50, Colonia Centro, 06600 Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

Structural System Grid Shell: A grid shell is a structure which derives its strength from its double curvature facade, but is manifested as a steel framing grid or lattice with customized 500x500mm hollow steel section deployed all around, wrapping the entire building.

The grid shell is widely used in the building that is above ground due to the large spans required; wrapping around its facade and connects to the I-beams on each floor.

A structure which derives its strength from its double curvature. Reduced material, homogenous structure, free form curvature, large span, High torsional rigidity, Compressive strength, Hollow sections are comparably more efficient than conversional steel sections, The excellent distribution of material around the axis of the square and rectangular steel hollow section allows strength qualities and thus offers decisive advantages on its application.

Greater number of elements, repetitive motif, standard opening size.

Pros:

A braced frame is a structural system which is designed primarily to resist wind and earthquake forces.

Members in a braced frame are designed to work in tension and compression, similar to a truss.

Braced frames are almost always composed of steel members.

Cons:

Shear walls are a type of structural system that provides lateral resistance to a building or structure.

They resist loads that are applied along its height.

This type of system also supports the floor slabs along with the universal beams with a 9ft interval span distance and is used in the elevator cores as well as the rest of the building.

Post & Beam: Post and beam construction is widely used in many buildings. The column spans used are 12 ft, due to the large overhangs of the primary structure, the concrete framing underground utilizes relatively thick columns (600mmx600mm) and a dense grid to help support the entire building that is above ground.

Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

Cons:

Braced Frame:

Concrete Shear Wall:

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk

Pros:

Can be located internally or externally for flexibility.

Accommodates service penetrations. Can be located within partition walls.

180

Bracings obstruct fenestration layout. Need for large gusset plates for connections between members.

Shear Wall:

Pros: Cost efficient since only a few shear walls are required. Provides torsional resistance to structure.

Does not obstruct architectural layout.

Numerous shear walls help stabalize the entire structure; shares lateral load with the grid shell in order to help support the large overhangs.

Flat plate construction can take larger spans. This type of construction involves beamless spaces, and pre-ten sion slabs.

This system is used in the parking lot and the office floors in the courthouse.

Date

Cons: Produce concentrated stress in the walls since the walls support the entire building’s lateral stability.

Produce large effects of overturning on shear walls. If expsed to head or fire might bend and can be catastrophic.

Pros: Readily available material. It is extremely strong and durable and works well in compressive loads. Can take on any surface finish. It can be formed to any shape. Is a fire resistant material.

Designed & Drafted

Cons: Heavy, longer construction time and labor intensive.

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

The post and beam is not used on or above ground level.

Flat Plate:

Issue Dates: No. Description

Pros: Basic construction type for subfloors, parking garages, and simply planned spaces, minimal structural depth.

Cons: It is a comparatively heavy material. Slower construction, as concrete needs to be cast and cured. More columns than steel. It is a labor intensive material, thus contributing to higher costs.

Sheet Title: Structural System Selection Plan Check Post & Beam:

Space Frame: Space frames is a three-dimensional structural framework that is designed to behave as an integral unit and to withstand loads applied at any point. It can be crafted with any type of a prototypical unit.

Pros: It is designed to behave as an integral unit and to withstand loads applied at any point. It can be crafted with any type of a prototypical unit. Allows long spans, uniterrupted floor space and is light in weight. Fast construction, reduced material, homogenous structure.

Cons:

Greater number of elements, repetitive motif, standard opening size.

Casting concrete for the entire underground structure helps solidify and homogenize with the structure system above ground.

Status Sheet No.

S1 Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

Sensory Garden Facade Panel 20.0’

The role of a sensory garden is to use architectural systems to create a faux-environment for its occupants. Due to the nature of the client’s intention and works; to provide work and care for the blind and visually impaired; The enhancement of sense becomes crucial, since the visually impaired would use senses such as touch, smell, sound to feel and understand and experience a piece of architecture, contrasting to architecture that are created purely for its form and visual effects.

Therefore to create an installation that sculpts an environment would be more effective and direct in expressing the architectural intention over pure formal designs.

12.0’

People’s Construction Committee

8.5’

CNC Milled Copper Plate

Fig 0.1

4.0’

The ripple-like panels wraps the existing courtyard and softens the transition between buildings. These panels will serve as the backbone to our vertical garden; Aluminum spheres of varying sizes are then fastened to these panels, serving as planting pods for vegetation.

Creating an enhanced sense of depth through both touch and smell.

18.0’

3mm Steel Plate

3.8’

Design Development & Documentation

While conventional buildings create dead-spaces at the corners. Our design places an emphasis on the corners and aims to revitalize these dead-spaces.

Project: Zahner Metal Masterclass: Sensory Garden Facade Panel

Factory Access

Address: 87-46 123rd Street, Richmond Hill, Queens, NY 11418

4 “ Poured Concrete Foundation

The ground is designed using various textures, guiding and identifying each unique quadrant of the courtyard, and allowing each individual occupant to experience their own footprint with each tactile step.

The signage for Alphapointe is situated in the center of the wall and is integrated with a series of perforated panels, allowing backlit LEDs to illuminate the surrounding space.

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk 3.8’

Asphalt Ground

4.0’

Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov

3.8’

Storage Access

Fig 0.1 Exploded Stud Assembly Diagram Diagram showing bounding geometries encasing objects.

26.0’

3.8’

3.8’

Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

Storage Access

4.0’

3.8’

3.8’

40.0’

181

Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu 3.8’

3.8’

26.0’

4.0’

Designed & Drafted Factory Access

Sheet Title: Facade Design Concept

18.0’

Plan Check

3.8’

Status Sheet No.

A18 Main, Street Entrance

Fig 0.0 Plan

4.0 ’

Drawing set:

Progress set

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

SCI-Arc Undergraduate Fall 2018

Welded and Polished Joint

Fig 1.0

1.5mm Aluminium 2.5mm C-Channel 8mm Rivet Bolt

People’s Construction Committee

Fig 1.1

5.2’

20mm Nut Welding

Design Development & Documentation

10.0’

Fig 1.0 Edge Detail

1.5mm Aluminium

Project: Zahner Metal Masterclass: Sensory Garden Facade Panel Address: 87-46 123rd Street, Richmond Hill, Queens, NY 11418

2.5 & 6 mm T- Plate 8mm Rivet Bolt

Consultants: Matthew Melnyk

Welding 20mm Nut

Instructors: Scott Uriu Pavel Getov 20”

2.5mm C-Channel Welding

Fig 1.1 Panel Connection Detail

12.0’

Fig 2.0 Front Elevation

182

5.6’

Fig 2.1 Side Elevation

Issue Dates: No. Description

Date

Primary Structure, 3”x3” C-Channel Welded on 3”x2” HSS

Secondary Structure, 6mm Steel Plate Welded with 2.5mm Waterjet Cut Contours Curves

Designed & Drafted Chulwoong Na Dex Hu Hongjian Qin Ka Leung (Wilson) Chan Nick Wu Yipeng Liu Zixiao Zhu

Fig 3.0 Facade Panel Unroll Diagram

1.5mm Aluminium Sheet Facade (Fig3.0)

C-Channel Encasing LED Lighting

Sheet Title: Facade Panel Tectonic Details Plan Check

2.5mm Various Diameter Cut Spheres

Status Sheet No.

A19

Fig 3.1 Unrolled Facade Panels on 3’ Aluminium Sheet 2.5 mm Waterjet Cut Panel with 3.5mm Frosted Glass Fig 4.0 Panel Assembly Exploded Diagram

Drawing set:

Progress set

APPLY STUDIES

SWINE ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SCI-ARC 960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

No.

Description

Date

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

183

BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

THE

GEO FORWARD INC.

COVER PAGE

1

COVER PAGE

G0.0

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

SWINE ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SCI-ARC 960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

No.

Description

Date

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

THE

GEO FORWARD INC.

PROJECT GEOMETRY

A0.1

184

APPLY STUDIES

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

138' - 1 1/2"

19' - 2"

18' - 4"

18' - 4"

SWINE

18' - 4"

18' - 4"

19' - 2"

9' - 11 1/2"

ARCHITECTS

16' - 6"

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

0 A7.3 CL

CL

WA-1

CL

26' - 0 1/2"

26 R @ 6 15/16"

1

300.1

A7.3

WA-1

STAIR

ELEV

ELEV

001

002

001

No.

Description

Date

CL

WA-2

15' - 0 1/2"

2

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

WA-1

15' - 2 1/2"

10' - 8 1/2"

DN

SCI-ARC

CL

15' - 3 1/2"

CL

39' - 3 1/2"

CL

13' - 2"

7' - 2 1/2"

CL

CL

19' - 8"

CL 15' - 4"

301.5

2

CL

CL FS02 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

WA-2

BATHROOM

WA-6

WA-5

BEDROOM

CONSULTANTS

300.2

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

WA-4

301.4

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

301.6

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

301

ATRIUM

WA-4

301.2

BEDROOM

WA-4

000

303.8

WA-6

1

WA-4

303.4

302.1

303.10

303.3

BYER GEOTECH

3

304

14' - 8"

4' - 8"

OPEN TO ATRIUM BELOW

GALLERY SPACE

40' - 9 1/2"

301.1

303.9

A3.4

48' - 10"

WA-2 BATHROOM

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

WA-2

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

89' - 6"

1

VCA ENGINEERS INC.

303.7

40' - 5 1/2"

185

A3.3.2 A3.3

RESIDENTIAL PATIO

303.5

BATHROOM

301.3 UNIT

15' - 2 1/2"

63' - 8 1/2"

WA-6

CIVIL ENGINEER

22' - 3"

CL

303.6

BEDROOM

WA-6 303.11

303.2 303.1

BATHROOM

3' - 3"

WA-6 302.11

302.12

302.13

302.14

302.15

303.15

303.14

WA-2 24 R @ 7 1/2"

19' - 0"

WA-2

2' - 9" 2' - 1 1/2" CL

8' - 0"

3' - 2 1/2"

12' - 1 1/2"

2' - 7 1/2"

27' - 0"

ELEV

WA-2

DN

003

303.13 CL

302.10

CL

302.9

5

002

BEDROOM

1/2" 14' - 8

8' - 0"

304.2

WA-1 302.8 1' - 11" CL

10' - 6"

STAIR 303.12

BEDROOM

302.4

WA-2

CL

7' - 0 1/2"

4

WA-4

BATHROOM

302.7

A7.1

CL

2' - 0 1/2" CL

CL 32' - 10"

THE

303

WA-6

304.1

WA-3

CL

3

CL

UNIT

WA-6

CL

WA-6

14' - 1 1/2"

5' - 2"

CL

13' - 5 1/2"

WA-6 302.3

CL

WA-3

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

WA-2 302.6

1

14' - 9"

302

A4.1

4

0 A7.1

302.5

UNIT

22' - 10"

15' - 0"

WA-4 302.2

6

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

1

WALL LEGEND 3/16" = 1'-0" WA-1 WA-2 WA-3 WA-4 WA-5

NOTES 1. Any Inconsistencies Or Unforeseen Conditions To Be Reviewed By The Architect Prior To Proceeding With Construction.

2. All Dimensions Are Too Face Of Structure Unless Otherwise Noted.

3. Do Not Scale From Drawings.

4. Contractor Shall Provide, Erect, And Maintain All Temporary Barriers And Guards, And All Temporary Shoring And Bracing As Required By City And State Regulations.

5. Contractor Shall Provide Adequate Weather Protection For The Building And Its Contents During The Course Of The Work.

6. Contractor Shall Provide Temporary Sanitary Facilities As To Least Impact Neighbors And As Directed By City Regulations.

7. All Door And Window Dimensions To Be Centerline

A3.1.2 A3.1 1

1

A4.2

A4.3

1

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1" = 6'-8"

A1.3

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

138' - 1 1/2"

19' - 2"

18' - 4"

18' - 4"

SWINE

18' - 4"

18' - 4"

19' - 2"

9' - 11 1/2"

ARCHITECTS

16' - 6"

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

0 A7.3

1

300.1

001

WA-1

A7.3 WA-1

ELEV

001

002

S4

S4

8' - 0"

S4

8' - 0"

S4

8' - 0"

S4

S4

8' - 0 1/2"

CL

- 8"

S4

303.6

BEDROOM

S4

R2

303.7

ATRIUM 8' - 2"

UNIT

S4

000

S4

WA-2

S4

303.8

R2

S4

301

301.1

S4

OPEN TO ATRIUM BELOW

S4

S4

S4

S4

303.9

S4

S4

S5

304

6' - 4"

8' - 0"

S4

S4

S4

S4

7' - 1 1/2"

S4

S4

WA-2

S4

S4

WA-2

S4

S4

BEDROOM

S4

UNIT

S4

S4

S4

BATHROOM

S4

S4

3' - 9"

R2

S4

R2

4 S5

S4

R2 WA-2

S4 4 WA-3

S4

S4 6' - 3"

303.12

S4

CL 3' - 0 1/2"

7' - 9 1/2"

S4

S4

S4

5

9' - 3 1/2"

STAIR 002

WA-1

ELEV 5' - 1"

304.2

S4

WA-2

003

WA-2

WA-1

CL 302.8

302.9

302.10

302.11

302.12

302.13

302.14

302.15

303.15

WA-2

303.14

GEO FORWARD INC.

3

BEDROOM

S4

S4

R2

304.1

303

S4 S4

S4

S4

A7.1 S4

BEDROOM

302.7

R2

UNIT

S4

302

SOIL

S5

BATHROOM

S4

1

BYER GEOTECH

R2 S5

303.11

0 A7.1

S4

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

A3.4

3

14' - 8"

352

S4

302.2

GLUMAC INC.

STUDIO - MLA R2

BEDROOM

303.1

MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

303.10

S4

S4

VCA ENGINEERS INC.

1

GALLERY SPACE

R2

BATHROOM

302.1

S4

S4

A4.1

S5

14' - 9"

4' - 1"

CL 3' - 9 1/2"

S4

S4

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

R2

S4

WA-2

S4

S4

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

CL

12' - 6"

CONSULTANTS R2

S5

CIVIL ENGINEER

S4

353

301.2

Date

R2

S4

S4 S4

Description

2

CL 2' - 0"

8' - 0 1/2"

S4

R2

S4

S5

7' - 11 1/2"

R2

CL

5' - 1"

BATHROOM

S4

S5

CL 1'

300.2

S4

No.

9' - 3"

S4

6' - 2"

3' - 5"

S4

S4

8' - 0"

1

8' - 0"

ELEV

S4

CL S4

4' - 2"

S4

S4 A3.3.2 A3.3

8' - 0"

S4

BATHROOM BEDROOM

301.6

6' - 3"

S4

S4

S4

S4

6' - 0"

5' - 9"

CL

WA-1

6' - 0"

6' - 1"

S4

301.5

8' - 0"

WA-2

CL 3' - 4 1/2"

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

S4

89' - 6"

S4

15' - 0 1/2"

S4

22' - 3"

S4

6' - 0 1/2"

303.13 WA-2

ACT @ 12' 6"

ACOUSTIC CEILING TILES @ 11'

WA-3

1

1

A4.2

A4.3

22' - 10"

5' - 8 1/2"

6' - 0"

STAIR

2

SCI-ARC

WA-1

CL 4' - 4 1/2"

THE

WA-1

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

A

6 LIGHTING LEGEND 1/4" = 1'-0" S5 LIGHTING - WALL RECESSED S4 LIGHTING - CEILING MOUNTED R2 LIGHTING - CEILING RECESSED DIRECTIONAL F2 LIGHTING - FLUORESCENT 3'

RCP THIRD FLOOR PLAN

1

NOTES 1. Any Inconsistencies Or Unforeseen Conditions To Be Reviewed By The Architect Prior To Proceeding With Construction.

2. All Dimensions Are Too Face Of Structure Unless Otherwise Noted.

3. Do Not Scale From Drawings.

4. Contractor Shall Provide, Erect, And Maintain All Temporary Barriers And Guards, And All Temporary Shoring And Bracing As Required By City And State Regulations.

5. Contractor Shall Provide Adequate Weather Protection For The Building And Its Contents During The Course Of The Work.

6. Contractor Shall Provide Temporary Sanitary Facilities As To Least Impact Neighbors And As Directed By City Regulations.

7. All Door And Window Dimensions To Be Centerline

A3.1.2 A3.1

1

RCP THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1" = 6'-8"

A2.4

186

APPLY STUDIES

1

2

3

4

5

SWINE

6

ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SCI-ARC

89' - 6"

15' - 0 1/2"

22' - 3"

14' - 8"

14' - 9"

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

22' - 10"

No.

Description

Date

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

ROOF PLAN 50' - 0"

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER

RESIDENTIAL PATIO

GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

187

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

OFFICE PATIO

0 A5.5

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

THE

BACK ENTRANCE

1

SIDE ELEVATION W/ SKIN 1" = 6'-8"

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

WA-3

SIDE ELEVATION WITH SKIN

A3.3.2

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

6

5

4

3

2

SWINE

1

ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SCI-ARC

89' - 6"

22' - 10"

14' - 9"

14' - 8"

22' - 3"

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

15' - 0 1/2"

No. 0 A5.2

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

0 A5.1

0 A5.1

100.0

Description

Date

ROOF PLAN 50' - 0"

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER 302.1 BEDROOM

302.14

VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER

301.1

WA-4

BATHROOM

GLUMAC INC.

302.6

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

300.1

STUDIO - MLA

84"

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0" 1 1/4"

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

CONFERENCE ROOM WA-4 206

200.1 WA-1

RETAIL 101

101.2

105.2

RETAIL 105

105.1

107.1

108.1

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

100.3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

BASEMENT B01

0.2 BASEMENT -14' - 0" Concrete Slab 24"

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

OFFICE PATIO

THE

WA-3

WA-1

CROSS SECTION 1

CROSS SECTION 1" = 6'-8"

A4.2

188

APPLY STUDIES

2

1

G

4

H

ROOF PLAN 50' - 0" 0 A6.2

ROOF DRAINAGE

SWINE

DOUBLE-GLAZED SKYLIGHT

0 A6.2

ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

0 A6.3

WALL TYPE F, SEE A0.0

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

FLOOR FINISH

CONCRETE SLAB

DROP CEILING

DROP CEILING

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

No.

FLOOR FINISH

FLOOR FINISH CONCRETE SLAB

SCI-ARC

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

CONCRETE SLAB

Description

Date

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

0 A6.2 DROP CEILING

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

189

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

WALL TYPE C, SEE A0.0

WALL TYPE C, SEE A0.0

BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

0 A6.3

0 A6.3

WALL TYPE F, SEE A0.0

0 A6.3

WALL TYPE F, SEE A0.0

0 A6.3

PERIMETER DRAIN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

BASEMENT -14' - 0" FOUNDATION

THE

0 A6.2

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

PERIMETER DRAIN

0 A6.2 FOUNDATION FOUNDATION

3

WALL SECTION 1 1/4" = 1'-0"

WALL SECTION

2

WALL SECTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"

1

WALL SECTION 5 1/4" = 1'-0"

A5.1

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

5

A

0 A6.1

B

SWINE

ROOF PLAN 50' - 0"

0 A6.1

ARCHITECTS

0 A6.1

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SITE PLAN 45' - 0"

FACADE SYSTEM, SEE A5.1 FACADE SYSTEM, SEE A5.1

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

SCI-ARC

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

WALL TYPE B, SEE A0.0

No.

FLOOR FINISH

Description

Date

FLOOR FINISH

CONCRETE SLAB

CONCRETE SLAB

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

0 A6.1

0 A6.1

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

WALL TYPE D, SEE A0.0

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER

0 A5.5

GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

GEO FORWARD INC.

0 A6.3

0 A6.3 DROP CEILING

DROP CEILING

WALL TYPE C, SEE A0.0

WALL TYPE D, SEE A0.0

PERIMETER DRAIN

0 A6.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

BASEMENT -14' - 0"

THE

0 A6.2

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

WALL TYPE D, SEE A0.0

WALL TYPE F, SEE A0.0

FOUNDATION FOUNDATION

WALL SECTION

2

WALL SECTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"

1

WALL SECTION 4 1/4" = 1'-0"

A5.2

190

APPLY STUDIES

3

A FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

3' - 7 1/2"

CL THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

3' - 9 1/2"

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

4

DOUBLE GLAZED CURTAIN WALL

SWINE

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

ARCHITECTS CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

CL

DOUBLE GLAZED CUTAIN WALL

3

4

10' - 0 1/2"

8' - 0"

SCI-ARC 960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

Description

Date

CL

No. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

CATWALK SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

5

191

FACADE SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0"

4

FACADE WITH SKIN

3

3/8" = 1'-0"

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

FACADE WITHOUT SKIN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

3/8" = 1'-0"

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

1 A5.5.2

DOUBLE GLAZED CURTAIN WALL CL

CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

4' - 8 1/2"

CL

A

3' - 3"

CATWALK

THE

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

DOUBLE GLAZED GLASS

4

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

CURTAIN WALL MULLION

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

3

CATWALK

FACADE SYSTEM

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

2

FACADE EXPLODED DIAGRAM

1

FACADE PLAN 3/8" = 1'-0"

A5.5

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

2

3

4

5

D

E

F

G

H

I

SWINE ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

SCI-ARC 960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

No.

Description

Date

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

3

BYER GEOTECH

FACADE PANEL UNROLL

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

1/8" Thick End Cap Welded

B: 37

C: 4

D: 20

1/8" Rod-Skeleton

E: 7

1/8" Thick End Cap Welded

1/8" Bolt-Connection

A Corner: 5

1/8" Pre-cast GFRC 1/8" Thick End Cap Welded

F: 25

2

THE

A Curved: 10

G: 43

PANEL VARIATIONS

H: 13

J: 17

K: 73

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

A: 0

FACADE SYSTEM 1

FACADE PANEL

A5.5.2

192

APPLY STUDIES

A ROOF PLAN 50' - 0"

STEEL ANGLE

SWINE

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

ARCHITECTS PARAPET CAP

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

PARAPET CAP

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

WATERPROOFING

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

SCI-ARC

WATERPROOFING

CONCRETE CURB TAPERED EDGE

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

TAPERED EDGE CONCRETE CURB RIDIG INSULATION RIDIG INSULATION W12X26 I BEAM

STEEL BRACKET

L-SHAPED ANGLE CONNECTION

L-SHAPED ANGLE CONNECTION

No.

L-SHAPED ANGLE CONNECTION

Description

Date

W12X26 I BEAM

W12X26 I BEAM

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

CONSULTANTS CONCRETE ROOF

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

SITE PLAN 45' - 0"

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

193

6

FACADE TO PARAPET ATTACHEMENT DETAIL

4

1 1/2" = 1'-0"

FACADE ATTACHMENT DETAIL 2

2

1 1/2" = 1'-0"

GYPSUM BOARD

FACADE TO WALL ATTACHMENT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

A

GLAZING

A

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

STEEL ANGLE

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

FS02 METAL TUBE FRAME

FLOOR FINISH

2X6 WOOD STUDS STEEL BRACKET FS01 COMPOSITE PANEL CLADDING

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

DEJO GRATE

WELDED CATWALK ASSEMBLY

FS02 COMPOSITE FRAME RAILING STEEL BRACKET

14X6 STEEL TUBE

FLOOR FINISH

FLOOR FINISH STEEL PLATE

DEJO GRATE

T-BEAM CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

THIRD FLOOR PLAN 30' - 0"

WELDED CATWALK ASSEMBLY

2X6 CONCRETE BEAM

THE

STEEL BRACKET

BOLT

TOPPING SLAB

T-BEAM

RIGID INSULATION

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

GAVEL

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

WATERPROOFING

MULLION

EARTH GLAZING

EXTERIOR DETAILS

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

CONCRETE WALL

5

FACADE TO SLAB ATTACHEMENT DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

3

FACADE ATTACHMENT DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

1

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

BATT INSULATION

FACADE TO GROUND ATTACHMENT DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

A6.1

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

4 HANGING WIRE

G

2'X2' ACT TILES

CAST IRON DOME

1"X1" WALL ANGLE

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

LEAD FLASHING

SWINE

WATERPROOFING TAPERED EDGE

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

WATERPROOFING

WOOD DECK

PLYWOOD SHEATING

SEALANT & BACKER ROD

WOOD BLOCKING

ARCHITECTS

CHUWEN ONG HENGYU LIM (HYU) NICHOLAS WU SALLY LWIN (NANDAR) SICHENG HU (DEX)

BATT INSULATION

UNDER DECK CLAMP SNAP CAP CAST IRON DRAIN BOWL

DRAINAGE PATH

SCI-ARC

METAL BASE MULLION

CONCRETE ROOF

960 E 3rd ST. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90012

No. 12X24 CONCRETE BEAM

Description

Date

SEALED GLAZING UNIT

2X6 WOOD STUD SEALANT & BACKER ROD SILL PAN

CONSULTANTS

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MULLION

ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

GLAZING

CIVIL ENGINEER VCA ENGINEERS INC.

MEP ENGINEER

7

ROOF DRAINAGE DETAIL

6

2" = 1'0"

CURTAIN WALL TO SLAB CONNECTION

5

2" = 1'-0"

SLIDING DOOR TO DRYWALL DETAIL 2" = 1'-0"

GLUMAC INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STUDIO - MLA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BYER GEOTECH

SOIL

GEO FORWARD INC.

H WATERPROOFING

A

GYPSUM BOARD

BATT INSULATION

BATT INSULATION

SNAP CAP

2X6 WOOD STUD

ALUMINUM ANGLE

GLAZING

FLOOR FINISH

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

2X6 WOOD STUD SECOND FLOOR PLAN 15' - 0"

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB TOPPING SLAB

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB MULLION

MULLION

RIGID INSULATION PLYWOOD

CONCRETE CURB

SNAP CAP

GAVEL

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

PLYWOOD SHEATING

METAL BASE

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0"

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

MULLION BATT INSULATION

THE

WOOD BLOCKING FLOOR FINISH

FLOOR FINISH

1172 ROBERTSON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90034

GYPSUM BOARD

SEALED GLAZING UNIT

3

DRYWALL TO SLAB CONNECTION 2" = 1'-0"

4

INTERIOR WALL TO SLAB CONNECTION 2" = 1'-0"

8

CURTAIN WALL TO SLAB CONNECTION 2 2" = 1'-0"

1

SLIDING DOOR TO SLAB CONNECTION

EXTERIOR DETAILS

2" = 1'-0"

A6.3

194

195

HISTORY THEORY

Y & LIBERAL ARTS

196

HISTORY THEORY & LIBERAL ARTS

A Close Reading at The New Brutalism 2B History of Architecture and Urbanism III Spring 2017 Instructor: Alex Maymind

197

The three readings that I’m comparing and contrasting are The New Brutalism by Reyner Banham, Archigram - Architecture without Architecture by Simon Sadler, and Architecture without Architects. I am quite fascinated on how they had become the products of their period, how they were affecting the time line of the history, and how they were influenced or influenced each other. I am comparing and contrasting these three readings based on the relationship to technology, the relationship to the time period, and the relationship to classical architecture.

First and foremost, they all have some degree of relativity to the technology but The New Brutalism and Architecture without Architects are less related to the technology. According to Bernard Rudofsky and Reyner Banham, buildings have to maintain raw and truth to the natural of the material. As a result, technology does not play the important part in either the new brutalism architecture nor the vernacular architecture. On the contrary, Archigram had weighted heavily on technology or even challenge the technology at that period.

The “plugged-in” that was introduced by the invention of privated telephones, refrigerators, washing machines, and cars; “Machines” that involved the idea of architecture as machine for living in; and “Disappearance” that involved the idea that architecture can be pre-fabricated in the factory and can be easily disposed.

These three main ideas from Archigram are highly technology required, and it was generated based on the modernist thinking that was rethinking and expecting the technology.

Secondly, These three reading are chronologically relatively close (post WW II) but they reacted to the same subject in drastically different ways. For Bernard Rudofsky, in the book Architecture without Architects, he is really interesting in the artistic, functional, and cultural richness in venacular architecture. In my opinion, he is criticizing the WW II is the result of the overdose of the artificial nature. According to Bernard Rudofsky, artificial nature is harmful to human body, same as the artificial architecture.

On the other hand, The brutalism started to diverge from functionalism. It strongly responded to the bromidic post war functionalism by intentionally creating the ruggedness appealing and intentionally create the lack of concern for human use.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE III

It feels like the new brutalist architecture is rebelling the functionalism, futureism...etc every -ism that is pre-war. However, for archigram, their reaction to WW II is the most interesting one to me. According to the reading Archigram, architecture is not architecture, rather it is a device or machine that allow people to live in. In my opinion, the way they treated architecture (Plugged-in, Machines, Modulated, and Pod) is not only investigating the mobility or the machine like of the architecture, but also most importantly having the concern for the next world war. For example, i believe that the design of the walking city is not merely developing the mobility of the master scale city, more importantly it is to investigate a way to escape from war.

Lastly, they all have the idea that the classical architecture can be totally abandon. According to Bernard Rudofsky, the architecture is non-pedigreed, from the region of the idea that Rudifsky brought up is already against the idea of classical architecture that everything should not be modified and should remain the same.

Similarly, the new brutalism is also against classical architecture.

Although the new brutalism share the same result as the classical architecture that the material stay the truth and the exposure of the structure, concept wise the new brutalism has abandoned the classical order. Additionally, archigram went even feather away from the classical architecture. The interest in mobility of the building, module of the building, and add-on of the building that is already conception wise diverge feather away from the classical architecture interest.

In conclusion, by comparing and contracting these three readings, I have learned that the reasons that how these three ideas formed, how they affect each other, and how far have they gone away from the classical architecture.

Reference 1. Architecture without Architect, Bernard Rudofsky 2. Archigram, Simon Sadler 3. The New Brutalism, Reyner Banham

198

HISTORY THEORY & LIBERAL ARTS

Plato vs. Aristotle 2B Philosophy I Spring 2017 Instructor: Jake Matayaou & Graham Harman

199

Plato (428- 348 B.C) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C) are both notable philosophers in history.

Plato was the student of Socrates, another great philosopher, from whom Plato learned a great deal. Plato was later on the teacher of Aristotle.

Despite this connection between them, Aristotle became critical of Plato’s work. However, their schools of thought share certain traits despite having significant variances at the same time.

Both were also influential in the works of other scholars and philosophers and one of the main interest that they shared was politics. This paper discusses a comparative analysis of both Plato and Aristotle based on both their works regarding their view of reality.

Plato and Aristotle both apply the use of form to explain what reality is and thus they use it a basis for their knowledge of all things. According to Aristotle, “both the name and definition of the species are predicable of the individual” (pg. 45).This means that for instance a man is called man by virtue of him being a human being. Plato on the other hand uses the allegory of the cave in which the prisoners have to surpass one world, the physical into the perfect world for them to experience and learn a different form.

When it came to what the ideal world is, Plato believed one that was beyond the physical one.

He thought that the physical world was full of imperfections and distortions which were influenced from the ideal world. He also believed that our imperfect world and its forms were a replica of the real forms but in a distorted way.

This view is reiterated by Plato’s allegory of the cave, saying that, “there is more to the sensuous- more being – more reality- than we are normally able to take in, but we may hope, through a change in consciousness, to grasp this hidden excess,”(pg.41).On the other hand, Aristotle believes that Plato was erroneous in comparing the ideal and the real forms because one cannot compare perfection which is if found in the ideal forms and imperfections found in the forms of the earth. Aristotle explains, “it is then, with good reason that all that remains when we exclude primary substances, we concede to species and genera alone the name ‘secondary substance’, for these alone of all the predicates convey knowledge of a primary substance” (pg. 46-47). Aristotle supported his view of the theory of forms by asserting that by knowing the cause of a primary substance then do we gain knowledge on it.

Plato believes that humans would be able to experience the ideal world if they were to abandon the physical world.

Philosophy I

He compares this to a prisoner who is released from the cave and though he is resistant at first to abandon what has always been his reality, he is forced outside of the cave and, “the vastness of the space that now surrounds him, the brightness and the fullness of the figures that approach him, the scorching sun that replaces the underground fire-they stun and dazzle his mind” (pg. 43).However , Aristotle believes that if one applies his theory of the primary substance that is identifying the cause of something first to gain knowledge, then there will be no need to leave the physical world in order to understand the form. “But substance is not said to be more or less that which it is: a man is not more truly a man at one time than he was before, nor is anything, if it is substance, more or less what it is” (pg.49).

References 1. Reality (Reading in Philosophy). Plato, “The Real and the Good” from the Phaedo and the Republic.pg 23-44.

2. Reality (Reading in Philosophy). Aristotle, “Reality is Individuals,” from the Categories and from the Metaphysics. pg 45-53.

200

HISTORY THEORY & LIBERAL ARTS

The Gamble House 1B History of Architecture and Urbanism I Spring 2017 Instructor: Michelle K Paul

201

The gamble house is the house designed by Charles Summer Greene and Henry Mather Greene who were known for practicing the craftsman style architecture and largely use of wood on the structure (roof and columns), surfaces (interior and exterior wall, ceiling, and floor), and the furniture. Among all the houses Greene brothers designed, the Gamble House may be the most unique and interesting one.

What makes the Gamble house so special is that the Gamble House shares heavily resembles with traditional Japanese architecture.

Some people argue that the Gamble House is merely a replica of traditional Japanese house.

However, I am convinced that rather than ersatz, the Gamble House was actually inspired

by Japanese Heian period architecture influences majorly based on two aspects.

One of the virtues of the American Arts and Crafts Movement during 18th century is antiindustrialism and they valued craftsmanship, as a result, wood as a ductile, strong, and natural material had emerged in craftsman architecture. On the other hand, architecture during Heian period,

for example the Katsura Imperial Villa, was intensively focusing on Zen Buddhism, that is emphasizing on the relationship between human and nature, resulted in the use of natural material such as wood. Based on one of the resemblances of these two different architectural styles, the Gamble House had naturally become the combination of Craftsman architectural and Heian period architectural styles.

Wood is largely applied in the house, unlike the remaining unfinished wood in the Katsura Imperial Villa; each piece of wood is decently crafted and rounded to satisfied the demand of the craftsman architecture.

The variety of different kinds of wood is also distinguishing the Gamble House from the Katsura Imperial Villa. Japanese cedar wood is the largely used in constructing the house structural frame, roof, and floor of the Katsura Imperial Villa. On the contrary, throughout the plan of the Gamble House, there are many different types of wood employed. Douglas fir and red wood are mostly constructing the exterior walls, shingle, and roof while oak, maple, teak, and mahogany are constructing the interior structure, floor, ceiling, wall, and some of the furniture.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE I

Secondly, the construction of the house is also significantly influenced by Japanese architecture and integrated into craftsman architecture techniques. The plan is flattened vertically and emphasizing on the horizontal roofline of the house, the construction of the roof is influenced

by Japanese architecture, that of the Heian period, and integrated into craftsman architecture.

The roof of the Gamble House is low-pitched gable roof with wide overhang and exposed wood details (rafters and beams) that is commonly used in craftsman architecture. However, the way that Greene brothers constructed the roof is influenced by traditional Japanese carpenter method—the wood battens are stack on each other and each one vertical batten is inlayed into the other horizontal one in order to form the joinery, at the end of each rafter wrought iron straps and wedges are applied on it to fix the end of the rafters.

In addition, The Gamble House has over fifty doors, all of which is distinct in their own. Yet, there are similarities in all of them. The Gamble House’s exterior door usually are found in groups of two or three, all of which featuring the oriental lift but remains to be glass so that it can let in as much light as possible.

Similarly, the interior doors are inspired by Heian period Japanese sliding doors that provide the house possibility to reconfigure. the interior doors like the exterior doors they are done with American craftsman materials, with wood instead of traditional Japanese rice paper. Not only is the door of the Gambol House inspired

by Heian period style of construction but the floor is also inspired by Heian period tradition of the Tatami Floors. However, like many of part of the house the Floor still holds its European heritage by keeping the floor wooden and carpeted with European style carpets. Furthermore, the Gambol House’s porch is heavily inspired by the Heian period sleeping porch. Although traditionally there should be only one small Heian period porch in the front of the house, the Gambol House has three significantly larger porches—one in the front, one to the side and one on the back. Japanese sleeping porch greatly influenced the Gambol House’s back porch, which leads towards a pressed brick path that curves towards the edge of the pond and a river stone path that leads into a Japanese styled garden.

202

HISTORY THEORY & LIBERAL ARTS

203

Most of the ornamentation in the house is inspired by the architectural style in the Heian Period. Mrs. Gamble is a fanatic of Asian culture, especially Japanese culture. She has collected many artifacts from her trips to japan and in the design of adopting many symbolic ornamentation and patterns from Japan. For example, the patterns on all the windows are suggesting the sun rise and the drain filters are design to imitate the patterns on the coins during the Heian period. However, many of the dÊcor and appliances in the house still remind largely European; for example, most of the lamps in the house are Tiffany Lamps. The ornaments of the house reflect the style of the Gamble House— the combination of both the European and Japanese style, culture, and construction.

In conclusion, the Gamble House and the Katsura Imperial Villa do share some similarities but majorly they are different. They are both constructed with wood but the variety of different types of wood and the treatment of the wood distinguish the Gamble House from the Katsura Imperial Villa. Furthermore, the way that the roof, the floor, and the doors of both houses were constructed also play a great role in differentiating the Gamble House from the Katsura Imperial Villa.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE I

References 1. Spacey_John, http://www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/japanese-houses, April 23, 2015, Web 2. Boehm_Mary D, The Journal of San Diego History, Chapter: The Arts and Crafts Movement in America, San Diego: The San Diego History Center and The University of San Diego, 1955, Print.

3. Fazio_Michael, Moffett_Marian, Wodehouse_Lawrence, A World History of Architecture, Boston Burr Ridge: McGraw-Hill, 2004, print.

4. Tomas_Jeanette A, Images of The Gamble House: Masterwork of Greene &Greene, Los Angeles: ColorGraphics Inc. 5. Some information from the tour guide of the Gamble House 6. Figure 1: http://db.world-housing.net/building/86 7. Figure 2, 3, 4: photos taken form the Gamble House

204

1