Issuu on Google+

Alex Jeffrey Siekierski 617.894.0664 siekierski.alex@gmail.com INTRODUCTORY REVIEW January 17th, 2012

ENGAGING SPACES: Architecture which can stimulate innovation through social interaction. Supported by collaboration and inspired by Montessori principles

INTRODUCTORY REVIEW OBJECTIVES: 1.

Address the addendum from my thesis proposal.

2.

Determine which site is best for my thesis exploration.

3.

Choose a design strategy & discuss comments/ concerns related to the program.

4.

Itemize goals for the Preliminary Review.

THESIS PROPOSAL ADDENDUM:

1) Reduce site - dovetail your project into a larger project that has been proposed on the same site, or find a smaller new site. The original site was zoned for 1.5 million square feet with a FAR of 4. My solution was to select a portion of the original proposed site. The location is closest to the channel containing an approximate area of 28,000 square feet. The smaller site consists of using two adjacent buildings areas which were proposed with the 100 Acre Master Plan. In addition to decrease the site area I also increased my proposed program too roughly 130,000 square feet. My program is subject to change slightly depending on the direction and exploration of scale within the selected site.

2) Test different program sizes with massing models on a site model, in scale. 3) Explore different design ideas & directions. 4) Get more design critics.

THESIS STATEMENT Can the engaging of multiple professions yield an environment for enhanced exchanging of information via collaboration and digital media? My thesis is about creating an environment for education, communication, technology, active learning, and collaboration. Key components of collaboration regard adaptability, visual connectivity, integration of nature, order, transformative spaces, layering of program, and the de-standardization of space types. With the standardization


of building uses come restraints on adaptability and functionality within spaces. In order for sharing of ideas and problem solving to occur, standard space types are no longer a determining factor for the success for the program. My overarching investigation is to create a resource center which can attract minds from different professions and trades. As a result I am providing an environment which can overlap the artists, mathematicians, philosophers, scientists, doctors and historians, to facilitate the birth of new ideas and provides the tools essential to bring them to life, all within a mutual environment that is safe for communicating ideas freely.

Montessori Design Attributes: 1. Openness within a space. 2. Clear visibility between adjacent spaces with adequate lighting. 3. Integrate nature within the context of the classroom. 4. The atmosphere must compliment the use. Montessori believed that the curriculum and the spaces they are taught in, must promote freedom, order, beauty and atmosphere, didactic materials, community life, and reality and nature. These concepts determined as the criteria of the Montessori approach which became critical in allowing the creative mind to flourish.. “Emphasis must be placed on visibility between activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher, and activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher and between the children.” For Montessori, visibility promoted freedom and the inclination that if the boundaries of a space can be minimized and the use can be adaptable, then architecture can begin to facilitate collaboration.

TERMS OF CRITICISM 

Does the environment allow for its users to customize for the respected users, promote freedom through visual awareness between multiple spaces, use the architecture as part of the learning, bring in nature into the environment and bring the environment out into nature.

Does the building encourage social interaction and engagement between various users.

Will the building showcase the concept of active learning and engagement?

Does it provide an open and inviting environment?

Are the spaces arranged in a non-standard method that caters to a variety of learning styles which can be adaptive and flexible.


Does the building showcase multiple styles of learning in a completely new type of application. Does the building facilitate collaboration in both a physical and digital way.

METHODS OF INQUIRY 

Resources, in which I am referencing, pertain to active learning and collaboration along with engaging environments. Due to the wide variety of spaces types in which these processes occur, my research and precedents include: assembly spaces, exhibition installations, institutional, public spaces, operas, and libraries. These project types/spaces all act in supporting both new trends in learning as well as bringing large groups of people together. Both tie back to my concept relating to integration of active learning within a collaborative environment, which can support innovative solutions.

How can architectural form, spatial relationships and visual openness of programmed elements facilitate and environment which alters the sensory receptors for an ideal learning atmosphere. I might try to answer this question by investigating space types which facilitate learning in a non-academic function. This will help me find references which I can explore beyond implementation in Universities.

Can a built environment based on academic principals look like a typology that is nonacademic? This research will be explored in the library and on-line, in order to further find new curriculums and typologies in which I might not know about. This will ensure that I am implementing my ideas into the appropriate program.

MISSION The mission is to create an active learning environment which cultivates innovation through social exchange. It is essentially to have the site working as part of this mission to support collaboration both within the building and outside within the surrounding context. The mission of my thesis is to create a melting-pot where education, culture, community, and nature are all working together to create a place for spending as well as leisure, and outdoor activities to take place. Ultimately I envision the thesis building type to become a part of the urban fabric in which it can create moments which had not occurred. In lesser of a word; the intention is to create an engaging architecture which a focus on natural integration both for experiencing open space and for the fostering of collaboration.


TERMINOLOGY engaging to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons): to occupy oneself; become involved: collaboration to work within a group towards a common goal: to bring together unlike minds in order to troubleshoot problems and generate new ideas: active learning is an approach to instruction in which students engage the material they study through engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Active learning stands in contrast to “standard” modes of instruction in which teachers do most of the talking and are passive. nonstandard not conforming to traditional architectural programming strategies adhering to a specific building typology. timebanking is a pattern of reciprocal service exchange that uses units of time as currency. Skillshare is a community marketplace to learn anything from anyone. We believe that everyone has something they want to learn and something they can teach to others. This means our communities are really the greatest universities. Our platform helps make the exchange of knowledge easy, enriching, and fun.

PLANNED RESEARCH     

Visiting the Kingsley Montessori School at 30 Fairfield Street, Boston, MA Visiting the Genzyme Corporation at 64 Sidney St # 400, Cambridge, MA Visiting the Lulu Chow Wang Campus Center at 21 College Road Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481 Visiting the MIT Media Lab at 20 Ames St, Cambridge, MA Interviewing Peter Boyce II – Boston Manager & Co-Founder of Skillshare.


SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS *located at 100 Massachuessetts Avenue, 5th Floor Room 502

FAST TRACK SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 22rd, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday June 20th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday September 12th, 2012

EXTENDED SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 29th, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday September 12th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday November 7th, 2012


WEBLINK REFERENCES Thesis reviews will be scheduled through Doodle, gmail an outlook events can be sent out as well if requested: http://doodle.com/ Thesis document’s will be posted here for download: http://issuu.com/siekierski.alex/docs You can find my credentials and resume on linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexsiekierski Boston Architectural College: http://www.the-bac.edu/

http://www.the-bac.edu/Documents/Departments/Education/Thesis/MArch_Thesis_Handbook.pdf http://bacstudentprofiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/alex-siekierski-master-of-architecture.html

Local Time Banking Service http://timetradecircle.org/ Online Hosting for educational services http://www.skillshare.com/ Fort Point Channel Blog: http://www.fortpointboston.com/2008_04_01_archive.html Innovation District Website: http://www.innovationdistrict.org/ BRA | Planning Initiatives | Fort Point District Planning (100 Acres) http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=33


Alex Jeffrey Siekierski Masters Thesis Schematic Program Primary Space

Sub-Spaces

Room #

Qty

Unit Area

Area

1,100

2,200

Comments

General Use Shared Assignable Ground floor lobby/exhibits

2

Main Circulation/ Sitting Entrance Vestibules

2

1,200

0

96

192

Primary entry will remain larger

Entry Sitting Lounge

1

400

400

Reception/Security

1

200

200

Coat Check

1

100

100

Meeting Space/touchdown

1

1,000

1,000

public toilets male

1

120

120

public toilets female

1

180

180

1

200

200

Shower Rooms

2

50

100

one per sex

media library

1

150

150

wayfinding kiosk

Innovation/ Building Exhibit

1

400

400

retail area

1

1,200

1,200 small supply store for art and technology

CafĂŠtorium & Lounge

2

1,500

3,000

2

500

1,000

5

1,000

5,000

2

300

600

Information Area/ Memberships

office with cubicles

0 Food Prep Collaboration Rooms Canteens main auditorium & theater

has areas for collaboration

rentable conference spaces areas for quests to bring their own food

0

seating 300

1

3,600

3,600

stage

1

1,200

1,200

projection/control room

1

300

300

equipment storage

1

300

300

rear projection room

1

400

400

Open Air Garden/Courtyard

1

7,000

7,000

Small Winter Garden

6

250

Roof Top Greens

2

4,000

8,000

Similar to Oslo Operah House

2

500

1,000

Combination of open & partitioned

1

10,000

10,000

Total

49,342

0

0

0

Core Director - Office

1 1 1

180 150 200

180

Small Office Two Person Office Business Manager - Office

1

120

120

Administrative/Reception

1 1

Staff Conference Room Kitchennette and HC RR

1

100 100 250 150

100

Membership Records Storage

electrical equipment room

1

2000

2,000

support space

dancing/lectures

0

bull pen Green Artery Connection/ Classroom Space

multistory

1,500 dispursed throughout transitional spaces

0 Services & Back of House Office and Administrative

Supply Storage

1 1

150

150 200

100 250 150 150

Janitor Storage

3

60

180

Circulation

1

1500

1,500

Mechanical Spaces Boiler Room

1

3,000

3,000

1

1,000

1,000

Electrical Room

1

200

200

Pump Room

1

310

310

security office

1

80

80

loading dock

1

300

300

including copy/print areas

Public

Mixed

Private


postal service area

1

Vertical Circulation

1

100

100 0

Architectural Stair

1

900

900

Egress Stairs

2

600

1,200

6

100

600

Around Building

1

2,560

2,560

Attached Garage

1

20,000

20,000

Elevator Shafts Parking Area

per floor must include one freight elevator

0 160sf per spot, Summer Street New Ramp from Summer, Garage entry at mid level

0 0 0 0 Total

35,330

Artist's Community Lockers

1

150

150

Breakout Space Equipment Storage

1 3

100 150

100 450

Supply Storage

1

150

150

regular locker storage

Art Waste Holding

1

200

200

contaminated holding area

Artist Work Benches

4

2,000

8,000

used for class seminars

Kitchenettes

80 3,000

480 6,000

could be used for classes

Open work studios

6 2

Small Gallery

2

300

600

design room

3

150

450

green screen room & photo

1

400

400

locker/cage storage for artist's

demising capabilities

demisable

0 0 0 Total

16,980

Time Bank Services Skilshare Service Areas

0

Community Commons

3

600

1,800 multipurpose, breakout, open to circulation

teaming spaces

8

350

2,800

(fitness/meeting/therapy/art)

2

2,000

4,000

Open source Network areas

6 4

400 800

2,400 3,200

Can be used for class & collaboration

Digital Resource Rooms

3

1,000

3,000

Opened to a larger scale

Hoteling & Study Kennels

40

50

2,000

ARE/SAT/Bar Exam

Lecture Room 50 people

2

800

1,600

include food accomodations

Huddle Rooms 6-10 people

5

250

1,250

include food accomodations

Multifunctional Ammenities Digital Media Labs

Music

small tutoring/ training

0 Sound proof classroom

1

900

900

25 people at most

Soundproof Studios

3

250

750

also used as office space

Soundproof Practice Room

8

150

1,200

Donated Library

1

700

700

Reading Area

4

0

0

Imaginarium

1

2,000

2,000

Open forum creative space

Touchdown Hub / Tel Rooms

10

100

1,000

Spread through building

0 Total BUILDING TOTAL

130,252

28,600

Periodicals / references spread through common corridors


Introductory Review Handout