ARC20001-2018-s1-Trajkovskij_Stillitanoa_Veniamakisj_Siricc

Swinburne University of Technology

LATTICE PAVILION

- PORTFOLIO TWO -

ARRON | CLAUDIA | JASON | JORDAN

-

ARC20001

-

Architectural Design Studio 2

CONTENTS

0.0 - SUMMARY 0.1 - LIMITATIONS 0.2 - REFLECTION 1.1 - INSPIRATION 1.1 - ONE 1.2 - TWO 1.3 - THREE 2.0 - COMPOSITIONS 2.1 - ONE 2.2 - TWO 2.3 - THREE 2.4 - FOUR 2.5 - FIVE 3.0 - DESIGN PROCESS 3.1 - ELEVATION VIEW 3.2 - TOP VIEW 4.0 - CONNECTION FOR 1:1 5.0 - 1:10 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 6.0 - SITE

SUMMARY The previous part of the design process involved coming up with something that would present itself as a piece of art within the university environment and community, and something that could maybe even be used by students/teachers.

We went through a lot of different types of joints and prototypes in our previous research and design, then we concluded one joint that we would continuously repeat to create some form of composition that we were happy with.

We decided that the best basis to work with was a cubed composition that consisted of 10 jointsx10 joints which would require 1000 joints in total to make a solid cube. It was easiest to start with this because we wanted the total sculpture to be in a geometric cubed shape and then have moulds out of it, rather that additions to outside of the cube to create something more organic than geometric.

LIMITATIONS There were a few hurdles that we came across when prototyping and designing. The first big hurdle for us was cost.

We decided to go with 6x6 Tasmanian oak timber lengths to create our prototype model and we soon figured out that the material was quite expensive. We used it quite sparingly so this limited us to the amount of precise and accurate prototyping methods that we could experiment with so we didn’t want it to go to waste.

We used different kinds of material like pine and balsa wood for prototyping different joints and connections. We saved all of the Tasmanian oak for the final design.

Another limitation that we came across was like I mentioned before, the accessibility to inside or on to the sculpture so that people could make use of it rather than just look at it. It would be a missed opportunity if we were to create something that looked really beautiful, that couldn’t be enjoyed by the people that would be living and working around it. Why not live and work in it? Or under it? So we took this as a lesson and an opportunity to change it and create something that could work as a sculpture and also as something like a room or space.

REFLECTION We experimented with a few different composition, but in hindsight we realised that we didn’t experiment enough.

We came up with a composition that reflected what we wanted, some sort of negated form being taken out of the cube, but it just presented as a sculpture and not as something that was user friendly, or readily available for human use.

It looked really cool when looking at it, but why not walk in it? Why not sit in it? Why not use it as a collaborative work space, study space, spot to eat lunch or have a coffee? There was so may opportunities that we could have missed.

The design and design process that we came to and went through really made a good foundation for where we needed to end up with the final design. We had our joint connection after a series of prototypes, we had our overall basic shape, we just needed to decide on some sort of unique form to put in, or take out of the guts to create something different to put into the university’s campus.

INSPIRATION

ONE

Frank Fantauzzi – HOLLOW

TWO

Kengo Kuma – Prostho Museum Research Centre

THREE

Curtis and Davis – United Steelworkers Building

COMPOSITION ONE

COMPOSITION TWO

COMPOSITION THREE

COMPOSITION FOUR

COMPOSITION FIVE

DIGITAL PROCESS...

E L E V AT I O N

V I E W

T O P

V I E W

CONNECTION FOR 1:1...

1:10 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS...

1:10 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS...