Tiffany Chang - Graduate Architecture Portfolio 2024

architecture portfolio master of architecture, fall 2024

tiffany chang, uic school of architecture

contents kit of parts 01

off basis

02

architectural “junk-ness”

03

clt + cnc joinery

arch551 everything all-at-once sarah blankenbaker arch531 architecture after writing robert somol arch522 non/standard kelly bair

01

off basis

The closed section produces spatial conditions that are typically understood through a point of reference (i.e. what is a “slab” to a “partition” or a “wall” to a “window”). Together, this series of components and their references allow for rationality and stability across the field. An open section, however, operates otherwise. The open section is an unstable aggregation of self-referential components. In the absence of a “baseline”, the open section becomes difficult to orient and navigate. Part-to-part relationships oscillate, relative to local or global conditions. That is, any given component is understood in a multitude of ways depending on adjacent parts or its role at-large.

Following Archizoom’s systematized methods of distribution in No-Stop City, this project aims to frame the imbalanced nature of the open section and its never-ending attempts to justify itself.

“closed section”

“open section”

Section: Function

Plan: Function

floor plate

Section: Function

floor plate

Plan: Function

stairs

stairs

53’7-3/4” 8’

21’3-3/4”

8’

2’

1’

23’4-1/4”

135° 6”

7’2-1/2”

12’

64’

53’7-3/4”

23’1”

” /4 -3 9’3

1/16” = 1’

1.

2.

3.

1/16” = 1’

Section: Distribution

Place floors along horizontal datum lines spaced 12’ apart For any level in section, the floors do not touch or overlap For any two levels, the edges of the floors do not align; do not exceed 36’ between two levels

1.

2.

3.

Plan: Distribution

Place the midpoint of the stem of a floor at the intersections of a 36’x36’ grid, rotating about the midpoint 90 degrees counterclockwise across each row, and 90 degrees clockwise down each column For each plan, select a subset of floors with at least two unique orientations For any two plans, do not select the same subset of floors

1/8” = 1’

1.

2.

3.

1/8” = 1’

Section: Distribution

Construct horizontal and vertical datum lines at 12’ and 36’, respectively Place stairs (of either length) across the field, ensuring each end of the stair meets a horizontal datum and crosses at least one vertical datum Direction and length of stairs are determined by the Surface

1.

2.

3.

Plan: Distribution

Construct a 72’x72’ grid Place one (1) stair in every grid cell, maintaining a minimum of 40’ between stairs (In conjunction with Surface) Adjust direction and length of stairs depending on the subset of floors; add landings as necessary

36’

>40’ 12’

12’

24’

72’

36’

36’

36’

72’

1/32” = 1’

1/32” = 1’

surface

1/32” = 1’

1/32” = 1’

ascension

Section: Function

Plan: Function

rock formation with biased peak

Section: Function

rock formation with biased peak

Plan: Function

toilet + sink + shower

4’ 6’2-1/4”

8’

8’

4’

toilet + sink + shower

8’

1/16” = 1’

1.

2.

3.

1/16” = 1’

Section: Distribution

Construct horizontal and vertical datum lines at 12’ and 36’, respectively Place rock formations across the field, maintaining a minimum of 12’ vertically, and ensuring their peaks are at least 3’ from the nearest horizontal datum Height and bias of peaks are determined by the interstitial volumes dictated by previous components

1.

2.

3.

Plan: Distribution

Create a 36’x36’ grid Place one (1) rock formation in every grid cell, crossing at least one (1) cell boundary and/or intersection (In conjunction with Surface and Ascension) At least 50% of the formation should rest on the current level and less than 50% should obstruct Ascension

1/16” = 1’

1.

2.

3.

1/16” = 1’

Section: Distribution

Construct horizontal and vertical datum lines at 12’ and 36’, respectively Place the centerpoint of a service group on every horizontal datum, at the intersection of every other vertical datum If a service group overlaps another, choose another variation; (in conjunction with Surface) choose another variation or omit entirely when no longer accessible

1.

2.

3.

Plan: Distribution

Create a 36’x36’ grid Place the centerpoint of a service group on a horizontal datum, 4’ to the right of a vertical datum; place another, mirrored and 12’ to the left of the vertical datum Repeat the pair of service groups, alternating across every row and column

36’

36’

36’

12’

36’

4’

36’

12’

36’

>12’ >3’

1/32” = 1’

1/32” = 1’

green

1/32” = 1’

1/32” = 1’

services

SECTION A

LEVEL n+8

LEVEL n+4

LEVEL n+1

section A

A

B

plan N+1

C

PLAN N+1

section B

LEVEL n+8

LEVEL n+8

LEVEL n+4

LEVEL n+4

LEVEL n+1

LEVEL n+1

section C

A

A

B

plan N+3

C

B

plan N+8

C

02

architectural “junk-ness” or the stakes of categories and classifications

Jencks, “Evolutionary Tree to the Year 2000”

Charles Jencks’ “Evolutionary Tree to the Year 2000” (1971) has direct influence on Alejandro Zaera-Polo’s “2016 Global Architecture Political Compass”. Both of these diagrams exist in their prescribed decade context, and yet, they are two sides of the same coin. Jencks’ Evolutionary Tree captures the continuous revolution of competing movements in architectural practice, as they respond to changes in technology, social conditions, style, and ideology. Architects infamously do not like to be pigeon-holed, but the left side of the diagram shows a forceful specialization through self-organizing classifiers. In seeking both intense categorization or separation from any label, the Jencks diagram is left open to interpretation with its bold claims (and biases) towards some semblance of a unified projection of architectural practice at the turn of the century. Likewise, Zaera-Polo’s diagram encompasses broad political positions, yet reveals a subtext of mixed results (or lack thereof) in the making of the compass dial. The clear deviation in the placement of practices displays a sense of complacency or tendency to be centrist. Through the unveiling of complex interdependencies and self-image, one must question the endless cycle of insecurity with regards to self-classification; whether at the architect’s own volition, or in the presence of others on the compass.

What is architecture after writing, if not the constant re- and de-classification of recurring cycles of styles, trends, and criticisms? In the words of Rem Koolhaas, “junkspace” is described as a state of corrosion that permeates everywhere, undermining previous architectural values and traditions in the process. The writing itself serves as a narrative form of “junkspace”, as a suggestion of arbitrary connections, their lack of progress, impermanence, and state of limbo. Is architectural practice growing in “junk-ness”?

The repetition between the Jencks and ZaeraPolo diagrams present an argument for architectural redundancy; a not-so-new condition of “junk-ness”.

Roger Caillois calls distinction into question in “Mimicry and Legendary Psychasthenia” (1984), citing mimicry as the loss of distinction. Architectural practice suffers from mimicry, a condition emerging from growing temporality or temporal forces. According to Caillois, mimicry functions as a survival instinct. Its inability to be separated leads to a state of permeability, in which the subject

disappears into the background. Eroded by space, the subject is reduced to a oneness without borders. This idea operates parallel to the centrist desires of the contemporary practices included in ZaeraPolo’s political compass. In the two versions of a classification diagram, the loss of distinction is evident: from the overlapping interdependencies to the reluctance or haphazard complacency of architects placing themselves on the compass dial. This speaks to the temporal nature of what the diagrams represent. Mimicry presents itself as the death of classification or categorization, or at the very least, desperate attempts at latching onto something tangible, even if it is centrist. Does the loss of distinction stem from the sheer saturation of labels (not the quantity of projects, architects, and practices)?

Zaera-Polo, “2016 Global Architecture Political Compass”

Later in 1977, Charles Jencks would declare the death of modern architecture in his book Language of Postmodern Architecture, citing the lack of ornamentation in the Modernist era resulting in the failure to communicate. Although Jencks argues for the choosing of one’s identity, due in part to new technology, the Zaera-Polo diagram says otherwise. Identity is stripped, leading to the illusion of choice, endless categorization, and classifications.

Jean Baudrillard’s “The Ecstasy of Communication” (1983) touches on the lack of subject and place, resulting in a continuous interface. This speaks to the “blob” nature of both diagrams and the interdependencies within them. At the turn of the century, we are no longer engaging with technology, but instead, negotiating with it. So why seek out closure or definitive classifiers? According to Baudrillard, we are no longer sovereign, so why do we continue pretending to be?

In a period where architectural practice is seemingly an ouroboros of classifications, can “junk-ness” be reversed? Is there a path forward that serves beyond reinterpretations? Is there a true struggle to engage with the practice? Or is architectural practice trying to re-engage with content that has already been lost to the background noise of itself and surrounding “junk”? In the contemporary reluctance or refusal to self-categorize (as seen in Zaera-Polo’s political compass), when does repetition become redundant?

03

clt + cnc joinery

This speculative structure integrates traditional wood joinery with modern manufacturing techniques and materials. The project proposes a sustainable, modular wall construction method that prioritizes labor and material efficiency. Re-purposed materials are central: mixed-wood offcuts create sculptural CLT “fins,” while wood fiber insulation from lumber waste provides high R-value and sound-dampening properties.

Using a tongue-and-groove “egg carton” system inspired by Dugong construction and its iterative contemporary precedents, the design allows components to interlock without adhesives or fasteners, enabling easy disassembly and reassembly. Modular fins adapt to multiple configurations, allowing for customization of exterior and interior conditions. CNC milling ensures precision, reducing labor and waste. Its flat-pack design simplifies transport, minimizing demolition and new-build impacts.

CLT’s fire resistance and insulation are leveraged, with its potential edge-warping integrated into the organic aesthetic. Wavy edges blend seamlessly, and fins can be replaced to extend the structure’s life cycle.

In collaboration w/ Rosa Gaia Saunders, Nikola Kosterna, and Olivia Lewis

erutcetihcra oiloft rop 4202 llaf ,erutcetihcra fo retsam

erutcetihcra fo loohcs ciu ,gnahc ynaffit