Movement in Architecture Design Thesis

Movement in Architecture

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

Thesis| Valerie O’ Leary | 20035104

1

Word Count: 7064

Movement in Architecture

Movement in Architecture

“How can architecture encourage movement without restricting a person’s free passage and decision‐making within the built environment?”

A thesis submitted to Waterford Institute of Technology, Department of Architecture for partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Architecture in the School of Engineering

By Valerie O’ Leary

Academic Year 2014/2015

© Valerie O’ Leary, 2014

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

2

Movement in Architecture

“―Bodies not only move in, but generate space produced by and through their movements. Movements of dance, sport, and war are the intrusions of events into architectural spaces. At the limit, these events become scenarios or program… independent but inseparable from the spaces that enclose them”1

Bernard Tschumi

1 Asofsky, D. D., 1992. Ritual in Architecture and the New England Holocaust Memorial, s.l.: University of Michigan.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

3

Movement in Architecture

Acknowledgements

Firstly I would like to thank the Department of Architecture tutors, especially Fifth Year mentors Aleksander Kostic, Fintan Duffy and David Smyth, for their guidance and support during my study in Waterford Institute of Technology.

Thank you to my classmates, both past and present for their friendship, fun and empathy along the way.

Most importantly thank you to my parents and brothers for the unwavering support, encouragement and love.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

4

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

Table of Contents

1.0

Introduction………………………………………………………….7 1.1 Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………..…8 1.2 Thesis Abstract…………………………………………………………9 1.3 Research Methodologies………………………………………..10

2.0

Theory of Movement…………………………………………..11

2.1 Introduction to Movement……………………………………..12 2.2 Rhythm & Pattern…………………………………………………..13 2.3 Light & Transparency………………………………………………14 2.4 Scale & Body in Space……………………………………………..15

3.0

Freedom & Decision Making………………………………..17

3.1 Freedom of Movement…………………………………………..18 3.2 Futurist Architecture & Movement…………………………18 3.3 Decision Making Space……………………………………………19

4.0

Playscapes…………………………………………………………..21

4.1 Architecture of Play………………………………………………..22 4.2 Parkour in the City………………………………………………….23

5.0

Case Studies…………………………………………………………24

5.1 History of Movement……………………………………………..25 5.2 British Museum London – Foster & Partners………….30 5.3 Barajas Airport, Madrid – Richard Rodgers……………..31 5.4 Parc De La Villette – Bernard Tschumi……………………..32

6.0

Design Brief…………………………………………………..…….33

6.1 Introduction to Design Brief……………………………………34 6.2 Children’s Museum of the Arts……………………………….34 6.3 Design Aspirations………………………………………………….35 6.4 Constraints of Brief…………………………………………………36 6.5 Space Schedule………………………………………………………37

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

5

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

7.0

Site Analysis………………………………………………………..39

7.1 Site Selection Criteria……………………………………………..40 7.2 Site Data…………………………………………………………………43 7.3 Iveagh Gardens……………………………………………………...44 7.4 Historical Development………………………………………….48

8.0

Conclusion………………………………………………………..…50

9.0

Reflective Chapter……………………………………………….52

9.1 Brief & Site Update………………………………………………....53 9.2 Learning Experience & Process………………………………...55 9.3 Design Challenges………………………………………………..….57 9.4 Objectives & Achievements………………………………..……58

10.0

Appendices……………………………………………………….60 10.1 Design Charette 1…………………………………………..……61 10.2 Design Charette 2………………………………………………62 10.3 Design Submission……………………………………………...63

11.0

References…………..……………………………………………75

12.0

List of Illustrations……………………………………..……..78

13.0

Bibliography………………………………………………………..81

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

6

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction ____________________________________________ 1.1 Glossary of Terms 1.2 Thesis Abstract 1.3 Research Methodology ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

7

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

1.1 Glossary of Terms

Movement The act or process of moving people or things from one place or position to another.2 Freedom The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.3 Parkour The activity or sport of moving rapidly through an area, typically in an urban environment, negotiating obstacles by running, jumping, and climbing.4 Ludic Showing spontaneous and undirected playfulness.5 Playscape A playful landscape characterised by the occurrence of enjoyment by the public and all those that interact with it. 6 Architectural Promenade The experience of walking through a building or urban environment. The complex web of ideas which underpins Le Corbusier’s work, most specifically his belief in architecture as a form of initiation.7

2

Webster, M., 2004 The Merriam Webster Dictionary. Springfield: Perfect Learning Corporation 3 ibid 4 ibid 5 J.A Simpson, 2010. The Oxford Dictionary of English. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6 Building Trust International, 2013. Playscapes Play Brief, s.l.: s.n.

7 Samuel F. Le Corbusier & the Architectural Promenade. Sheffield: Birkhauser 2010

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

8

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

1.2 Thesis Abstract

This paper seeks to explore how, through design architects can enhance the users experience in the built environment through movement and the architectural promenade.

Our bodies are extraordinarily evolved mechanisms and astoundingly complex pieces of engineering. They have been advanced and enhanced through evolution ‐ we are intended to move. Architecture has always been designed with movement in mind, whether it is intentional or unintentional. This thesis aims to examine and reveal the numerous ways our bodies move within the built environment, and investigates how architecture can accommodate freedom, or prescribe human movement.

The study will focus on examining the nature of movement and play within the built environment. Only by considering the meaning and nature of play and movement can we understand how it can best be accommodated.

Museum design can provide great insight into the disparate ways humans move with control, and make decisions, within the built environment. From the public plaza to the heart of the exhibition spaces, such designs provide a stage for human movement through architecture. Therefore, in the design of a children’s museum it would be an appropriate setting to discover and evaluate how architects both facilitate and govern freedom of movement within the built environment.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

9

Movement in Architecture

Introduction

1.2 Research Methodology Firstly, this thesis will draw on the principles of how movement occurs within the built environment, not based on architecture which moves, but rather the movement the human form within architectural design. It will endeavour to explore what makes us move, based on the studies and principals of static design artwork, but also through the study and analysis of movement in space within buildings throughout history.

Chapter three focuses on freedom of movement and how we can control or allow freedom within the built environment. This research was primarily based on theories of Le Corbusier’s architectural promenade and the historical study of the Futurist Movement in architecture and art. This decision making and freedom of movement was further explored through Design Charette Two entitled “Decision Making Space” Chapter four is concerned with spaces to play within the built environment or playscapes. Research was primarily conducted through the use of case studies, but also draws on published theories based on the history and development of play spaces both for children and the wider community.

The research and methodology employed should contribute to the design, within the built environment, a framework that will create a free‐flowing space for children and their families to learn and move within.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

10

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

Chapter 2 Theory of Movement ____________________________________________ 2.1 Introduction to Movement 2.2 Rhythm & Pattern 2.3 Light & Transparency 2.4 Scale & Body in Space ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

11

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

2.1 Introduction to Movement

“Movement is the design element that operates in the fourth dimension ‐ time.”8 We can describe movement as literal or compositional. The physical attributes of movement are part of particular designed objects; such as cars, airplanes, and even some architectural work such as that of Santiago Calatrava. Here we are referring Figure 1: Giacomo Balla, Speed of a Motorcycle

to literal movement. Following the romantic fascination with speed and movement in the early 20th century many painters and artists began to concentrate on movement as a theme. The challenge for these artists, and those working in static media, was how to incorporate a sense of implied movement in a fixed image that could not literally move.

Artists tried to show movement through diagonal use of line and location of images in the arrangement. This was brought to life by futurist painters, such as Giacoma Balla, and the kinetic art of Marcel Duchamp who used these concepts to celebrate speed and movement. This in essence forms the basis of compositional movement.

It is this sense of compositional movement that challenges an architect to create spaces which provide a stage for movement within a stationary structure. How can the architect design to promote or encourage movement, within a static built environment?

Figure 2: Marcel Duchamp, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2

The interaction between the domain of our bodies and the domain of our dwelling places is constantly in motion. Whether we are aware or innocent of this process, our bodies and our movements are in endless dialogue with our buildings. The

8

Jirousek, C., 1995. Art Design and Visual Thinking. New York: Cornell University Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

12

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

critical interaction of body form and movement within architecture deserves our careful attention.

Movement and procession have been central to the formulation of the built environment dating as far back as ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture. Many of the techniques architects use in modern design to promote movement date back to the methods used in the past, such as rhythm and pattern, light, proportion and perception of our Figure 3: Temple of Khons

bodies within the structures we dwell in.

While directional movement can easily be manipulated by form, such as that of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim museum in New York, this thesis will question how architects can provoke movement in a more subtle and free manner.

Understanding artistic concepts of static movement provides an insight into how architects may compose or choreograph movement within space.

2.2 Rhythm & Pattern

Figure 4: Light Control within Temple

“Rhythm can be described as timed movement through space; an easy, connected path along which the eye follows a regular arrangement of motifs.”

The occurrence of rhythm in architecture creates predictability and direction in the configuration of the building. Visual rhythm may be understood best by its relationship to rhythm in sound.

It depends largely upon the fundamentals of pattern making and movement to achieve its effect. The parallels of rhythms in Figure 5: Guggenheim New York One‐ Directional Movement

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

sound/ music are similar to the idea of rhythm in a visual

13

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

configuration, the difference being that the timed "beat" is detected by the eyes and body, rather than simply the ears. 9

The underlying pattern or repetition within a building’s structure may subtly act as a call to move as the pattern is broken or disrupted. This pattern provides a state of coherence Figure 6: Musical Rhythm

within the whole building or built environment, the sense that all of the pieces are functioning together, to attain a synchronisation of all the elements within the rhythm of the building. Movement within this harmony is achieved by alternation, graduation, emphasis and contrast of the repeated pattern within the structure. 10

2.3 Light & Transparency

“The key is light and light illuminates the shapes and shapes have an emotional

Figure 7: Illustration of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave – The Power of Light & Knowledge

power” 11 In physical terms, transparency is thought of as a property defined by the quantity of light passing through a material or the ability to see through a particular entity. It is the control of this transparency or passing through of light which may aid the definition and choreography of movement through space. Light serves a number of significant, practical, sensory and emblematic purposes in architecture, and its composition of movement is subject to endless refinement. 12 The transformation from darkness into light has the symbolic value of good versus evil, and the connotations of knowledge derived from light, but has a similar value in terms of

Figure 8: Movement towards Light

9

Jirousek, C., 1995. Art Design and Visual Thinking. New York: Cornell University ibid 11 Le Corbusier, 1957. The Chapel at Ronchamp. London: Architectural Press.

12 Samuel, F., 2010. Le Corbusier & the Architectural Promenade. Shefield: Birkhauser 10

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

14

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

movement. If deprived of the sensory value of light, we tend to move towards the prospect of light. It is in our very nature as human beings to be in an enlightened space, rather than deprived in the darkness.

Californian minimalist art of the 1960s and 1970s evoked how geometric forms and use of light could affect the environment and perception of the viewer. 13 The ambition of this movement Figure 9: Doug Wheeler 1969 Minimalist Art

was to create a form without using physical material, and create a mental experience of space. Contemporary artist John McCracken believed that form alone is an abstract perception, but if you make it from physical materials, such as wood or stone then it overemphasises the physical aspect. It removes the mental perception and freedom of the space. The form of minimalist artists became a matter composed of energy and pure thought.14 This abstraction of form and control of light is key to the control of movement without physical restriction within architecture.

2.4 Scale & Body in Space

The scale and proportion of our bodies and relationships to Figure 10: James Turrell – Juke Green 1968

each other in space provide a rich call to move within architecture. Architects most often design in plan and section but the perception of the space, and experience from a human scale requires the utmost attention in addressing the experience, movement and how we dwell within space. 15 Richard Upjohn’s design of the Connecticut State Capitol provides corridors, halls, and stairways which are faceted with

Figure 11: Scale of Body In Space – Modular Man and Furniture

13

Butterfield, J., 1996. The Art of Light & Space. Santa Monica: Abbeville Press Coliptt, F., 1998. Between Two Worlds: John Mc Cracken. Art in America, Volume April 1998 15 Arnheim, R., 1975. The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkley: University of California Press.

14

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

15

Movement in Architecture

Theory of Movement

body sized articulations, which welcome our presence in the building. While the scale of the overall building is large the structure makes a complex but loose fit with the body. The body has many places and options to move and dwell within the space. The movements of the human body within and around this building is also significantly affected by our haptic sense, by the tactile qualities of the surfaces and edges encountered. 16 Figure 12: Foyer of Berlin Philharmonic Concert Hall

The relationship and positioning of other bodies within space can also act as a call to move within a structure. It is almost a sense of curiosity and exploration upon seeing other people, and how they move within the spaces. Hans Scharoun’s Berlin Philharmonic Concert Hall created slipping cascades of stairs over and under one another in diagonal relationships that begin to challenge one’s sense of order and orientation.17 This diagonal relationship visually inspires movement by the positioning of other people within the building. The movement

Figure 13: Sketch of Disorientating effect of Berlin Philharmonic Concert Hall

within this space varies depending on the influence of a crowd in contrast to when individuals visit the space.

Moore/Turnbulls Faculty Club in Santa Barbara has a similar effect ‐ people and their paths spin out in an almost frenetic and energised spatial configuration. Potential disorientation forces on us an awareness of our own movements, as well as our spatial relationships to one another. Again, while Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye is a very forced articulation of movement in terms of form, the two paths of vertical circulation produce a decidedly multifaceted periodic pattern of space time relationships, experienced primarily through body movement, and the relationship of other people within this space.

Figure 14: Faculty Club Santa Barbara

16 Moore, C. W. & Bloomer, K. C., 1977. Body Memory & Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

17 ibid

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

16

Movement in Architecture

Freedom & Decision Making

Chapter 3 Freedom & Decision Making ____________________________________________ 3.1 Freedom of Movement 3.2 Futurist Architecture & Movement 3.3 Decision Making in Space ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

17

Movement in Architecture

Freedom & Decision Making

3.1 Freedom of Movement

This chapter aims to examine architectural theory regarding movement and the ability to control or manipulate movement and freedom of movement within the built environment.

Freedom means different things to different people, for some it is simply the status of not being imprisoned, for others it is the right or capacity to act the way they would like, or do as they please. In the context of this thesis freedom is the ability Figure 15: Choice of Movement within Space

to make choices about movement‐ not to be constrained by form within the built environment.

3.2 Futurist Architecture & Movement

The afore mentioned futurist movement of the early 20th century provides intriguing visions of movement both within artwork, and the built environment. While the architecture has similar ideals to that of the artwork, the addition of the built environment, coinciding with the glorification of the machine, Figure 16: Superstudio Proposal

provided a unique style of architecture, and stimulating insight into movement and the relevance of the machine. 18 One of the neo‐futurist visions by Italian group Superstudio in the 1960’s promised total freedom of living, on an infinite gridded platform into which we may plug for energy, information or nutritive needs. This scenario, however, embodies a clear denial of the need for the interaction of body and architecture, instead it emphasises the relationship with body, machine and movement.

Figure 17: Superstudio Infinite Grid

18 Blumm, C. S., 1996. The Other Modernism F.T. Marinetti's Futurist Fiction of power.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

18

Movement in Architecture

Freedom & Decision Making

Contrasting this ideal by Superstudio whereby movement and freedom of living is paramount, London based architectural group Archigram again drew inspiration from technology but in a much controlling fashion. The Walking City by Ron Herron had the idea of replacing the human body and its freedom of movement with a machine. Herron proposed enormous mobile robotic structures which could interconnect with each other to form large walking metropolises.

Figure 18: Archigram Machine Movement

Advancements in technology has resulted in some of these futurist ideas being implemented at a smaller level. Through advancement in technologies, man is “moving” faster and farther than ever before, but this movement is primarily a passive experience – we do not have control of these movements.19 Our bodies are being moved or propelled in space rather than physically moving ourselves. In essence we are actually experiencing less active movement in the horizontal and vertical planes than ever before, by using mechanical means such as elevators, escalators, and even vehicles like cars.

3.3 Decision Making in Space

Figure 19: Ron Herron A Walking City

Le Corbusier’s prime motive when designing was to aid people in the process of “savoir habiter”, knowing how to live20 and it was his opinion that the architectural promenade would be designed to “resensitise” people to their surroundings.21 In designing in this way, buildings become a series of experiences, beginning with the approach from the street, pathway or square and drawing a person inside and along a series of Figure 20: Decision Making

experiences in space. In a way the architect becomes a type of

19

Moore, C. W. & Bloomer, K. C., 1977. Body Memory & Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

20 Le Corbusier. The Marseille Block. London: Harville 1953 21 Menin S. & Samuel F. Nature & Space: Aalto and Le Corbusier. London: Routledge 2003

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

19

Movement in Architecture

Freedom & Decision Making

choreographer, creating spaces which anticipate a person’s movement. It creates a dialogue, not only between people and the built environment, but also between other people.

Le Corbusier endeavoured to create a framework in which people could live their own lives, and make their own decisions, whilst dictating strongly exactly what that framework should be. This paradox is what makes Le Corbusier’s work so interesting, however these experiments in teaching people how to live were generally unsuccessful. They created a very rigid formwork, such as that of the Villa Savoye, whereby the movement through space was forced in a specific manner – this Figure 21: Ground Floor of Villa Savoye Showing Movement

does not allow a freedom of movement and choice.

Although the end product of Le Corbusier’s designs were generally unsuccessful in creating freedom, a lot can be learned from his teaching of “savoir habiter”, in terms of creating a decision making space for movement. In essence it is a questioning space, whereby choices are provided and questions are asked which offer up a multitude of possibilities for movement and action (This decision‐making space is examined further in Design Charette 2‐ see Appendix).

This decision‐making space does not happen within open space, but rather at threshold and circulation points in the built

Figure 22: 2nd Floor of Villa Savoye

environment. These may be disorientating spaces, in that they are rarely clear or distinctly defined spaces, but provide several options for movement, and call for choices to be made. The material quality of the space is generally uniform, but provides glimpses into the ancillary spaces in which it opens up to. A clear example of these decision making spaces is within the threshold spaces for the British Museum in London designed by

Figure 23: Two Circulation Methods within Villa Savoye

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

Richard Rodgers (see Case Study).

20

Movement in Architecture

Playscapes

Chapter 4 Playscapes ____________________________________________ 4.1 Architecture of Play 4.2 Parkour in the City ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

21

Movement in Architecture

Playscapes

4.1 Architecture of Play

“Play is free, is in fact freedom”22 Play generates memories and a sense of place in the built environment, and is the truest sense of freedom of movement and expression. When children play in any environment, they reinterpret objects and negotiate the environment in a different way to adults, and as such explore and move more within the built environment. Play activities are a consistent

Figure 24: Children at Play

feature in cultures throughout the world and history, and although they may appear in very dissimilar forms, they share an underlying conceptual construct. They are dependent upon the context and framework in which they occur.23 There are two main approaches to designing play spaces: loose parts, which use transportable objects and sculpture which are placed within a site; and playscapes which combine play areas with landscape design. 24 Figure 25: Merida Youth Movement – Selgas Cano

In stark contrast to Le Corbusier’s approach to movement, Bernard Tschumi’s work allows the creation of space to be generated by the play activities. His efforts link potential movement between objects, filling the gaps through activity and the insertion of the body, event, or action. Rather than designing to force a particular way of moving, Tschumi provides a stage for freedom of movement to occur on. This is most prevalent in his design for the award winning Parc de la Vilette in Paris.

Figure 26: Tree Tectonics Urban Studio

22

Huizinga, J., 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. 2nd ed.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

23 ibid 24 The Architecture of Early Childhood, 2012. The State of Play Today

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

22

Movement in Architecture

Playscapes

4.2 Parkour in the City

Parkour (derived from the French 'parcours' or 'course') also known as free‐running is a contemporary spectacle in which a traceur (practitioner of Parkour) moves through the built environment as resourcefully as possible. In this pursuit of efficient or free movement, traceurs re‐negotiate obstacles which may lessen their pace or divert them from an optimal Figure 27: Parkour Flow of Movement

pathway in un‐conventional ways, moving over, through, or under them. 25 Parkour is a highly accessible and distinctly urban play activity.

Its re‐interpretation and creative misuse of the paths and frames of the city, acts as an appropriate case study through which to discuss the nature of play and freedom of movement in the urban environment. By exploring the way in which traceur’s navigate the architecture of the city contrarily, we may generate discussion regarding the design and management

Figure 28: Parkour Playground Proposal – Riverdale Park

of public space, and come to a greater and more creative understanding of how play qualities and play elements may be deployed in the city, to adapt freedom of movement in public environments.26 Parkour strongly signifies the desire of public urban enthusiasts for freedom, connection with place, social and physical interaction, and the ability to re‐interpret their environment through appropriation. Mikkel Rugaard’s “Street Movement” has attempted to address the idea of designing for freedom of movement and expression. Rugaard acts on a similar level to Tschumi to define spaces and objects in the built environment, so they become inspirational and invitational towards physical

Figure 29: Designing the Undesigned – Cornell University

activity and movement, without compromising the architectural vision and aesthetic value.

25

Geyh, P., 2006. Urban Free Flow: A Poetics of Parkour. Media Culture Journal, 9(3).

Mirko, G., 2011. Parkour & Architecture, Brisbane: Queensland University

26

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

23

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

Chapter 5 Case Studies ____________________________________________ 5.1 Case Studies ‐ A History of Movement 5.2 British Museum, London 5.3 Barajas Airport, Madrid 5.4 Parc de la Villette, Paris ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

24

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

5.1 Case Studies – A History of Movement

This case study was carried out by analysing the primary movements within buildings throughout history. In each case the suggested movement and the factors which influence the movement are identified in order to understand the impact of control of movement within the built environment.

Temple of Khons – 1153 BC

Key Factors in Movement 

Level change at transitional spaces



Structural grid – set out in a linear straight azis through the centre of the building.



Light changes within different zones.



Human scale and figure evident in sculpture

Figure 30

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

25

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

The Parthenon – 447 BC

Key Factors in Movement 

Temple was only designed to be seen from the outside.



Can only view the statue throught open doors along which a central axis provides a direct path to the statue



Controlled landscape approach is key to the movement



As procession brings you closer the detail of the frieze and columns become more evident



Planners concieve the promenade as a theatrical event



Emotions of the visitors was choreographed to prepare them for the ultimate glimpse of Athena

Figure 31

The Pantheon 14 AD

Key Factors in Movement 

Approach from Piazza della Rotunda



Liniar entrance through collonade



Control of light through the oculus



Circular interior form/structure



Niches/monuments and dwelling spaces at the periphery

Figure 32 Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

26

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

Ibn Tulun Mosque 879 AD Key Factors in Movement 

Position of the structural columns and walls provides direction to the Mihrab and the direction to Mecca.



Central fountain’s position acts as a gathering/dwelling place for purification.



Multiple entrances into the Ziyada before the courtyard help control the movement of the crowd during worshipping hours.



Ziyada provides a buffer of movement into the courtyard space.

Figure 33

San Minato, Florence 1013AD

Key Factors in Movement 

External approach via large set of steps on the site



Entrance points via the 3 doorways



Strucutral grid



Change in levels above/below the choir



Articulation of the vaulting



Direct axis‐ liniar throught the basilica

Figure 34

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

27

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

Villa Savoye –Poissy, France 1920’s

Key Factors in Movement 

Landscape apporach on site begins the controlled movement through the building



Centrally located ramp from ground floor to roof level rigidly controls the circulation



Relationship of the ramp to both vertical and horizontal plane is important



Relationship between the two forms of vertical circulation (the stairs and ramp) creates a movment relationship between people



Light source from above illuminates the vertical space of the stairs Figure 35

Guggenheim Museum, New York 1950’s

Key Factors in Movement 

Very controlled movement in the museum environment



Spiraling ramp through main atrium space controls movement



Light source from centre of atrium casts light down the centre of the atrium illuminating the ramp and highlighting the circulation space



One directional movemennt up and down the ramp



No decision making process on ramp

Figure 36

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

28

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

Kiasma Museum, Helsinki 1998

Key Factors in Movement 

Lighting plays largest role in direction and contorl of movement.



Ramp curves in one direction



Relationship and interplay of ramp and stairs similar to Villa Savoye engages human interaction



Clearly defined journey through space

Figure 37

Conclusion to Historical Case Studies

This exercise attempted to analyse how movement is defined, and controlled in buildings throughout history, in an effort to gain a better understanding of the influences, and factors, which have an impact on buildings and people’s movement within.

It provided an insight into the criteria which we still use today to control somebody’s movement, however, it does not offer guidance as to how freedom of movement may be achieved. In most case studies the pathway is quite rigidly defined and controlled. The result of this does not offer many possibilities for freedom of choice and movement.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

29

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

5.2 British Museum, London – Foster & Partners

Figure 38: Threshold Space of Museum

Figure 39: Atrium Space

Figure 40: Circulation zone within Atrium

Figure 41: Movement Study Examining Decision Making Spaces & Flow of Movement Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

30

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

5.3 Barajas Airport, Madrid – Richard Rodgers Partnership

.

Figure 42: Colour as Way‐finding method within Structure

Figure 43: Circulation Zones Grouped

Figure 45: Decision Making Space and Movement Study Figure 44: Light & Implied Movement in Undulations of Roof

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

31

Movement in Architecture

Case Studies

5.4 Parc de la Vilette, Paris – Bernard Tschumi

Figure 46: Play Space Within Structure

Figure 47: Fixed Seating

Figure 48: Tree‐Lined Pathway

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

Figure 48: Points of Constraint

Figure 50: Forms Which Constrain Movement

Figure 51: Freedom of Movement Zones

32

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

Chapter 6 Design Brief ____________________________________________ 6.1 Introduction to Design Brief 6.2 Children’s Museum of the Arts 6.3 Design Aspirations 6.4 Constraints of Brief 6.4 Space Schedule ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

33

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

6.1 Introduction to Design Brief

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how architecture can enhance the users’ experience in the built environment through movement. This movement will be brought forward to the design of a museum which encourages a user to explore the exhibitions to the fullest extent, without following a specific path. This type of movement and engagement in museum design is not suitable in certain museum models (i.e. a museum whereby the user is required to follow a specific story or succession of events). Therefore, it is proposed that the design brief for this thesis will be a children’s museum of the arts, whereby the visitor will be encouraged to explore and engage with the environment through controlled movement. The key to this design brief will be providing circulation and movement between and within the exhibition spaces, which is not forced by form, but is encouraged through intuition and decision‐ making. This will be achieved by focusing on the following criteria: rhythm, light, and scale.

6.2 Children’s Museum Of The Arts

It is imperative to look beyond specific scholastic functions that have been provided by museums, and acknowledge their Figure 52: Education‐Movement

paramount influence on education – they stimulate individuals of all ages to learn more.27 Firm evidence supports the connection between movement and education. Indications from MRI data, anatomical studies,

27

Merrit E. Museums and the Future of Education Leeds, United Kingdom. Emerald Group Publishing (2009)

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

34

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

and medical data show that movement increases our cognitive processing, and our number of brain cells.28 If kinaesthetic learning is the way forward in education,29 it is imperative that we design to promote this within modern museum design.

According to Susan Griss, the arts and education are inseparable: “You cannot study the arts without learning thoughts of math, science, history, and problem solving, nor can you be truly educated if you are ignorant of the role of the arts in culture and history.”30

When we deliberately incorporate the arts into education, the

benefits of each are maximized. This children’s museum will focus on the 7 traditional classifications of “Arts”; these being Architecture, Literature, Painting, Sculpture, Music, Dance and Theatre. It will provide a facility for both children and family to explore and understand the arts, and engage in a participatory way with all the faculties of the arts. In a sense, it will aim to provide a movement through the building, in which the visitor will become lost in the world of the arts, and discover and learn by participating with the museum environment.

6.3 Design Aspirations The building’s overall design reflects a mission similar to Daniel Libeskind’s proposal for the Victoria & Albert museum in London, whereby the visitor becomes lost in the experience of the museum. 31 The movement and circulation which achieves

28

Ibid Griss, S. Creative Movement: A Language for Learning. Educational Leadership (1994) Accessed 16 November 2014 30 ibid 29

31

Libeskind, D. Daniel Libeskind: The Space of Encounter. New York: Universe Publishing

(2000).

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

35

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

this goal will be exploratory. There will not be a clear form of promenade, but rather a culmination of different pathways and circulation methods. Way‐finding will be possible, not by visible form but rather on an intuitive level. Colour, material, light, rhythm, and scale will provide the basis for this intuition. In essence the aim will be to explore a labyrinth‐type layout so the building becomes part of a journey of discovery and participation. In all aspects of the design, the museum seeks to provoke movement, and encourage and inspire children (and their families) to learn through the arts. The museum will become a space of opportunity for inquiry‐based learning, which inspires curiosity within the built environment.

6.4 Constraints/ Restrictions of Brief

In designing for a family based public building the following constraints will require attention through the design and site selection process:32 

Access (for exhibition changes)



Accessibility (for disability and elderly)



Signage (Total Communication)



Amenities (seating, toilets, changing facilities)



Group Visitation (Schools/Large Groups of Children)



Interactive Technology Management



Mobility (Buggy use/storage)



Public Transport Links



Safety



Temporary Spaces/Exhibitions



Vantage Points for Play Areas

32 Gurian E. H. Museum Space Program Planning. Vieques PR, (2006) Accesssed 16th November 2014

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

36

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

The challenge of these constraints will be to seamlessly incorporate these areas of attention into the movement and journey of discovery within the structure, without compromising the interactive and exploratory nature of the museum.

The history and nature of the site will also have a restriction on the building programme. It will be necessary to both transform the landscape and parkland, but also respect the history of the buildings of importance and historic relevance of the Iveagh Gardens.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

37

Movement in Architecture

Design Brief

6.5 Space Schedule

I.D No.

Space/Activity

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Entrance/Admission Entry Vestibule Reception/Information Point Admission/Tickets Museum Shop Group Meeting Space Toilet/Changing Facilities

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Administration/Staff Facilities Curator’s Office Filing/Storage General Admin Office Security Station Small Meeting Room Staff Room Staff Toilet/ Changing Facilities Youth Program Coordinator Office

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7

Exhibition Spaces Architecture Exhibition Space Literature Exhibition Space Painting Exhibition Space Sculpture Exhibition Space Theatre & Dance Exhibition Space Music Exhibition Space

4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Area Required (Metres Squared)

Total

25 25 25 100 125 35 335

Total

15 10 15 15 25 25 25 15 145

Total

250 150 100 100 350 150 1100

Total

150 25 75 50 300

Total

250 50 50 100 450

Civic Amenities Café Buggy Storage / Rental Area Book Shop Lounge/Resting Space

5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Utilities Exhibition Storage Kitchen Plant/ Control Room For Interactive Exhibtions Toilet Facilities

6.0 6.2

Circulation Interior Circulation Zones (Large Free Flowing Spaces) Total Building Area

700 3030

Note: External circulation will also play a role in the control of movement within the complex: Site Area ≈ 37,867m2

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

38

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Chapter 7 Site Selection ____________________________________________ 7.1 Site Selection Criteria 7.2 Site Data 7.3 Iveagh Gardens 7.4 Earlsfort Terrace 7.5 Historical Development ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

39

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

7.1 Site Selection Criteria

The chosen location for the thesis design will be within the Iveagh Gardens, Dublin 2, Ireland. As the brief for this design is a National Children’s Museum, the population of children in the area was a key factor in the choice of city. Dublin has more than fifteen thousand children in city and county.

In selecting an appropriate site three different locations have been assessed by the following criteria; proximity to other cultural and educational buildings/areas of interest; proximity and access to public transport; safety of the area for children; flow of movement; and size of the site to accommodate the Figure 53: Site Location Map

children’s museum brief.

The ideal site for this thesis would provide options for developing a flow of movement and connections through the site and building, so space and the option to create movement on different levels is imperative. It would also be important to have space on the site, to develop a safe external environment for children and families to gather and play. Light plays a role in the control of movement within the building; therefore it would be preferable to have a site which is not overshadowed by other buildings.

Following this set of criteria, the Iveagh Gardens provide a unique protected and safe setting within the heart of the city for the development of a children’s museum and surrounding “playscape” for the children of Dublin.

Figure 54: Criteria for Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

40

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

41

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

42

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

7.2 Site Data

Location: Iveagh Gardens, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland 52° 33′ 52″ N, ‐6° 26′ 07″ W Current State:  

Public Gardens & Parkland Classified by the Office of Public Works as a National Historic Property

Site Area: ≈ 37,867m2

Figure 57: Site Context Aerial Map

Figure 58: Fountain Centrepiece

Figure 60: Pop‐up Concert Venue within Iveagh Gardens

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

Figure 59: Iveagh Garden Waterfall

Figure 61: Main Axis of the Iveagh Gardens

43

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

7.3 Iveagh Gardens

The Iveagh Gardens was chosen as the most appropriate based on the criteria for site, selection, and also the potential for movement design development. Although initially it was proposed that the corner of Earlsfort Terrace & Stephens Green would be the location of the National Children’s Museum it became clear that moving into the gardens had the greatest potential for expansion for the development of an educational and cultural quarter in Dublin City Centre.

An in depth study of the Dublin City Development Plan (2011‐ 2017)33 highlights key issues which would be required to address within the design project, the most relevant to this design brief being the cultural and transport system issues.

After examining the current public and private transport facilities against the model for the development plan, it became clear that the building would require connections to public transport, to create a more linked and sustainable system.

Parking would not be an issue on this site. Both current and proposed transport systems deem this site to be an appropriate choice.

The cultural significance is clear from the proximity to educational and cultural facilities, and the potential to link the new proposal for the Children’s Museum to adjacent amenities and existing structures is ideal for the development of a new museum and playscape for children and the general public.

33 Tierney, J., 2010. Dublin City Development Plan, Dublin: Dublin City Council.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

44

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

45

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

46

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

47

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

7.4 Historical Development

Having examined the cultural significance of the surrounding buildings of the site, the history of the site cannot be ignored.

The site is steep in history due to its proximity to Stephen’s Green, but also the National Concert Hall’s significance in both culture and education.

The gardens were originally developed as Clonmell Lawns, by John Scott the First Earl of Clonmell, as his personal garden.

Figure 65: Historical 6” Map (1829‐1841)

However, when the Earl died his son inherited the property and sold it for public use in 1817 when it was renamed Coburg Gardens.34 It fell into disrepair following its use as a site for sheep grazing and waste disposal, until 1860, when it became part of the development of the 1865 Dublin International Exhibition. The National Concert Hall was originally built for the exhibition, complete with an enormous glass house iron structure to the east of the site. This glass structure was

Figure 66: Historical 25” Map (1897‐1913

disassembled after the International Exhibition and reassembled in London. 35 The main building was converted into the central building of University College Dublin (UCD) with the founding of the National University of Ireland in 1908. UCD began to relocate to the new Bellfield campus in the 1960’s so a portion of the

Figure 67: Iron Glass House‐ Dublin International Exhibition

building was reopened as the National Concert Hall in 1981.

In 2007, UCD moved from the National Concert Hall complex to their Belfield campus. Plans have been put in place to upgrade the concert hall to a major multipurpose concert venue. 36

Figure 68: Dublin International Exhibition 1865

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

34

Casey, C., 2005. Dublin: The City within the Grand & Royal Canals and the Circular Road with the Phoenix Park. Yale University Press.

35 Kelly, P. B. &. P. O., 2000. The National Concert Hall at Earlsfort Terrace: A History.

Dublin: Wolfhound Press.

36 Lyons, M., 2007. Farewell to the Terrace. The Irish Times, 15 May.

48

Movement in Architecture

Site Selection

Figure 69: Dublin International Exhibition 1865 Official Catalogue Cover

Figure 70: Dublin International Exhibition 1865 Plan of Building & Gardens

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

49

Movement in Architecture

Conclusion

Chapter 8 Conclusion ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

50

Movement in Architecture

Conclusion

8.0 Conclusion

Designing for freedom is perhaps the most challenging aspect of this thesis as within architecture there are always boundaries and thresholds, spaces where control is put in place.

Following this in‐depth investigation into movement, and freedom of movement in the built environment, it is clear that designing for movement is an achievable feat, but to design for freedom of movement and play is a much more challenging endeavour. Moving towards a design‐based investigation, it will be necessary to address the movement and circulation of the children’s museum and playscape environment not simply with built form, but also through more intuitive ways.

While a building cannot be designed without material and form the goal within the design aspect of this thesis will be to place an emphasis on freedom of choice and movement in the built environment, by focusing on the design tools of light, transparency, rhythm, pattern and an awareness of scale and the body in space.

The design of the children’s museum will require a cohesive incorporation of all of these elements, to create a child friendly, but also a child scaled environment which children can explore and play with little restriction of movement.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

51

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

Chapter 9 Reflective Chapter ____________________________________________ 9.1 Brief & Site Update 9.2 Learning Experience & Process 9.3 Design Challenges 9.4 Objectives & Achievements ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

52

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

9.1 Brief & Site Update

Following further analysis into the existing and historical conditions of the site in the Iveagh Gardens it was evident that great care and a delicate touch in terms of approach, would be required to maintain its beauty as a public park. In keeping with Glen Murcutts approach to architecture in the landscape “touch the earth lightly” 37 the original idea for the children’s museum as a singular building changed to a series of pavilions within the park which would be lightweight and sit sensitively into the park landscape. The decision to approach the landscape with such sensitivity was primarily due to the historical significance of the trees within the park. The mature trees were planted when the park was developed for the 1865 international exhibition. The trees were planted with species from all over the world and provides an amazing mature assortment of both native Irish and international trees within the park. Following this approach to the landscape the decision was made that while inputting the new pavilion structures into the landscape no trees would be cut down or moved from their original location within the site. This provided a unique challenge while situating the pavilions but also maintained the natural and almost wild landscape between the trees whereby the children could run play and explore within.

Prior to the commencement of the design process, detailed research was not completed in order to fully understand the architecture of children and their requirements. This provoked further research into childcare and educational philosophy and the various documented ways of learning for children. Primary to this research was an understanding of alternative methods of learning to that of the Irish school system, such as the

37 Drew, P. (2000) Touch This Earth Lightly – Glenn Murcutt In His Own Words, Duffy & Snellgrove, Sydney

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

53

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

philosophies of the Steiner, Montessori, Reggio Emilia schools, and most pertinent to the parkland study the Scandinavian approach to education being based primarily outdoors in nature.

Nature provides a constantly moving and comprehensive environment full of enrichment to stimulate children’s minds therefore the Scandinavian schools function almost entirely outside. Architecturally, they provide only minimal installations within the natural setting which includes child‐scaled alcoves and secret cubbies, as well as more challenging physical courses and structures encouraging practical skills. It is with this same intention that the brief for the children’s museum transformed to ensure that each pavilion would provide these challenges within movement and would be set into the most natural part of the parks – within the trees. As a result of this further research the brief, scale and nature of the play spaces changed following the design requirement research. What was initially named “exhibition spaces” within a large structure (based on current international models for children’s museums) has been replaced with simple workshop and play space pavilions which include small alcoves, shelters and spaces for decision making and movement within the master plan of the park.

The auxiliary facilities such as café, group meeting zone, parent’s facilities and administration have all been incorporated into the refurbishment of UCD’s former Aula Maxima which also provides the primary entrance point into the park from Stephen’s Green which had not been initially included within the initial site selection.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

54

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

9.2 Learning Experience & Process

Following the additional research and amendments to the brief and site specifics I endeavoured to begin at a planning scale within the park and work in sequence down to a detail design scale for the pavilions. This was a process which I believed would keep the project on track and maintain a steady time scale for the projects development and completion. However, I realised after a few weeks that this type of systematic approach in moving from a context scale to a building design scale was not appropriate for a project of this nature. In order to design the movement within the site, there was a need to plan at a context scale, zoom in to a more detailed scale and back to a planning scale. This process was key to the development of the site and a factor which hindered my progress at first when I attempted to move from 1:1000 to 500 and so forth.

Once this process of work had been rectified site models became key to the site strategy in attempting to find a focus within the site. There were currently a few focal points within the site given the water features, maze and rose garden present in the garden however creating focus between the positioning of the pavilions became a greater issue. This lack of focus made it inherently difficult to justify why any building was located where it was. This in turn created issues in characterising the pavilion, or setting any particular playscape concretely within the park. It appeared as though it did not belong in any particular location.

This particular issue of locating the pavilions and finding a focus hindered the progress of the project greatly as it was near impossible to design the pavilions in more detail, and to sit delicately in the landscape as I had aspired, when they were constantly shifting position within the park. Having attempted

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

55

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

to shift to a more detailed scale of 1:100 for some time, a final model based study on the site strategy became key to the progression. In working with a transparent material, clearly separating and identifying the elements of the park and bringing the different variations of movement together as a model the pavilion locations became suitable in location as a control point or decision making space. In these new locations the pavilions acted as a catalyst for movement as it provided a link between the ground paths and the new raised walkway.

The pavilion shifts direction and propels the movement around the site both with its relationship visually to opposite or adjacent buildings and the progressive scale of the next building on the route.

Following this logical conclusion of the location of the pavilions the task was to now focus on one particular area in the park and complete a detailed design on that particular pavilion. The Iveagh Garden’s attain a certain degree of life and vibrancy during the summer months when concerts and food festivals take place in the park. With this in mind I endeavoured to create a primary larger pavilion in the sunken garden of the park which would both act as the theatre, dance and music section of the children’s museum on the interior of the pavilion but would also become a shelter like structure in the garden for activities all year round. Again a model based research was the ideal process to investigate this shelter type structure. Once the general space was designed through model making I focused on detailed drawing of the roof structure. This ensured that the greatest amount and assortment of movement could take place within this one structure, from running underneath, on top, up stairs, ramps, climbing walls, and down slides. Choice and freedom of movement is abundant on and within this structure.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

56

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

9.3 Design Challenges

The afore mentioned challenges during the design process of the project were secondary to the lack of preparation and research that was completed regarding control and freedom of movement in a landscape setting. The key components in which my initial thesis had described were light, scale and rhythm within a building. However when the site context and history led me to change the project from a singular entity to a series of pavilions in the park, the application of these key elements of guiding movement in a landscape were weakened. While individually the pavilions did primarily adhere to the elements of scale, light and rhythm in guiding the movement within, the same was not applicable with regard to the movement from pavilion to pavilion in the site. A physical link was created whereby light (or rather the movement from darkness to light) could not be used to guide the user.

The primary challenges of the application of the thesis research to the development of the site was to explore how architecture can enhance freedom in what is currently a free flowing space, how pavilions could be inserted in a minimally invasive way into the historical fabric of the garden and how the insertion of this built form can provide a new level of exploration, play and movement to the Iveagh Gardens. The addition of these pavilions into the park would endeavour to transform the garden into a multifunctional urban park which acknowledges the existing movement around the site while providing new recreational and aesthetic experiences for the users without limitation.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

57

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

9.4 Objectives & Achievements

The primary objective for this thesis was to explore how architecture can encourage movement without restricting a person’s free passage and decision‐making within the built environment and overall I believe this has been successful within the overall development of the project. While architecture inevitably introduces boundaries and built form into a landscape, the essence of freedom lies within the ability to choose the way in which we move. Within the relatively open nature of the Iveagh Garden’s, freedom was evident from the onset, but solely on one level.

In relation to the site strategy the idea of thickening the boundary wall and creating a microcosm for the children within the gardens by creating a secondary level of movement raised from the existing garden walls into the trees, provides a new level of choice and exploration surrounding the park. The insertion of the pavilions as nodal points which propel or encourage movement and exploration from one end of the park to the other, further enhances the willingness to discover and experience the gardens.

Upon examining a singular structure such as the larger performance pavilion the application of the original key points of the thesis research was much more successful. The primary structure of the building provides the elements of choice with the ramps, walkways and slides alongside the ability to run under and through the building from one level of the gardens to the sunken former archery range. The building does not obstruct movement but rather enables further movement vertically from the sunken level to above the boundary walls of the site. The use of light cast between the blades of the roof structure encourage movement out from the corner of the site

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

58

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

radiating to the other pavilions and activities of the park. Again using the rhythm of both the slides (vertically) and the rooftop walkways (horizontally) alongside the varying spacing between the elements inspires further exploration. Finally the balance of scale between the different vertical and horizontal elements alongside the positioning of the various walkways ensures that the experience of other users making different decisions and taking different routes across and down the buildings encourages the movement of others on many different levels.

While the smaller pavilions within the site propel movement in their own right across the site, if the project was to develop further each pavilion would aim to have the excitement and variance of movement such as that within the performance pavilion but done so on a smaller scale. Although each pavilion has the basic elements of light, scale and rhythm to guide the user toward the next structure a more comprehensive study of each individual building would enhance the research further.

In conclusion while overall the development was successful in exploring the theory of designing for free passage and movement, the initial research was not sufficient in preparation for guiding movement on a landscape or master planning scale.

This lack of preparation initially decelerated the amount of exploration completed within each individual structure within the site. Within the final design of the performance structure it provided multifaceted methods of movement and provides the park with a vibrant and playful structure to be used all year round. The more comprehensive study of this performance pavilion albeit not a very complex space in program, did fulfil the aspirations of the thesis by focusing on the design tools of light, transparency, rhythm, pattern and an awareness of scale and the body in space.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

59

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

Chapter 10 Appendices ____________________________________________ 10.1 Design Charette 1 10.2 Design Charette 2 10.3 Design Submission ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

60

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

10.1 Design Charette 1 – The Dissembler

[Dissembling, to define it in outline, would seem to be a pretence for the worse in action and speech.]

The Dissembler is the sort of man who is ready to accost his enemies and chat with them. When he has attacked people behind their back he praises them to their face, and he commiserates with them when they have lost a lawsuit. He forgives those who speak abusively about him and <laughs at> their abuse. When people want an urgent meeting he tells them to call back later and never admits what he is doing but says that he has the matter under consideration and pretends that he has just arrived home or that it is too late or that he fell ill.

To applicants for a loan or a contribution< >that he has nothing for sale, and when he has nothing for sale he says that he has.

He pretends not to have heard, claims not to have seen, and says that he does not remember agreeing. Sometimes he says that he will think about it, at other times that he has no idea, or that he is surprised, or that he once had the same thought himself. In general he is a great one for using expressions like ‘I don’t believe it’, ‘I can’t imagine it’, ‘I am amazed’, ‘But that was not the account he gave me’, ‘It beggars belief’, ‘Tell that to someone else’, ‘I don’t know whether I should disbelieve you or condemn him’, ‘Are you sure you are not being too credulous?’

[Such are the remarks, tricks and repetitions which the Dissembler will invent. One should be more wary of disingenuous and designing characters than of vipers.]

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

61

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

10.2 Design Charette 2 – Decision-Making Space

The task within Design Charette 2 was to create a model 300mm x 300mm x 300mm to convey the essence of this thesis project. As movement has largely complex factors within space, the focus of this model was an examination of a questioning or decision‐making space. The concept was derived from the exploration of labyrinths and mazes, but also Le Corbusier’s “savoir habiter” aspect of the architectural promenade.

The difference between maze and labyrinth is key to this exploration of control and freedom of movement.

Labyrinths have one pathway which leads directly from the entrance of the pathway to the goal, often by a complex and winding route. The route however is unicursal (has only one direction). This explores control, as the user/visitor of a labyrinth does not have choices to make, but rather must move through a controlled path to the destination. Mazes, however, differ in this aspect, as the user has decisions to make at all points on the journey. A maze follows multiple paths (multicursal) and dead‐ends within the structure.

In order to portray a decision making space the final model of this exploration followed a three dimensional maze structure, where decisions are required to be made not only on the horizontal axis, but also within the vertical realm. Following Le Corbusier’s model of a decision making space there are glimpses of light, cast through the voids in the model. Rhythm, light and the scale of each block played a part in the design of this three‐dimensional maze. In order to access the material quality and portrayal of light within the model, grey/black polystyrene was used as a stark contrast to the light being cast within the space.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

62

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

63Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

64Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

65Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

66Â

Movement in Architecture

Reflective Chapter

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

67

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

68Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

69Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

70Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

71Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

72Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

73Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

Reflective Chapter

74Â

Movement in Architecture

References

Chapter 11 References ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

75

Movement in Architecture

References

11.0 References

Arnheim, R., 1975. The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkley: University of California Press.

Asofsky, D. D., 1992. Ritual in Architecture and the New England Holocaust Memorial, s.l.: University of Michigan.

Blumm, C. S., 1996. The Other Modernism F.T. Marinetti's Futurist Fiction of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Building Trust International, 2013. Playscapes Play Brief, s.l.: s.n.

Butterfield, J., 1996. The Art of Light & Space. Santa Monica: Abbeville Press.

Casey, C., 2005. Dublin: The City Within The Grand & Royal Canals and the Circular Road with the Phoenix Park. s.l.:Yale University Press.

Coliptt, F., 1998. Between Two Worlds: John Mc Cracken. Art in America, Volume April 1998.

Geyh, P., 2006. Urban Free Flow: A Poetics of Parkour. Media Culture Journal, 9(3).

Griss, S., 1994. Creative Movement: A Language for Learning.

Mass: Educational Leadership.

Gurian, E. H., 2006. Museum Space Program Planning. Vieques: PR. Huizinga, J., 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

J.A Simpson, 2010. The Oxford Dictionary of English. 2 ed.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

76

Movement in Architecture

References

Jirousek, C., 1995. Art Design and Visual Thinking. New York: Cornell University.

Kelly, P. B. &. P. O., 2000. The National Concert Hall at Earlsfort Terrace: A History. Dublin: Wolfhound Press.

Le Corbusier, 1957. The Chapel at Ronchamp. London: Architectural Press.

Libeskind, D., 2000. Daniel Libeskid: The Space of Encounter.

New York: Universe Publishing.

Lyons, M., 2007. Farewell to the Terrace. The Irish Times, 15 May. Merrit, E., 2009. Museums & the Future of Education. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing.

Mirko, G., 2011. Parkour & Architecture, Brisbane: Queensland University.

Moore, C. W. & Bloomer, K. C., 1977. Body Memory & Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Samuel, F., 2010. Le Corbusier & The Architectural Promenade.

Shefield: Birkhauser.

The Architecture of Early Childhood, 2012. The State of Play Today.

Available

[Online] at:

http://www.thearchitectureofearlychildhood.com/2012/02/st ate‐of‐play‐today.html [Accessed 4th December 2014].

Tierney, J., 2010. Dublin City Development Plan, Dublin: Dublin City Council.

Webster, M., 2004. The Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Springfield: Perfection Learning Corporation.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

77

Movement in Architecture

List of Illustrations

Chapter 12 List of Illustrations ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Valerie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Leary 20035104

78Â

Movement in Architecture

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

List of Illustrations

Page

Figure Source Cover Image Produced by Author

12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 22 22 22 23 23 23 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 26 27 27 28

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35

http://xroads.virginia.edu/ http://daphd.ie Produced by Author Ibid Ibid Ibid http://s3.amazonaws.com/ Produced by Author http://www.davidzwirner.com/ Ibid http://lifeofanarchitect.com http://www.wgbh.org/ Produced by Author http://www.arthistory.ucr.edu/ Produced by Author http://www.penccil.com/ Ibid http://archkiosk.com/ Ibid Produced by Autor Ibid Ibid Ibid http://guildford.gov.uk http://archdaily.com http://playscapes.com https://fupingchuan.wordpress.com http://www.185augusta.com/ https://fupingchuan.wordpress.com Produced by Author Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid

79

Movement in Architecture

List of Illustrations

28 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 34 40 40 41 42 43 43 43 43 43 45 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 49

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65 Figure 66 Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 70

Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid http://www.rsh‐p.com/ Ibid Ibid Ibid Produced by Author http://archdaily.com Ibid ibid Ibid Produced by Author Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid http://dublinrocks.ie http://heritageireland.ie Ibid Ibid Produced by Author Ibid Ibid http:/osi.ie Ibid http:/archiseek.com Ibid https://archive.org/ Ibid

80

Movement in Architecture

Bibliography

Chapter 13 Bibliography ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

81

Movement in Architecture

Bibliography

13.0 Bibliography

Arnheim, R., 1975. The Dynamics of Architectural Form, London: University of California Press.

Binelli, M., 2012. Detroit City is the Place to Be. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Carey, K. E., 2009. Architecture & The Motion of Life, 2009: Montana State University.

Castledon, R., 1990. The Knossos Labyrinth, New York: Routledge DeCamp, M. L., 2012. The Architecture of Play, Boston: Tufts University.

Deicher, C., 2012. Laban Based Movement and Architectural Education, New York: s.n.

Dlalex, G., 2006. Go With the Flow: Architecture, Intrastructure and the Everyday Exzperience of Mobility, Helsinki: University of Art & Design Helsinki.

Estremadoyro, V., 2003. Transparency and Movement in Architecture, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.

Fletcher, B., 1961. A History of Architecture. 20th ed. New York: Scribner.

Hall, P., 2014. Cities of Tomorow. 4th ed. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishers.

Higgins, W. C., 2010. Urban Regeneration: Enabled by Mobility Centric Architecture, Boston: M.I.T Press.

Holl, S., 2009. Urbanisms Working with Doubt, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

82

Movement in Architecture

Bibliography

Holscher, C., 2008. Movement & Orientation in Built Environments: Evaluating Design Rationale & User Cognition, Bremen: University of Bremen.

Ingold, T., 2000. Perception of the Environment, New York: Routledge.

Kanekar, A., 1992. Celebration of Place: Processional Rituals & Urban Form, Boston: M.I.T Press.

Lefebvre, H., 2014. Toward an Architecture of Enjoyment, 2014: University of Minnesota.

Macleod, S., 2012. Museum Making ‐ Narratives, Architectures, Exhibitions. New York: Routledge.

Meyer, C., 2006. Designing to Inspire Movement, Indiana: Ball State University.

Samuel, F., 2007. Le Corbusier in Detail. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier Limited.

Terzian, D., 1997. How Color and Light Change our Perception of Space, Time & Movement in Architecture, Boston: M.I.T Press.

Valerie O’ Leary 20035104

83