Thesis Research Report_WEI YEFAN

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting Riken Yamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture High-rise Vertical Community Research in both Architectural and Structural Scales

AR5806

Architectural Design Research Report

Acknowledgements For this research report, I would like to firstly express my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Prof. Shin Yokoo, as his weekly constructive guidance and critical insights really support me throughout the development of my highrise research both in architectural and structural fields. His interpretation of Riken Yamamoto’s LCA principle and his guidance on quantitative structural analysis have been of great assistance to me. I am also sincerely grateful to my second reader, François Blanciak, as well as his highly inspiring scholarly book, Siteless: 1001 Building Forms, which has paved the way for my high-rise formgiving exploration.

My appreciation will extend to Akira Suzuki for his pertinent structural design suggestions as well as his organized lecture, and to Eugene Tan Wei Ming for his helpful input during my thesis process. I would like to also acknowledge Prof. Joseph Lim and Prof. Neo Sei Hwa for their thoughtful comments during the interim review.They have contributed to a significant milestone in refining my project. Lastly, I wish to acknowledge NUS Department of Architecture, for offering a specialized academic atmosphere and resources that really support the final outcome of my research report.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting Riken Yamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid HighRise Architecture Subtitle: High-rise Vertical Community Research in both Architectural and Structural Scales

Semester 1 AY 2025/2026

Student: Wei Yefan Thesis Advisor: Shin Yokoo Second Reader:François Blanciak

Foreword My interest in high-rise architecture mainly stems from the early fascination with the expressive and technological potentials of structural design. I was highly inspired by the languages of hightech architecture during my undergraduate studies in the UK, an unprecedented movement that celebrates structural expression as a visible and integral part in architecture. The works by Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, and Renzo Piano revealed to me how newly emerging technologies could transcend their utilitarian function to become an architectural presentation of transparency, innovation and progress. This encounter with high-tech architecture consolidated my belief that a building is not merely a humanized necessity but also a motivation for how architecture relates to technology, society and urban environment. It is based on this foundation that my desire towards the study of high-rise typologies has grown.

Beyond the technological investigation, this research also works as a reflection on how architectural forms can mediate social relations in the vertical scale. Drawing insights from the successful and failed precedents such as the Barbican Estate and the scenarios in dystopian film High-Rise, the research questions how segregated hierarchy can be mitigated through design. It argues that the resilience of a vertical community depends not only on technologies but on social structures as well. It explores the way how inhabitants can share resources, spaces and socially interact within a vertical context.

The principles proposed in this report, titled ‘Self-contained Vertical Community’, thus emerge from the crossing of these two concerns: form innovation and social sustainability. It explores the potential of incorporating the collectivist living learnt from Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA) principles into vertical design, with the intention of transforming high-rise typologies from a stacking of isolated dwellings into a self-sufficient vertical ecosystem. The study combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies where theoretical interpretations, architectural case studies, and structural analysis go hand in hand to ground speculative design based on both ethics intervention and technical feasibility.

Ultimately, the self-contained vertical community is envisioned as a prototype for future urban environments, where the efficiency of tall building construction coexists with the intimacy of neighbourhood life. In the upcoming decades when cities are compelled to build upward, the challenge should no longer be how high we can construct, but rather in what ways we can inhabit in these vertical realms. This thesis represents my attempt to address that challenge, combining structural aesthetics with community ethics to imagine a more resilient urban living.

Student

Advisor, Reviewers, Lecturers & Consultants

Wei Yefan

Shin Yokoo (Thesis Advisor)

ID: A0296372U

François Blanciak (Second Reader) Akira Suzuki (Structural Consultant) Eugene Tan Wei Ming (Consultant) Joseph Lim (Interim Reviewer) Neo Sei Hwa (Interim Reviewer)

Content Acknowledgements Foreword Research 1. Research Abstract

1

2. Research Approach 2.1 Qualitative Methodology: Research Review & Case Studies & Form Design

3

2.2 Quantitative Methodology: Structural Analysis

3

3. Research Review 3.1 Vision of a Self-contained Vertical City

5

3.2 Principles Review: Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA)

7

3.2.1 Ie (Family System) & Mura (Village System) 3.2.2 Nema (Private Spaces) & Mise (Public Spaces) 3.2.3 Prototype of a Self-contained Community 3.3 Hierarchical Issue within Vertical Living

12

3.3.1 Comparison of Scenario in Film High-rise and Barbican Estate 3.4 Book Review: Siteless: 1001 Building Forms, François Blanciak

15

4. Research Context 4.1 Research Framework: 100 High-rise Case Studies Database

17

4.2 High-rise Case Studies Research

17

4.2.1 Architectural Appearance & Spatial Layout 4.2.2 High-rise Structural Systems 4.2.3 Diagrid Perimeter System Study

5. Research Output 5.1 Research Hypothesis

27

5.2 Proposed 'Self-contained Vertical Community' Principles

27

5.2.1 Diagrid Modular Cube Proposal 5.2.2 Reinterpretation of 'Semi-Commons' 5.2.3 Demographic Framework 5.3 High-rise Form Design Inspired by Siteless: 1001 Building Forms

33

5.3.1 Selected Potential Building Forms 5.3.2 Quantitative Examination: Structural Analysis 6. Contribution to Knowledge 6.1 Feasible Forms Proposal

41

6.1.1 Finalized Options Based on Quantitative Results 6.1.2 Spatial Quality for 'Commons' 6.2 Implications for Thesis Development

45

6.2.1 Orthogonal Cube Intervention 6.2.2 Programming for 'Commons' 6.2.3 Investigation of Potential Site 7. Appendices 7.1 Database: 100 High-rise Case Studies

49

8. Note & Bibliography & Index

63

9. Self-Disclosure of Research

67

Figure 1: The manifesto of Research Abstract showing several designed forms among the existing high-rise clusters. It expresses the vision of this research, creating a new building form for the self-contained vertical community.

1

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

1. RESEARCH ABSTRACT

This research initiates the newly proposed ‘Self-contained Vertical Community’ principles, a high-rise typology related to collectivist interaction and structural implications. It reinterprets Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA) principles, originally implemented at low- and mid-rise scales, into a high-density vertical framework. By proposing a new model of vertical coexistence, the study challenges the conventional notion of high-rise living as functionally fragmented and socially segregated dwellings.

Methodologically, the research adopts a dual approach embodied in both qualitative and quantitative ways. The qualitative method establishes the theoretical foundation via literature review, case studies, and design development. It begins with the interpretation of Yamamoto’s LCA philosophy, focusing on his propositions of collectivist living, including the concepts of Ie and Mura in precedented social structures, Nema and Mise as spatial expressions of private and ‘in-between’ spaces. Then the research review is further forwarded by the hierarchical realities of vertical dwellings, through the comparison between scenarios in the dystopian High-Rise film and the Barbican Estate in London. The study identifies the pivotal need to minimize social stratification within vertical typologies, which ensures long-term communal prosperity. François Blanciak’s Siteless: 1001 Building Forms is also reviewed, as a reference to adopt a formbased design approach, enabling an experimentation on volumetric compositions freed from any contextual constraints.

Six potential high-rise forms stemmed from Siteless (Housing Stack, CornerWedges, Map Tower, Sigma Building, Garland Tower, and Force Tower), are developed (See Figure 1) and tested under structural simulations.

Quantitative results identify Housing Stack, Sigma Building, and Map Tower as structurally feasible, comparably capable of reaching higher maximum heights, while also maintaining deformation ratios within a 1/200 threshold under wind forces. Further architectural studies indicate that the Housing Stack and Sigma Building prototypes have their potentials to develop diverse Commons (Fully public spaces) and facilitate social interaction across multiple vertical levels.

The research concludes with three key contributions to the thesis project: a design methodology that merges collectivist living concepts with diagrid high-rise structure; a redefinition of private spaces, SemiCommons (‘In-between’ spaces) and Commons that constitute a new lifestyle of high-rise communal living; the establishment of a siteless yet adaptable vertical community prototype applicable to potential dense urban contexts such as the Central–Admiralty district in Hong Kong. Ultimately, this study positions the ‘Self-contained Vertical Community’ principles as an architectural response to the dilemma of urban density and social fragmentation, envisioning a resilient high-rise community in the nearby future.

Key Words: High-rise, Vertical Community, Diagrid, Form Design, LCA, Semi-Commons, Structural Analysis.

Quantitatively, the study examines the structural feasibility of these proposed high-rise forms by STAAD Pro simulations. A database of 100 high-rise precedents is established to analyse both architectural factors and structural systems, ultimately identifying the diagrid as a key indicator for optimizing both lateral resistance and architectural expression. A rhombic modular cube is designed as the basic unit, creating a double-layered diagrid framework that supports both private dwellings and Semi-Commons (‘In-between’ spaces operated as small family enterprises to sustain the communal economy).

2

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

Frame

X-Bracing

Wind X: Δ/h = 3.23m/233m = 1/72 > 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 1.04m/233m = 1/224 < 1/200

Deformation Ratio Criterion: Δ/h = 1/200

Figure 2: The quantitative methodology: structural analysis conducted using deformation ratio under wind loads (1/200 as the standard) to evaluate the feasibility of the designed structural types. The simulation software, Bentley STAAD.Pro will be applied. ©Bentley, 2024.

3

Damper

Diagrid

Wind X: Δ/h = 1.19m/233m = 1/196 > 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 0.59m/234m = 1/397 < 1/200

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

2. RESEARCH APPROACH

This research will adopt a dual-method approach, applying both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the proposal of a self-contained vertical community.

2.1 Qualitative Methodology The qualitative component will focus on theoretical review, case studies and architectural design development. The review takes the dissection of Riken Yamamoto’s design philosophy as the core, within which it analyses the social framework and community configuration.

This study intends to settle a solid foundation for reinterpreting the principles of collectivist dwelling and 'in-between' boundaries into high-rise conditions. Following these, typological research on existing tall buildings will be conducted to investigate their spatial organizations and structural systems.

Drawing upon these insights, a masterplan for a vertical community will be formulated, drawing from the principle of ‘Local Community

4

Area’. This stage explores human-oriented parameters, such as population density and programme distribution. Finally, a series of high-rise form proposals will be designed, referring to the techniques in Siteless: 1001 Building Forms. These studies aim to articulate the architectural possibilities that can well integrate a self-contained communal living with verticality.

2.2 Quantitative Methodology The quantitative methodology will be introduced to examine the structural feasibility of proposed high-rise forms. Using the software STAAD Pro, each design iteration will be simulated to assess its lateral displacement under wind forces, with the deformation ratio standard Δ/h of 1/200 set as the evaluation criterion (See Figure 2). The analysis will determine the maximum feasible height for each configuration, while maintaining structural stability. The study outputs the selection of viable high-rise forms, as well as ensures that conceptual designs are substantiated by structural reasonabilities.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 3: The collection of several unbuilt high-rise projects, the majority of which were designed by OMA, with the aim of constructing a self-contained vertical city, housing thousands of inhabitants.

5

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

3. RESEARCH REVIEW

3.1 Vision of a Self-contained Vertical City The research is motivated by looking through a series of unbuilt highrise schemes (See Figure 3), most of which were designed by OMA. These projects had a great ambition. They were largely presented as an attempt that disrupted the monotony of conventional tower skylines, conceived instead as a self-contained city with mixed uses and had the capacity to house for thousands of residents.

For instance, the Hyperbuilding (Second row, far right) was designed as a self-contained vertical megastructure, capable of accommodating approximately 120,000 residents. It served as a centralized hub for metropolitan life in Bangkok and introduced a wholesome transportation system, including train lifts, gondolas and a 12-kliometre boardwalk. C3 Maastowers (Third row, second from the right) featured a cluster of towers linked by a central massing, designed as a vertical city that combined housing, public amenities,

6

and job opportunities to attract citizens to the long-neglected south bank in Rotterdam1.

Then it raises a critical question: has this concept of self-contained vertical city actually proved successful? And if not, what types of obstacles (whether economic, social or technological) have prevented these ambitious visions from getting realized, despite their positive promise of integrating living, working and leisure within a cohesive vertical context?

Before investigating any new designed building forms that might enable such a vertical environment, this research will firstly examine the feasibility of translating Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ principles into a high-rise community and dissect the existing hierarchical challenges inherent in verticality.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 4: Perspective sectional view of the community showcasing the idea of ambiguous boundaries ('In-between' spaces) between private and public spaces, which aligns with the vision of LCA ©Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop, 2012.

Ie Ie

Ie

Ie Ie Ie Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie Ie

Ie

Ie Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Ie

Mura

Figure 5: The relationship between Ie (Family System) and Mura (Village System) in pre-modern Japanese community, which inspires the terms of Nema (Privacy) and Mise (Publicity) proposed by LCA principles.

7

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

3.2 Principles Review: Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA) The literature review intends to reinterpret Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA) principles by further developing and adapting it to high-rise communities. His theory proposes a model that establishes an ambiguous boundary ('In-between Spaces') between public and private domains as well as initiates a collectivist dwelling. Though his works are predominantly accomplished in lowrise to mid-rise neighbourhood scales, this study seeks to transform it into a vertical scenario, in response to the issues of rapid population growth and shortage of land in the nearby future.

3.2.1 Ie (Family System) & Mura (Village System) The LCA project initiated around 2012 under the Japanese context of an ever-changing demographic and economic shifts. It challenges the conventional ideas of dwelling and critiques a severe segmentation which sets a rigid boundary between individualist and collectivist, publicity and privacy2. By contrast, LCA attempts to transplant the traditional relationship of Ie and Mura from pre-modern Japan (See Figure 5) into a contemporary communal society.

The Japanese term Mura refers to a village system that defines a geographical cluster of dwellings or institutions as well as establishes the foundation of Japan’s social and economic structure3. It highlights

8

a sense of mutual dependence among residents where daily life is reinforced by reciprocal relationships, and boundary lines between public and private spaces become ambiguous. The term Ie indicates the family system that several households mutually constitute the basic social and inhabited units of a village system3. Ie and Mura, essentially exists a strong bonding that any family member of an Ie could be expelled to safeguard the common interests of a community, and to preserve its socio-economic objectives as a unified entity4. This idea evolves into the term Semi-Commons on the community scale, an intermediate zone that encourages interaction and where the sense of individual and collective belonging coexists. On the domestic scale, the similar spatial concept can be expressed as the term Doma, a buffer area between the interior and exterior of a house.

3.2.2 Nema (Private Spaces) & Mise (Public Spaces) Seen as a contemporary revival of Ie and Mura systems, LCA deduces a refined model of community life to challenge the crystallized thinking of ‘One House = One Family’ dwelling mode. It derives two key terms, Nema and Mise, to dissect the interrelation between privacy and publicity. Nema refers to the intimate dwelling spaces, typically featured by bedrooms, while Mise indicates the domains for a broad range of collective human activities5 (See Figure 4).

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 6: Proposed spatial configuration of a 2.4m*2.4m*2.6m cube, showcasing the concept of Mise as a family enterprise open to the public, with a small private space (Nema). ©Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop, 2012.

9

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

3.2 Principles Review: Riken Yamamoto’s ‘Local Community Area’ (LCA) The community composition is arranged through a 2.4m*2.4m*2.6m modular cube (See Figure 6), which serves as a base for configuring various spatial layouts. Different combinations cater to different programmes, such as library rooms, tequila pubs and tobacco shops as shown in Figure 6. Drawing from the conventional Japanese socioeconomic models of small family enterprises, LCA envisions the Mise (Semi-Commons) working as interrelated enterprises to facilitate reciprocal supports within communities. For instance, a family may operate a tequila pub within the Mise of their dwelling, extending it into a shared amenity for the neighbourhood.Yamamoto and his Field Shop attempts to establish a close relationship with the surroundings in their projects, contrasting with the traditional household model where a house occupies an isolated private plot. The idea of ‘inbetween' spaces presents a concrete manifestation of blurring the boundary between private and public realms.

3.2.3 Prototype of a Self-contained Community Opposite to conventional modern dwellings that live on off-site utilities for electricity, gas and water supply, LCA aims to ensure self-

10

sufficiency through on-site energy and resource generation, such as solar heating, rainwater collection and natural ventilation6 (See Figure 7). The infrastructure is redefined as a localized and communitybased system, replacing the remote centralized network situated at hundreds of kilometres away. Riken Yamamoto envisions a cluster of around 5 to 7 residents constituting a small collective, or S-Group, where they share daily utilities. Then several S-Groups, comprising of 30 to 45 people, congregate as a medium-scale community, or M-Group, and share one single solar energy generator7.

Then welfare facilities are established as multiple M-Groups keep expanding and merge into L-Groups, accommodating around 120 to 150 inhabitants. Within each L-Group, the fundamental shared facilities, such as cafeterias and storages, satisfy the collective needs for the community, also equipped with a core electricity generator.

Ultimately, Yamamoto envisions a self-contained community of around 500 inhabitants (XL-Group), composed of several L-Groups and supplemented by additional public amenities 7. The public transportation system is additionally covered, the electric community vehicles that can traverse the community streets and have the capacity to sustain long-distance commuting8.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 7: Annotated section illustrating the installation of sustainable energy generators, such as solar heating and rainwater collection, with the goal of realizing a self-sufficienct LCA community. ©Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop, 2012.

11

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 8: Still frames snipped from the film High-rise, directed by Ben Wheatley. The film portrays a self-contained community within a tower that eventually descends into decadence due to its extreme hierarchical segregation. © Ben Wheatley, 2015

12

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 9: The Barbican Estate in London, designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the 1950s. © Peter Bloomfield, 1981

Figure 10: The Barbican Archive Residency. This community accommodates a wide range of public amenities, such as the art gallery, concert hall, waterside cafeteria, etc. © Barbican, 2025

13

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

3.3 Hierarchical Issue within Vertical Living To explore the hierarchical challenges embedded in vertical living, this research will undertake a comparative study between the towers depicted in the film High-Rise and the Barbican Estate in London.

Placing these two cases side by side aims for an examination of how hierarchy is spatially generated, socially compromised, and ultimately sustained or destabilized within the vertical communities.

3.3.1 Comparison of Film High-rise and Barbican Estate High-rise (2015), directed by Ben Wheatley and recomposed from J.G. Ballard’s novel (1975), presents a pessimistic attitude towards highrise living. Set as the backdrop of a self-sufficient vertical society, the film communicates a satirical critique of the breakdown of social order within a residential tower (Figure 8). Complete with a full range of amenities, such as a supermarket, a swimming pool, medical services, the building allowed residents to live without ever leaving the building. Nevertheless, social hierarchy was spatially revealed.

The upper floors accommodated the wealthy elite, the middle levels were occupied by professionals, while the lower levels were left to the working class. As the infrastructure failed and services collapsed, the tower descended into decadence and resulted in brutal struggles for control over scarce resources.

The Barbican Estate (See Figure 9) in central London, by contrast, reveals a distinctive social and architectural experiment. Spanning

14

sixteen hectares, the Barbican Estate asserts its identity as a selfsufficient community, combining a density of 230 inhabitants per acre with carefully maintained public spaces and facilities9. It aims for a complete urban experience, integrating apartments with gardens, lakes, shops and a wide range of cultural venues (See Figure 10).

Regarded as part of the reconstruction of London in the 1960s, the Barbican Estate was specifically targeted at middle-class professionals who were motivated to return to the urban core. This community was not intended to accommodate a wide spectrum of different income groups. But rather, it facilitates a relatively homogeneous community of middle-class citizens, where differences in social status were compromised. This intentional avoidance of class division promotes a sense of egalitarianism within the community, which is in sharp contrast to the specific level-by-level hierarchy embodied in High-rise. Many middle-class tenants highlight the convenience of the estate’s proximity to public amenities and work, while also valuing the estate as a harmonious retreat10. This strong sense of belonging and safety is universally praised where residents express satisfaction with their neighbours and friendships.

Thus, the premise of a self-contained vertical city depends on minimizing hierarchical divisions and facilitating a community of equal class standings. As seen in the comparison, eliminating social hierarchies is therefore essential not only for harmony and comfort but for the long-term resilience of the community as well.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 11: The sketched volumes extracted from the book, Siteless: 1001 Building Forms, compiled by François Blanciak. These forms were imagined without any reference to the site context, scale or programme. © François Blanciak, 2008

Figure 12: Take the sketched form Collision Crop (No.638) as an example at the end of this book, illustrating how the volume can be detailed designed and transformed into a buildinng with a site context. © François Blanciak, 2008

15

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

3.4 Book Review: Siteless: 1001 Building Forms Siteless: 1001 Building Forms by François Blanciak features an unconventional sourcebook that demonstrates a siteless approach, led by his 1001 various types of hand-sketched volumes (See Figure 11). As opposed to commonly adopted architectural practices that begin with a given context or a specific programme, this book reveals a speculative technique in pure formgiving and conceptual imagination. By liberating designs from the constraints of the site, existing technologies or practical compliance, François encourages an innovative alternative to rethink buildings totally evolved from the origin of a form.

Another distinctive feature lies in the book’s absence of complicated textual explanations, as each volume, apart from a short humorous caption (Capsule Tree, Program Potato, Cloud Carousel, etc.), is presented without any detailed description. These non-annotated volumetric

16

references minimize external constraints, developing the spatial potentials purely from the shape itself. It was not until at the end of the book that François gives a concrete example of how an abstract form can be implemented into a given site. He selected Collision Crop, a composition of several stacked, partially cut-out hollow spheres, and then experimented it onto a Tokyo’s site (See Figure 12). The scale, programmes as well as the final shape are presented through 2D drawings, physical models and photomontages.

This research will apply this ‘Siteless’ approach with the goal of developing a new high-rise form aligning with LCA principles. These volumes are reviewed as references, from which selected potentials will be further developed. As many of these fantastical volumes for now transcend existing technological limits, the study also intends to transform them into practices.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 13: The Overview of One Hundred Collected High-Rise Case Studies

17

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

4. RESEARCH CONTEXT

4.1 Research Framework: 100 High-rise Case Studies Database Prior to experimenting on any new form proposals, this research has compiled a database of 100 existing tall building cases all over the world (See Figure 13) to investigate the high-rise typology, exploring both their architectural composition and structural systems.

These buildings are systematically classified according to their key

parameters including the overall height, aspect ratio, programme, primary structural system, typical plan in scale and spatial layout. This database (See in Appendices) provides a reference that may inform subsequent high-rise design, particularly related to scale, structure, and spatial proportions.

4.2 High-rise Case Studies Research 4.2.1 Architectural Appearance & Spatial Layout The architectural appearance of high-rise is shaped by both functional and aesthetic considerations, where, as illustrated in Figure 14, these features include the podium base, curtain wall façade, sky gardens, etc. The podium base anchors the tower to urban streets, normally accommodating public amenities and retails, while mediating the transition in scale from the street levels to verticality11. The curtain wall system has evolved into the dominant façade typology in contemporary high-rises, an efficient approach of maximizing natural light and reducing structural load. Meanwhile, sky gardens punctuate a tower’s verticality, by introducing intermediate green spaces that encourages communal interaction within vertical living12.

To study their spatial layout, these one hundred typical floor plans have been standardized to a same scale and orientation (See Figure 16

18

& Appendices), that can facilitate a clearer identification of both similar patterns and distinctive variations among these cases. Three principal configuration types are finally distilled. The first and most prevalent is the annular layout, where a ring-shaped space encloses the central service core (Capitaspring, 30 St Mary Axe, One World Trade Centre, etc.). The second type features a large open space with services areas positioned independently or along the perimeter (Leadenhall Building, Torre Cepsa, etc.). The third type can be regarded as an evolution of the second, integrating an atrium to further enhance internal openness (HSBC, etc.).

These buildings are mapped onto a three-dimensional graphic (see Figure 15) according to three key parameters: façade transparency, interior spatial width and programmatic diversity. This visualization helps clearly identify the prevailing architectural tendencies as for contemporary high-rise typologies.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Glass CurtainWalls

Mullions & Fins

Podium Base

Tower Cluster

Tiered Form

Sky Garden & Atrium

Structural Expression

Core & Services

Cantilevered Space

Sky Bridge

Parametric Form

Figure 14: Typical features of architectural appearance in tall buildings, including the podium base, sky garden, atrium, glass curtain wall, etc. These features are summarized based on the case study.

19

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 15: Diagram mapping 100 high-rise cases onto the three-dimensional graphic based on three architectural parameters, facade transparency, interior spatial width and number of programmes.

20

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 16: Typical plans of the high-rise cases that have been adjusted to the same scale and orientation (Additional plans can be seen in Appendices). The internal spaces, excluding services spaces, are marked in slanted dashed lines.

21

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

22

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Fully Independent

Fully Overlaid

Central Core

Perimeter Core

Figure 17: Diagrams showing the classification of high-rise typology structures into Frame, Core and Perimeter Systems

Damper

23

Truss

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 18: Diagram mapping 100 high-rise cases onto the two- dimensional graphic based on their structural composition and building height, illustrating structural tendencies within high-rise typologies.

24

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 19: Diagrid structure study prepared by Hatfield Group (An engineering company based in New York), illustrating the evolution timeline and various typologies of diagrid systems. © Hatfield Group, 2016.

25

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

4.2 High-rise Case Studies Research 4.2.2 High-rise Structural Systems

4.2.3 Diagrid Perimeter System Study

The research suggests that high-rise structures can generally be organized into three primary systems (See Figure 17). The first is the frame system, composed of a regular grid of columns and beams, which facilitates flexible space planning but may expose limited lateral resistance as the building increases to a certain height. The second is the core system, typically featured by reinforced concrete or composite wall systems, enclosing services spaces and contributing significant torsional resistance. The third is the perimeter system, which positions the primary structural elements along the buildings’ outer edges, such as diagrid, exoskeletons and perimeter megacolumns with belt trusses. It enhances lateral stiffness while also maximizing the spatial depth.

The precedent research has identified the extensive use of diagrid systems. This section is dedicated to studying its fundamental principles, as a foundation for the form design in Research Output.

The analysis indicates that, among these 100 cases, their structural systems are typically the combination of any two of the three systems.

These buildings are subsequently mapped onto a two-dimensional diagram (see Figure 18) according to their structural composition and building height, enabling the clear identification of structural tendencies within high-rise typologies. By plotting these points on the diagram and delineating an approximate range based on their distributions, a clear pattern emerges and suggests a prevalent design tendency—the two combined systems (Core + Perimeter & Core + Frame) are most employed in tall structures.

26

As the tall buildings keep increasing, the lateral forces, such as wind load and seismic actions, surpass the gravity load-bearing system and become the dominant factors impacting on structural stability.

The diagrid perimeter study has the capacity to reduce reliance on building cores and shear walls by providing sufficient lateral stiffness.

It can realize a weight reduction of 15 to 20 percent. The repetitive diamond-shaped modules normally span across 2 to 6 stories, measured from the node at the apex to the ring beam. The optimal angle size of one diamond-shaped module normally ranges from 50 to 75 degrees, where narrower shapes is more resistant to wind loads but may reduce capacity for gravity loads13.

The study by Hatfield Group compares various types of diagrid systems. As illustrates in Figure 19 and referred from the database, Hearst Tower and 30 St Mary Axe (London) utilize steel diagrid, while John Hancock Centre (Chicago) applies the steel braced tube system. Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong) applies the space truss, whereas supertall skyscrapers like CITIC Tower and Shanghai World Financial Centre (China) adopt the super frame system.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 20: Proposed diamond-shaped cube aligning with diagrid structure, measuring 5.8 metres in height and 2.8m in width.

It creates a floor area of 7.6m² (1.9m x 4m).

27

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

5. RESEARCH OUTPUT

5.1 Research Hypothesis After the review of all relevant architectural literature and contextual investigations of existing tall buildings, A new high-rise form will be presented. This research hypothesizes that by rethinking the highrise space not as a vertical stacking of isolated functions but as a self-contained community, it has the potential to generate a more

resilient and socio-economically connected typology. The project seeks to embody a synthesis between a community masterplan and the diagrid structural integration. This design process will be articulated across from small to large scales, from a modular unit to the collectivist community, and further to the overall building shapes.

5.2 Proposed 'Self-contained Vertical Community' Principles 5.2.1 Diagrid Modular Cube Proposal Drawing from Yamamoto’s definition of a single cube as well as the pervious study of diagrid systems, the proposed high-rise community incorporates this structure type to create a rhombic cube (See Figure 20). Each cube measures approximately 5.8 metres in height from the apex to the base and 2.9 metres in width between the two horizontal vertices. The floor slab is positioned at a fixed level, defining an area of 1.9m x 4m, while the lower triangular void is reserved for MEP installation. Owing to its diamond-shaped geometry, partition walls expand and then contract, where the furniture can be customized to fit these spatial variations. The upper triangular void may either accommodate additional ceiling-mounted appliances, or function as a connective space between two adjacent cube floors. Modular cubes of

28

varying heights can be linked by staircases or ladders. Furthermore, two cubes may be vertically stacked to create a double-height space catering to specific programmatic needs. Distinct from LCA’s setting where it defines a 2.4m x 2.4m x 2.6m square volume, this diamondshaped proposal takes a more structurally oriented approach, adapting the concept to the high-rise structural typology.

In conventional tall buildings, the single layer of mega perimeter diagrid is applied. By contrast, this proposed rhombic cubic system establishes one modular unit based on the two interlocking frames on both sides, which additionally doubles the diagrid layer (There can be more layers if stacking more units horizontally). This configuration may further reinforce the capacity of wind load resistance and enable the construction of a taller building.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

eria

nce

11

es =

Cub

ide Res

(4)

+

et Caf

(7)

12)

ry (

nce

14

es =

Cub

ide Res

(2)

+

ra Lib

2)

p (1

4)

ce (

es =

ub 6C

en esid

ho +S

R

1

16

29

4)

n (1

Figure 21: Various types of cube configuration illustrating that the Semi-Commons ('In-between' Spaces) constitute small family enterprises, such as the cafeteria, library and clinic. These programmes aim to serve the whole community.

s= ube

2) ce (

arte derg

in

+K

iden

Res

C

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

ber

)

y (4

ndr

)

e (2

enc

s=

ube

C 10

id Res

au +L

ar +B

(4)

)

c (8

lini

C 2) +

ce (

iden

10

ym

s=

ube

8C

(6)

e(

enc

id Res

G 2) +

es

Cub

es =R

0)

h (1

14

10

30

e

enc

esid

R es =

+ (2)

Pub

ank

+B

en

esid

R es =

4) ce (

nc Bra

Cub

(8)

Cub

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

S

M

L

Configuration of One Bay One Diamond-shaped Bay = 36 Cubes x 2 (Double Layers) = 4 m x 1.9 m x 72 ≈ 547 m² 2 Persons ≈ 10 Cubes = 2 Cubes (Residence) + 8 Cubes (Semi-Commons) One bay accommodates 14-16 persons (72 cubes / 10 cubes x 2 persons) Density of Each Bay = 70 m² / 2 persons ≈ 35.0 m²/person

Configuration of One Community One Community = 450 persons = 15 persons/bay x 30 bays One side of 36m-high Cubes = 6 Diamond-shaped Bays (54m x 16m x 30m) Single-sided Bay Community = 1 side x (54m x 8m x 150m) Double-sided Bay Community = 2 sides x (54m x 8m x 90m) Triple-sided Bay Community = 3 sides x (54m x 8m x 60m) Four-sided Bay Community = 4 sides x (54m x 8m x 45m)

Figure 22: The masterplan of the vertical community, illustrating the demographic structure with the number and configuration of the required modular units.

31

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

5.2 Proposed 'Self-contained Vertical Community' Principles 5.2.2 Reinterpretation of 'Semi-Commons' Zooming out to the community scale, these modular units will be aggregated into a larger diamond composition, accommodating a variety of shared facilities along with private residential spaces.

As discussed in Section 3.3, a hierarchical issue led by height may pose a great risk of serious social contradictions, thus a stabilizing framework requires class consistency. Drawing upon the Barbican Estate, the high-rise community will be targeted at clusters of inhabitants from similar social strata, whether it applies to the elite, middle or working class.

The planning draws on the insights of LCA principles, where SemiCommons ('In-between' spaces) are converted into small family enterprises managed by the owners that serve the whole community.

Figure 21 illustrates a group of envisioned prototypes, each combining a modest private residential space for the business owners with the larger Semi-Commons area programmed for shared use. It encompasses sufficient public amenities, such as the cafeteria, bank branch, barber, laundry, clinic and more, guaranteeing communal living can effectively operate at the functional scale.

Additionally, each pairing of Semi-Commons and its ancillary private quarters is intended for rent rather than ownership. It serves as a strategy for emphasizing temporary rather than permanent residence, for the purpose of removing the entrenchment of social classes. Every business owner is entitled to the right to cease operations at the end

32

of their lease and vacate, with new potential operators taking over and revitalizing this zone afterwards.

5.2.3 Demographic Framework This section outlines the demographic plan of a single community (See Figure 22) as well as its corresponding scale. 36 double-layered cube modules (36 x 2) are stacked together, which in this masterplan are defined as one diamond-shaped bay with the primary steel structure following its geometry. Each bay measures 18m in width, 36m in height and 8m in depth. The planning assumes that, on average, 2 inhabitants reside in 10 cubes (≈70.0m²) with approximately 2 cubes for private dwelling and 8 cubes for Semi-Commons (Enterprises), which means one bay can accommodate around 14 to 16 inhabitants, with a demographic density of roughly 35.0m² per person.

This vertical community framework postulates that one community comprises around 450 people. As indicated in Figure 22, one single side of a 36m high structural block (54m x 8m x 36m) can hold 6 diamond-shaped bays. Based on this modular setting, a single-sided community cube would necessitate a height of 180m. Accordingly, a double-sided arrangement would require a height of 90m, a triplesided one of 60m and a four-sided one of 45m. Thus, to achieve a high-rise community typology while also mitigating the hierarchy induced by excessive verticality, the double-sided and triples-sided ones are identified as the more balanced strategies.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Housing Stack

33

Corner Wedges

Map Tower

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Sigma Building

Garland Tower

Force Tower

Figure 23: The six selected volumes from Siteless: 1001 Building Forms as an inspiration. Then they are transformed into feasible high-rise forms combined with double-layered diagrid. © François Blanciak, 2008

34

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

5.3 High-rise Form Design Inspired by Siteless: 1001 Building Forms 5.3.1 Selected Potential Building Forms

5.3.2 Quantitative Examination: Structural Analysis

At the building form scale, this research has identified six potential volumes extracted from Siteless: 1001 Building Forms by François Blanciak to examine their feasibility as a new high-rise typology, conducted primarily from a quantitative perspective. The selected volumes include Housing Stack (No.964), Corner Wedges (No.259), Map Tower (No.681), Sigma Building (No.13), Garland Tower (No.71) and Force Tower (No. 208) (See Figure 23). Each volume is subsequently developed into a basic structural model combined with the proposed double-layered diagrid system as detailed in preceding sections. The newly generated spatial outcomes will be developed as Commons (fully public spaces) for communities.

The analysis introduces the structural simulation software Bentley STAAD Pro to test the performance of each massing at varying heights induced by wind forces. Structural stability is quantitatively presented by the magnitude of lateral displacement. The structural analysis is conducted based on two criteria:

Housing Stack adopts the four-sided double-layered diagrid system, maintaining structural coherence, despite there are some irregular openings along the perimeter; Corner Wedges positions two doublelayered diagrid on the perpendicularly adjacent edges, leaving the diagonal face as a relatively open space; Map Tower features a V-shaped connection seeing on the plan view, whereas Sigma Building introduces a progressively elevating zigzagged shape, linking the twosided diagrid layers. Garland Tower indicates an alternatingly crossed linkage, seen on the plan view, while Force Tower exhibits a crossed configuration vertically expressed in elevation.

As for an intuitive testing presentation, the simulation is carried out from two perspectives of control variables: (1) Determining the maximum attainable height for each form, given the properties of identical steel member dimensions (See Figure 24); (2) Identifying the minimum required steel member dimensions sufficing to meet the 1/200 deformation criterion, under an equal height of 600m across all the forms (See Figure 25).

35

(1) The deformation ratio (Δ/h) is no more than threshold of 1/200 (For instance, a lateral displacement of 2m for a 400m high structure, whose Δ/h is equal to 1/200); (2) The magnitudes of displacements on two perpendicular directions (Wind X & Z) tend to be identical in the best way possible.

The feasible building forms will be accordingly determined based on comparative evaluations of these simulative outcomes.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

Housing Stack Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 0.83m / 360m = 1/434 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.11m / 390m = 1/351 < 1/200 420m (Aspect Ratio: 7.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.45m / 420m = 1/290 < 1/200 450m (Aspect Ratio: 7.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.88m / 450m = 1/239 < 1/200 480m (Aspect Ratio: 8.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.39m / 480m ≈ 1/201 < 1/200 510m (Aspect Ratio: 8.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 3.02m / 510m = 1/169 > 1/200

X Z

Corner Wedge Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.58m / 360m = 1/228 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.69m / 360m = 1/213 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.11m / 390m = 1/185 > 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.25m / 390m = 1/173 > 1/200

36

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

Z

Map Tower Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.36m / 360m = 1/265 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 0.97m / 360m = 1/371 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.73m / 390m = 1/225 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.31m / 390m = 1/298 < 1/200 420m (Aspect Ratio: 7.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.17m / 420m = 1/194 > 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.73m / 420m = 1/243 < 1/200

X

Z

Sigma Building Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.06m / 360m = 1/340 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 0.96m / 360m = 1/375 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.36m / 390m = 1/287 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.30m / 390m = 1/300 < 1/200 420m (Aspect Ratio: 7.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.74m / 420m = 1/241 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.73m / 420m = 1/243 < 1/200 450m (Aspect Ratio: 7.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.23m / 450m = 1/202 ≈ 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.25m / 450m = 1/200 = 1/200 480m (Aspect Ratio: 8.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.82m / 480m = 1/170 > 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.88m / 480m = 1/167 > 1/200

37

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

Z

Garland Tower Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.21m / 360m = 1/298 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.51m / 360m = 1/238 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.55m / 390m = 1/252 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.04m / 390m = 1/191 > 1/200

X

Z

Force Tower Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-508mm x 17.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm 360m (Aspect Ratio: 6.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.37m / 360m = 1/263 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.20m / 360m = 1/300 < 1/200 390m (Aspect Ratio: 6.5) Wind X: Δ/h = 1.77m / 390m = 1/220 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 1.61m / 390m = 1/242 < 1/200 420m (Aspect Ratio: 7.0) Wind X: Δ/h = 2.23m / 420m = 1/188 > 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.13m / 420m = 1/198 ≈ 1/200

Figure 24: Simulated structural results of these six high-rise forms, based on Test (1): determining the maximum attainable height for each form, given the identical steel member dimensions. ©Bentley, 2024.

38

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

39

X

Z

X

Z

Housing Stack

Corner Wedge

Map Tower

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-550mm x 32.5mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-650mm x 55.0mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-600mm x 35.0mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Wind X: Δ/h = 2.87m / 600m = 1/209 < 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 2.80m / 600m = 1/214 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.99m / 600m = 1/201 ≈ 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 2.99m / 600m = 1/201 ≈ 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.96m / 600m = 1/203 ≈ 1/200

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

X

X

Z

Z

X

Z

Sigma Building

Garland Tower

Force Tower

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

To Achieve 600m (Aspect Ratio: 10)

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-600mm x 35.0mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-650mm x 50.0mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Properties: Steel Member Dimension: O-600mm x 45.0mm (CHS) RC Slab: t=300mm

Wind X: Δ/h = 2.85m / 600m = 1/211 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.98m / 600m = 1/201 ≈ 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 1.91m / 600m = 1/314 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 3.04m / 600m = 1/197 ≈ 1/200

Wind X: Δ/h = 2.41m / 600m = 1/249 < 1/200 Wind Z: Δ/h = 2.86m / 600m = 1/209 < 1/200

Figure 25: Simulated structural results of these six high-rise forms, based on Test (2): Identifying the minimum required steel member dimensions, which are sufficed to meet the 1/200 deformation ratio threshold, under the equal height of 600m across all the forms. ©Bentley, 2024.

40

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

6. CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

6.1 Feasible Form Proposal 6.1.1 Finalized Options Based on Quantitative Results The feasible proposal is finalized based on the analysis of simulated results. Test (1) indicates that, under the identical steel member dimensions, Housing Stack and Sigma Building exhibit a stronger lateral stability, where they can achieve maximum attainable heights of 480m and 450m respectively, followed by Map Tower and Force Tower, which can achieve the maximum height of 390m. Comparably, Corner Wedges and Garland Tower showcase weaker lateral resistance, particularly when subjected to wind from the open sides (Wind Z as annotated in Figure 24). Their deformation ratio exceeds 1/200 once the aspect ratio reaches 6.5 (The ratio above 6.0 of tall structures will typically start to encounter lateral stability challenges).

community bases are digitally modelled (70m x 70m x 90m), each designed for a demographic plan of 450 inhabitants and comprising 2160 modular cubes (≈16416m²). The central spaces as well as partial areas along the perimeters are intended for Commons, with an estimated total area ranging from 30000 to 35000 m². The software simulation additionally conducts the structural cost per square metre, yielding the values between 2900 to 3100 SGD/m² among these three prototypes, which reflects a cost-efficient strategy compared to Singapore’s average benchmark of 3500 SGD/m².

6.1.2 Spatial Quality for 'Commons'

The Housing Stack prototype (See Figure 26) demonstrates a flexible configuration of these diamond bays. The cube clusters are segmented by longitudinal fissures, which introduce the spatial porosity between these stacked units. Unlike the organization on two opposite sides, this prototype distributes cubes across all the four facades that lowers the density on each side. Apart from the central zone, the platform on these fissures along the façade can also serve as Commons. The Sigma Building prototype (See Figure 27) is featured by its distinctive zigzagged shape. This geometry provides a great potential for further development beyond simple circulation purposes. The main design challenge lies in determining which types of Commons programmes can be well-integrated into this irregular geometry and how the two opposite cube façades can be spatially interconnected. The triangular voids formed by the shape additionally generate intriguing sloped platforms. The Map Tower prototype (See Figure 28) presents a relatively safe and stable proposal, where one side bridges the two cube facades while the opposite side remains open to a broader view. Comparably, this model reveals a predefined V-shaped zone to accommodate the Commons zones.

This section will examine the potential configuration of Commons (Fully public spaces) for each community type from an architectural perspective. As illustrated in Figure 26-28, the three prototypes of

Thus, Housing Stack and Sigma Building prototypes will be prioritized for further refinement in the thesis project, as they imply stronger potentials in terms of the spatial quality and design exploration.

Test (2) demonstrates that Housing Stack, Map Tower and Sigma Building can utilize relatively small steel member dimension under the case of realizing a 600m high structure, while also maintaining consistent lateral displacement magnitudes along the two perpendicular wind directions. The other three massings, however, reveal the opposite outcomes that require larger-dimensional structural members and expose uneven displacement responses.

Finally, the three massings, Housing Stack, Sigma Building and Map Tower, are therefore finalized as the potential opportunities for further development into a cohesive vertical community. The options are established on these quantitatively structural findings.

41

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 26: Community base of Housing Stack Inhabitation Capacity: 450 people Modular Cube Number: 2160 Area (Private & Semi-Commons): 16416m² Area (Commons): ≈ 35000m² Structural Cost: 6167.0 Ton x 5000 SGD/Ton / 51416 m² = 2998.6 SGD/m² 20%

42

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 27: Community base of Sigma Building Inhabitation Capacity: 450 people Modular Cube Number: 2160 Area (Private & Semi-Commons): 16416m² Area (Commons): ≈ 32000m² Structural Cost: 5697.7 Ton x 5000 SGD/Ton / 48416 m² = 2942.1 SGD/m² 20%

43

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 28: Community base of Map Tower Inhabitation Capacity: 450 people Modular Cube Number: 2160 Area (Private & Semi-Commons): 16416m² Area (Commons): ≈ 30000m² Structural Cost: 5781.9 Ton x 5000 SGD/Ton / 46416 m² = 3114.2 SGD/m² 20%

44

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 29: Diagrams illustrating the orthogonal cube intervention into these diamond-shaped cube clusters with intention of alleviating excessive monotony and repetition.

45

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

ts por

:S

ons

m Com

m

diu

Sta

d

oun

r layg 's P

ren

hild

:C ons

m

Com

et

ark

ut

s: O

on omm

rM doo

C

:U

ons

m Com

ing

s:

mon

Com

g&

prin

S Hot

mm Swi

n rba

ing

m Far

l Poo

k Par als' m i n s: A mon m o C

Figure 30: Potential programmes for Commons, such as the sports stadium, children's playground, urban farming, which require larger areas. Different from Semi-Commons, these Commons are managed collectively by the community.

46

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Figure 31: A series of photomontages showing the two proposed high-rise forms (Housing Stack & Sigma Building) transformed into the tall buildings on a contextual site

47

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

6.2 Implications for Thesis Development In summary, the proposed 'Self-contained Vertical Community' principles are developed through a progressive exploration, from the study of cube configurations to high-rise building form design, integrating with diagrid structural systems. The diamond-shaped cube clusters accommodate private dwellings and Semi-Commons which function as small family enterprises serving the community.

Expanding to the building scale, the finalized high-rise prototypes have been distilled (Housing Stack & Sigma Building) following both structural and architectural evaluations. The open spaces derived from each prototype are intended for Commons development. This research report thus serves as a guidebook for the subsequent thesis project, leaving three key aspects (as listed below) for continued development across the subsequent design journey.

that holds small-scale family enterprises operated by individual residents, Commons support larger community-oriented facilities that require more extensive areas, such as the sports stadium, vertical greenhouse, children’s playground and urban farming, managed collectively by the community (Figure 30).

The thesis design will further determine which programmatic configurations will best enhance communal welfare in verticality. The two finalized community prototypes suggest different opportunities for integration. Housing Stack, with its perimeter platforms and central spaces, is well suited for programmes like the animals' park or the vertical promenade. Sigma Building, featured by its zigzagged terraces, can accommodate adaptable functions such as the urban farming or performance stage for communal fairs.

6.2.1 Orthogonal Cube Intervention 6.2.3 Investigation of Potential Site This research has identified the issue of a monotonous repetition in modular units during the configuration process of these diamondshaped cubes. The Housing Stack prototype showcases a strategy of infusing open fissures by distributing the cubes to four sides, thereby visually reducing the cube density, while the Sigma Building prototype maintains a high density with stacked cubes placed on two opposite sides. To alleviate the excessive monotony and repetition, the thesis will introduce orthogonal cubes as an intervention, creating a hybrid spatial composition that merges these two geometries (See Figure 29). The resulting spatial quality will be conducted by physical model studies.

6.2.2 Programming for ‘Commons’ Commons are conceived not merely as spaces for circulation or services, but as interactive social infrastructures that extend for more public facilities within the communities. In contrast to Semi-Commons

48

The study essentially adopts a form-based 'siteless' approach, referred from the book Siteless: 1001 Building Forms, where the architectural form design overrides specific contextual investigations. Such a methodology allows designed forms to emerge as a universal strategy ('Self-contained Vertical Community' Principles in this Research Output), capable of encountering diverse urban environments.

The forthcoming thesis design will therefore explore how these proposed vertical community principles could be contextually adapted to an urban setting (Figure 31). Currently, the CentralAdmiralty district in Hong Kong has been identified as the potential site for further investigation. Constrained by its geographic factor, the limited flat land bounded by mountains and the sea as well as the rapidly thriving economy has always been compelling the government to reclaim lands from the sea14. This district's land scarcity and unprecedentedly dense vertical fabric make it an ideal testing ground for implementing this proposed vertical community model.

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

7. Appendics: 7.1 Database: 100 High-rise Case Studies

49

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

50

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

51

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

52

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

53

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

54

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

55

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

56

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

57

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

58

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

59

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

60

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

61

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

62

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Notes 1

Finn MacLeod, “OMA's 15 Most Outrageous Unbuilt Skyscrapers,” ArchDaily, November 17, 2015, https://www. archdaily.com/774141/omas-fifteen-best-unbuilt-skyscrapers 2

Davide Landi, “Local Community Area (LCA) Project: The Family and Village System as a Design Tool,” Architecture and Culture 9, no. 2 (2021): 287. DOI:10.1080/20507828.2021.1838104 3

Landi, “Local Community Area (LCA) Project,” 288.

4

Landi, “Local Community Area (LCA) Project,” 289.

5

Landi, “Local Community Area (LCA) Project,” 294-295.

6

Landi, “Local Community Area (LCA) Project,” 296.

7

Riken Yamamoto, Local Community Area Principles (Tokyo: Two Virgins, 2023), 35.

8

Yamamoto, Local Community Area Principles, 47.

9

Ana Tostões and Zara Ferreira, “Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968–2020),” Journal of Architecture (London) no. 7 (2021): 1084, https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2021.1978523 10

Tostões and Ferreira, “Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate,” 1098.

11

Kheir Al-Kodmany, Humanizing the High-Rise City: Podiums, Plazas, Parks, Pedestrian Networks, and Public Art (New York: Routledge, 2025), 49-51.

12

Al-Kodmany, Humanizing the High-Rise City, 256-258.

13

Hatfield Group, Diagrids (New York: Hatfield Group, 2016),

14-15.

14

Charlie Q. L. Xue, Hong Kong Architecture 1945–2015: From Colonial to Global (Singapore: Springer, 2016), 174.

63

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Bibliography Al-Kodmany, Kheir. Humanizing the High-Rise City : Podiums, Plazas, Parks, Pedestrian Networks, and Public Art. New York: Routledge, 2025.

MacLeod, Finn. "OMA's 15 Most Outrageous Unbuilt Skyscrapers."

ArchDaily, November 17, 2015. https://www.archdaily. com/774141/omas-fifteen-best-unbuilt-skyscrapers

Ateliers Jean Nouvel, “High-Rise.” Ateliers Jean Nouvel. Accessed September 19, 2025. https://www.jeannouvel.com/en/ projets/type/high-rise/

McKay, Graham. “Architecture Misfit #40: Riken Yamamoto.” misfits’ architecture, February 7, 2021. https://misfitsarchitecture.com/2021/02/07/architecturemisfit-40-riken-yamamoto/?utm_source

Barbican Centre. “The Barbican Archive Residency.” Accessed September 28, 2025. https://www.barbican.org.uk/digitalprogrammes/the-barbican-archive-residency Bentley Systems, Inc. STAAD.Pro Connect Edition. Exton, PA: Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 2024.

Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). “BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group.” BIG Accessed September 17, 2025. https://big.dk/ Blanciak, François. Siteless: 1001 Building Forms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. “Tallest Buildings.” The Skyscraper Center. Accessed September 27, 2025. https:// 222222www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings Davies, Colin. High Tech Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 1988.

Denison, Edward, and Nick Beech. How to Read Skyscrapers: A Crash Course in High-Rise Architecture. London: Ivy Press, 2021.

Foster + Partners. “Projects.” Foster + Partners. Accessed September 16, 2025. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/ Hatfield Group. Diagrids. New York: Hatfield Group, 2016.

Irace, Fulvio, Michael Sorkin, and Richard D. Rush. Emerging Skylines: the New American Skyscrapers. New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1990.

Jones, D. Trevor. Analysis and Design of Structures: A Practical Guide to Modeling. Exton, PA: Bentley Institute Press, 2013.

Nash, Logan. “Middle-Class Castle: Constructing Gentrification at London’s Barbican Estate.” Journal of Urban History 39, no. 5 (2013): 909–32. DOI: 10.1177/0096144213479320 Parker, David, and Antony Wood, eds. The Tall Buildings Reference Book.

London / New York: Routledge, 2013.

Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW). “Projects.” RPBW, accessed September 18, 2025. https://www.rpbw.com/projects Riley, Terence, and Guy Nordenson. Tall Buildings. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2003.

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP). “Projects.” RSHP. Accessed September 12, 2025. https://rshp.com/projects/ Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. “Tall Buildings.” SOM. Accessed September 28, 2025. https://www.som.com/topic/tallbuildings/ Tostões, Ana, and Zara Ferreira. “Social Endurance at the Barbican Estate (1968-2020).” Journal of Architecture (London, England) no. 7 (2021): 1082–1106. DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2021.19 78523 Toy, Maggie. Reaching for the Skies. Vol. no. 116. London / New York: Academy Editions, 1995.

Wright, Ben, dir. High-Rise. 2015.

Xue, Charlie Q. L. Hong Kong Architecture 1945–2015: From Colonial to Global. Singapore: Springer, 2016.

Klauser, Wilhelm. RikenYamamoto. Boston, Mass: Birkh Verlag, 1999.

Yamamoto, Riken. Local Community Area Principles. Tokyo: Two Virgins, 2023.

Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF). “Projects.” KPF, accessed September 28, 2025. https://www.kpf.com/projects

Ye, Xiao J. Masters at Work: Toyo Ito, Shin Takamatsu, Riken Yamamoto.

Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building Press, 2004.

Landi, Davide. “Local Community Area (LCA) Project: The Family and Village System as a Design Tool.” Architecture and Culture 9, no. 2 (2021): 286–309. DOI:10.1080/20507828.2021.1838 222222104

Zaha Hadid Architects. “Archive.” Zaha Hadid Architects. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://www.zaha-hadid.com/ archive/

64

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Index 0

Diagrid, 25-26, 29-45 DJI Sky City, Shenzhen, 54 Doha Tower, Doha, 54 Doma, 8

3 World Trade Centre, New York, 50 8 Chifley, Sydney, 50 20 Fenchurch Street, London, 50 30 Hudson Yards, New York, 50 30 St Mary Axe, London, 17-18, 50 52 Lime Street, London, 50 53 West 53, New York, 50 60 Absolute World, Ontario, 50 88 Wood Street, London, 51 100 Mount Street, Sydney, 51 111 West 57th Street, New York, 51 425 Park Avenue, New York, 51 432 Park Avenue, New York, 51

E Empire State Building, New York, 54

F Federation Tower, Moscow, 54 Force Tower, 34-35, 38, 40-41, 44

G

A ADNOC Headquarters, Abu Dhabi, 51 Agbar Tower, Barcelona, 51 Al Bidda Tower, Doha, 51 Al Dar Headquarters, Abu Dhabi, 52 Al Hamra Tower, Kuwait City, 52 Aon Centre, Chicago, 52 AT&T Building, New York, 52 Australia 108, Melbourne, 52

B Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong, 17, 26, 52 Barbican Estate, London, 13-14 BBVA Bancomer Tower, Mexico City, 52 Burj Khalifa, Dubai, 52

C C3 Maastowers, OMA, 5-6 Capitagreen, Singapore, 53 Capital Gate, Abu Dhabi, 53 Capitaspring, Singapore, 17-18, 53 Cayan Tower, Dubai, 53 CCTV Headquarters, Beijing, 53 Central Park Tower, New York, 53 Century Tower, Tokyo, 53 CITIC Tower, Beijing, 17, 26, 53 Collision Crop, 15-16 Commons, 41-44, 46, 48 Corner Wedges, 33, 35-36, 39, 41 CMA CGM Headquarters, Marseille, 54 Comcast Technology Centre, Philadelphia, 54 Commerzbank Tower, Frankfurt, 54

D

De Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 54

65

Garland Tower, 34-35, 38, 40-41 Gran Torre Santiago, Santiago, 55 Guangzhou International Finance Centre, Guangzhou, 55

H Hatfield Group, 25-26 Hearst Tower, London, 17, 26, 55 Heron Tower, London, 55 High-rise Film, Ben Wheatley, 12,14 Housing Stack, 33, 35-36, 39, 41-42, 47-48 HSBC, Hong Kong, 17-18, 55 Hyperbuilding, OMA, 5-6

I Iconic Tower, Cairo, 55 Ie & Mura, 7-8 'In-between' Spaces, 7-8, 10, 29-30, 32 International Commerce Centre, Hong Kong, 55

J Jardine House, Hong Kong, 55 Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai, 56 John Hancock Centre, 17, 26, 56

K

KK100, Shenzhen, 56

L

La Marseillaise, Marseillaise, 56 Lakhta Centre, St. Petersburg, 56 Leadenhall Building, London, 17-18, 56 Leeza Soho, Beijing, 56 Lever House, New York, 56 Lippo Centre, Hong Kong, 57 Lloyds Building, London, 57

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Local Community Area (LCA) Principles, 7-11 Lotte World Tower, Seoul, 57

STAAD Pro 2024, 3-4, 35-40 Standard Chartered Bank Building, Hong Kong, 60

M

T

Mahanakhon Tower, Bangkok, 57 Map Tower, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44 Marina 101, Dubai, 57 Merdeka 118, Kuala Lumpur, 57 Mode Gakuen Cocoon Tower, Tokyo, 57 Mode Gakuen Spiral Towers, Tokyo, 57 Morpheus Hotel, Macau, 58

Taipei 101, Taipei, 60 Thales Headquarters, Paris, 60 The Bow, Calgary, 60 The New York Times Building, New York, 60 The Shard, London, 61 Tornado Tower, Doha, 61 Torre Cepsa, Madrid, 17-18, 61 Torre Mayor, Mexico City, 61 Torre Picasso, Madrid, 61 Torre Reforma, Mexico City, 61 Tour D2, Paris, 61 Tour First, Paris, 61 Tour Montparnasse, Paris, 62 Tour Saint-Gobain, Paris, 62 Two International Finance Centre, Hong Kong, 62

N Nema & Mise, 7-10 Newfoundland Place, London, 58

O O-14, Dubai, 58 OKO, Moscow, 58 OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture), 5-6 One Barangaroo, Sydney, 58 One Maritime Plaza, San Francisco, 58 One Thousand Museum, Miami, 58 One Vanderbilt, New York, 58 One World Trade Centre, New York, 17-18, 59

W Willis Tower, Chicago, 62

P Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur, 59 PIF Tower, Riyadh, 59 Ping An International Finance Centre, Shenzhen, 59 Poly International Plaza, Beijing, 59

Q Q1 Tower, Gold Coast, 59

R Riken Yamamoto & Field Shop, 7-11

S Seagram Building, New York, 59 'Self-contained Vertical Community' Principles, 27-32, 41-48 Semi-Commons, 8, 10, 29-32, 41-44 Shanghai Tower, Shanghai, 59 Shanghai World Financial Centre, Shanghai, 17, 26, 60 Shenzhen Energy Mansion HQ, Shenzhen, 60 Shenzhen Rural Commercial Bank Headquarters, Shenzhen, 60 Sigma Building, 34-35, 37, 40-41, 43, 47-48 Siteless: 1001 Building Forms, François Blanciak, 15-16, 33-34

66

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

Self-Disclosure of Research I confirm that, except where proper acknowledgment is written down, this research report is entirely the author’s own products. It has not been submitted before, neither in full or in part, for any other academic qualification. All the content of the report comes from academic research undertaken since the formal commencement of the authorized thesis programme. Any other editorial assistance, whether unpaid or paid, given by third parties, has been duly acknowledged, and all the institutional guidelines and ethical procedures have been rigorously observed.

The Intellectual Property Rights remain with Wei Yefan, as the author who retains moral and legal rights of this product. Copyright holders of all the figures and referenced materials have been appropriately credited.

67

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s 'Local Community Area' Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture

68

Reinventing Vertical Community: Adapting RikenYamamoto’s Local Community Area Framework within a New Form of Diagrid High-Rise Architecture