Close Over(p)lay #2: St Paul’s Cathedral 2011

Check out Tokujin Yoshioka's work, particularly his Rainbow Church and Transparent Building. Absolutely beautiful exploration of materiality and light.

http://www.tokujin.com/

Transparent Building 

High Line in New York

http://www.fieldoperations.net/

http://www.dezeen.com/2009/06/15/the-high-line-by-james-corner-field-operations-and-diller-scofidio-renfro/

Green roof in France by Plan01

http://www.plan01.com/index.php?fr/2011/07/12/173-historial-de-vendee-vues-aeriennes

California Academy of Sciences

http://inhabitat.com/california-academy-of-sciences-unveiled/

Green Roof Roundup

http://www.archdaily.com/17460/ad-round-up-green-roof-part-i/

Related

http://www.architonic.com/aisht/orquideorama-camilo-restrepo-arquitectos/5100749

http://www.architonic.com/aisht/paddington-reservoir-gardens/5100640

one more thing....

hey all,

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 654 3730 Meta 31 7 4580 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

Following last Thursday’s feedback, I’ve been mulling over my Tapestry Museum. I have a proposal that does away with the interim design, not least because I felt that the idea of the textured sculptural façade was too superficial an interpretation of ‘Tapestry’. This new proposal is borne out of 3 questions that have been driving my thinking:

1. How do you harness the potential of Tapestry’s ‘server room’? How do you celebrate this technical feature? Does the museum announce itself or the servers’ importance to the city like a billboard? (like the Cathedral before it?)

2. Do you build above or below ground? Where do you place front of house/back of house? (FOH/BOH) Where are the public/private spaces?

3. How do you design a building that is tailored to your program, yet affords flexibility and opportunity for future reconfiguration?

Soooo, as I was rearranging the ‘hero’ spaces of the function hall and exhibition areas (served), FOH and BOH spaces (servant), I considered the typology of a theatre – specifically the idea of a ‘fly system’. For those playing at home, a fly system is essentially a rigging system of pulleys and counterweights that enables stage crew to hoist scenery above the open space of the stage.

Then I thought what if I flipped the notion of front of house and back of house into above house and below house? I envision the ground floor of Tapestry to be sandwiched between a rigging system (above) that contains the museum, café and technical services ‘pods’ and an underground floor (below) that contains amenities and rows of seating. When Tapestry is in ‘museum’ mode, the pods are mechanically lowered down and the pod walls (covered in digital screens) could be opened up to create a variety of configurations for the Tapestry installation. When Tapestry is in ‘forum’ mode, the museum pods remain suspended above ground floor and rows of seats (either as modules or as individual chairs) are brought up to create an auditorium.

The ground floor is surrounded by glazed window/doors which are fully retractable where possible, allowing the space to be opened up for use as a market hall or performance space. My idea here is that apart from the Tapestry program, this flexible space remains permeable and amenable to a variety of functions.

The first floor rigging system of Tapestry would be covered in swathes of perforated metal sheeting based on the many geometric patterns in the Cathedral. There could also be areas on the mesh onto which user-submitted data could be projected. My goal here is to relate Tapestry’s ornament to the Cathedral whilst affording a glimpse beyond its translucent façade into the rigging system of interlocking pods, servers, pulleys and counterweights.

I realise the massing is still rough, but I’m excited by this idea because I think it celebrates the technology of the museum, yet allows for flexibility/adaptability in its layout. The idea of above/below house innovates the traditional BOH/FOH typology, allowing the main space of the design to remain physically/visually connected to Chapter House Lane and Flinders Street. The design stems directly from programmatic considerations. It is also consistent with my group vision’s notion of extending the presence of Flinders Street into the close  - which I translated into the permeable/flexible ground floor space.

Valid precedents are REX’s Wyly Theatre, which has a similar idea of above/below house but on a MUCH larger scale, and Atelier Bow-Wow’s BMW Guggenheim Lab, which houses an open programmable space beneath a translucent superstructure. 

I do realise, however, that I may be opening up a can of worms. Questions that are already popping up:

1.  How the hell do you design the structural system? Apart from the system of pulleys and counterweights, how do you span such a space with minimal vertical supports? Huge trusses?

2.    1.  How does the building relate to the undercroft? (this is a question which continually boggles me)

3.     2. And I’m sure there are more…

So do you think there is merit in this idea and I should pursue it or at least appropriate it? Or should I scrap this potentially complex idea in favour of my interim design and work on revising that instead? I was eager to share this alternative proposal with you fairly early on in this period before investing too much time in it for fear of it being rejected next week. Having typed this out, I already know there are inherent biases/judgements in this post! All feedback / comments welcomed.

REX’s Wyly Theatre

Atelier Bow-wow’s BMW Guggenheim Lab

Over(p)layers,

The next interim on the schedule is called ‘Vision’. The schedule and diagram in the outline suggest that the 3rd interim should incorporate the final resolved group vision, responding to the feedback received. Generally, this will require you all to build on the resolution of your proposals and also address some broader issues that have arisen.

Your individual projects should eventually aim to be resolved at every scale that you are going to employ. It will very clearly fit within the context of your group vision. The next 5/6 weeks is not about going away into your own projects and completing them in isolation, it is still about working in a team. You are all designing individually within your group vision so you have become a bit like a small office, each of you designing a different proposal under the same banner. It is important you work together.

We are both open to changing the third interim to Thursday 6th October and are discussing with guests the best date and would like to know what you prefer. Ammon and I are not going to enforce any rules regarding what you have to present other than to say that by the 4th/6th October we expect to see the a developed extent of what you are proposing at varying scales and from a range of viewpoints.

We thought it might be helpful to give you a few more of our thoughts on scale and thus the level of resolution you should all be aiming towards this semester. The following is an indication of what we would expect to see at the different scales, it is certainly not definitive and is only intended to help you look forward:

1:1000/1:500 – Usually a bird’s eye view in plan showing a precinct and neighbourhood, it facilitates a conversation about urban relationships and morphology. Include all existing and proposed buildings, basic surface treatments, steps and ramps, road markings, tram tracks, vegetation, tree canopies, topography and urban infrastructure such as seating. Crowds of people and vehicles could also be indicated. Sections can be insufficient at this scale unless you have a strong overall sectional idea. It is sometimes a good idea to draw 1:500 at 1:200 then scale.

1:200 – can be drawn as a bird's eye plan or a section at 1m high. This is an important scale for layout, overall form, streetscape, public/private relationships, transparency and opacity and light penetration/shadow lines. Include door openings, windows, basic materials, and minimal representation of the important elements in 1:100, such as stairs, major joinery/furniture, toilet layouts, kitchen layouts, storage layouts, water tanks, solar panels, eaves. Some basic shadows can be shown. Definitely show context, vegetation, surrounding buildings. Oh yes, and people.

1:100 – This is always drawn as a section (horizontal or vertical) usually at 1m high. This is an excellent scale to explore interior atmospheres, specific relationships between spaces, basic materiality and colours, lighting effects, interior occupation, ceiling heights, basic window details and types of doors, floor surfaces and levels and any fancy stairs. Include accurate wall thicknesses, shapes of columns and openings. Try to represent everything minimally - secondary structure, wall linings, fittings etc are not usually important. Remember to include furniture/joinery and service ducts. Only include people in section and elevation. You can also display a surprising amount of tactile and light qualities at this scale. Many projects draw at 1:50 and scale to 1:100 for presentation quality.

1:50 – Similar to 1:100, only allows greater concentration on a particular architectural solution/quality. This scale allows you to start really designing accurately with thicknesses and texture to really study tactile occupation. Indicate all structure if this is important to your project, or draw minimally and only show primary structure, making certain to indicate a realistic depth of structural joints, assembly and mechanical services. This scale will start to really think about constructability, fabrication and waterproofing. And yes, include handrails.

1:20/1:10 – This is the scale of reality. Show everything, except for nuts and bolts unless the patterning is important. A great scale to work on detailed architectural design resolution. It provides real opportunity to show the  human scale of a hand, leg, back, bum, sitting, standing, eye level – you are describing clear atmospheres, detailed tactile experiences and resolved tectonics. At this scale you should resolve waterproofing, construction tolerances such as articulation or indicate rigid joints, and know the real lengths of materials available. This might be as big as you need to go! Oh yes, and people are often helpful when it is getting very ergonomic.

1:5/1:1 – Go here only if you are serious about the smallest details and getting conceptual fluency through your entire project. Not for everyone. If you do this scale well then your architecture will begin to make steps you didn’t think were possible. It might be worth dabbling in now to see if it has an effect on your design at other scales. Often this is presented as a prototype in the form of a physical model. Don’t be afraid of the detail!

We hope this helps a little. Every project demands slightly different scales. All projects should have a selection of scales from 1:1000 to 1:20. You need to decide on the best combination of scales to use.

Finally, we propose to have an optional session on Thursday 29th September from 3pm to 6pm. We are still available by email.

Tim and Ammon.

Hi Ammon & Tim,

This may sound like a silly question, but are we meant to keep developing our precinct vision as a group?  Or is it exclusively our individual stuff now?

Cheers,

Heather

#n