Post on 30-Mar-2016
description
AMALIA LEIFESTE2002 . 2003 . 2004 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2011 . 2012
Masters Thesis
University of Oregon, Eugene OR. Bachelor of Architecture MacArthur Means and Wells Architects University of Texas, Austin TX
master design study on a process and product of design incorporating situated perspective
REVERSE DEPRECIATION:EVOKING THE AGE VALUE OF BAKER SCHOOL
The Baker School, owned by Austin Independent School District (AISD), served as a public school until the 1980s when it was converted to an administration facility. Baker garnered attention and raised conflict when AISD offered it for sale in 2011. Baker foregrounds many factors relating to historic preservation, sustainability, and participatory design. Not only is it a historic resource facing the prospect of adaptive use, but it is also a place of importance to its community. Though AISD decided not to sell it at this time, placing it on the market proved that Bakers future is of interest to sev-eral different relevant social groups. The direct and tangible goal of this research is to assist in imagining a future for this building which is highly sensitive to social context, reflects a sophisticated reading of the artifacts age value, and is expansive in thinking about, and assessing sustainability.
The research is conducted in four main steps. First, the six relevant social groups [AISD, developers, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, preservationists,
proximal residents and the City of Austin] emerge and are characterized through content analysis of discourse within each group.
Second, the parameters of what change might be acceptable is defined by tracking value of tangible and in-tangible aspects of Baker.
Third, multiple design scenarios are proposed based on these values: a senior living complex, a magnet school, and two mixed-use developments. Volumetric exercises are coded to reveal driving logics of the schemes and in so doing enable a more critical and informed discussion.
Finally, the design scenarios catalyze discussion among relevant social groups and stand to inform decision making in Bakers unfolding future.
The result of this research is twofold. First, there is a design product, the design scenarios, which the relevant social groups can use to continue discussion, generate interest, express vision and articulate values. The scenarios demon-strate sensitivity to the concerns of the communities and promote discussion of the critical underlying values as well as the potential for Bakers architecture to address these values. Additionally the design process itself is a result of the research. The design process created for and established in this research can be extrapolated as a strategy to apply to other projects where multiple points of view need to be sensitively incorporated into the planning and design process.
39th Street
Guad
alup
e
Aven
ue B
Duva
l
40th Street
42th Street
38th Street
100 100
100
100
100 100
The Baker Center, or Baker School (depending on who is talking about the place) is a school facility in the Hyde Park Neighborhood of Austin, Texas. Baker School was built in 1911 as an amenity for the then-new Austin suburb, Hyde Park.1 Since that time, the city has grown significantly and the neighborhood is now a part of Austins core. Austin Independent School District (AISD) is the owner of the Baker property, located on Avenue B between 39th and 40th streets. The Baker School served as a public school until the 1980s when it was converted to an administration facility. As part of a greater facilities master planning and budget balancing process AISD has put The Baker Center up for sale.2 Two bids were received. The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) has been very vocal in opposing the sale of Baker School.
Historic Preservation interests also play a role in this picture. Listed as a contributing structure to the Local Historic District, Baker is subject to the design guidelines adopted by the community. Being situated in a historic district means that the building stock surrounding the school possesses an established, valued, and documented character.
1 Texas Historical Commission, Hyde Park Historic District Narrative, The Texas Historical Commission, n.d., http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/view_narrative.aspx?narrative=90001191.htm&title=Hyde%20Park%20Historic%20District&filepath=E:\atlas_text\nr_listed\html.
2 DeJONG-RICHTER LLC, et al., Austin Independent School District-Wide Facilities Master Plan, Final Report (Austin, TX: AISD, March 2011). p 12. and Dennis Harner, Interview with Mr. Harner of Harner and Associates, demographer, e-mail, November 13, 2011, http://www.harnerandassoc.com/#!contact-us.
AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th
LIMBOaka winter break
sell
sell
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
LITERATURE
REVIEW
/
RESEARCH
DESIGN
DISCOVER AND
CHARACTERIZE RELEVANT
SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER
HPHP
BL
AISD interest dries up
precedent + process design work
chapter 1chapter 2
chapter 3chapter 4
interest dries up
precedent + process design work
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
LITERATURE
REVIEW
/
RESEARCH
DESIGN
longer term
collaborative:discuss values with RSGs (less AISD)
tbd:discuss values with RSGs (less AISD)(less developer?)
work with respondents who are interested in longer term visioning, 1 per RSG as can generate interest
FEASIBILITYSTUDIESprogramzoning
massingcoding
design critique and community meeting (dc+cm)
dc+cmorschematic design
dc+cm on thefeasibility scenarios and academic review on the process
physical design work
chapter 5chapter 6
chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9
chapter 10
chapter 11chapter 12
100 100
100
100
100 100
39th Street
Guad
alup
e
Aven
ue B
Duva
l
40th Street
42th Street
38th Street
Spee
dway
Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Boundaries
HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION [HPNA]
The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association was founded in 1974 to preserve the historic and unique character and amenities of the community of Hyde Park.1 HPNA maintains a thorough and active website, including the portal to a community list serve.2 To understand the positions of the Hyde Park residents, I analyzed all posts on the list serve on the topic of Baker School.
The most vocal residents have been acting as the official mouth-piece of the neighborhood association. The thrust of this view, which was presented as unanimous, is that the neighborhood association does not want AISD to sell Baker School, but return it to use as a school in the future. This position has been communicated to the school district. Though more nuanced and even dissenting views are to be found in the posts on the list serve (see following analysis), no one has challenged the official communications being sent to AISD.
1 Powerd by WordPress & SimpleX The Hyde park Neighborhood Association, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, copyright 2012, http://www.austinhydepark.org/.
2 Harris, Lisa HPNA president and list serve administrator, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Listserve, yahoo group, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Listserve, n.d.
9,500September 11, 2008
one post
two posts
four posts
9,000August 1, 2008
8,500June 5, 2008
8,000April 27, 2008
7,500March 3, 2008
posts mentioning Baker Schoolnot about its future
baseline postseach line is 10 posts
posts about Baker Schools Future
21
DETAIL DIAGRAM: CHRONOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BAKER SCHOOL IN THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LIST SERVE DIALOGUE
1
three posts
HPNA list serve diagram one
Method + Data:
7458
7575
8780
8787
8788
8791
8796
8800
8803
8806
8807
8823
1560
2
1560
2
1560
5
1739
2
1739
4
1739
5
1741
7
1764
3
1766
2
1766
9
1767
2
1767
9
1816
1
1852
1
1852
4
1852
6
1852
8
1852
9
1853
3
1853
4
1853
5
1853
5
1853
6
1854
0
1854
2
1854
4
1854
6
1854
9
1855
0
1855
2
1880
9
Message without argument expressed
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
LOGICS WITHIN THE HPNA LISTSERVE DIALOGUE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
HPNA logics diagram one
LEN
GTH
OF
POST
- in
wor
ds
POST NUMBER- in chronological order
7458
7575
8780
8787
8788
8791
8806
1560
2
1560
2
1560
5
1741
7
1764
3
1766
2
1767
9
1767
2
1766
9
1816
1
1852
1
1852
4
1852
8
1852
9
1853
3
1853
4
1853
5
1854
2
1854
4
1854
6
1854
9
1855
2
1880
9
1855
0
8823
1852
6
1854
0
1853
5
1853
6
1739
4
8800
8803
8807
1739
5
8796
Message without argument expressed
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
LOGICS WITHIN THE HPNA LISTSERVE DIALOGUE IN ORDER OF STRENGTH OF POSITION FOR [+] OR AGAINST [-] THE SALE OF BAKER
figure 15: HPNA logics diagram eight
FOR
the
sale
of B
aker
Sch
ool
AG
AIN
ST th
e sa
le o
f Bak
er S
choo
l
post #
7458
7575
8780
8787
8788
8791
8796
8800
8803
8806
8807
8823
1560
2
1560
2
1560
5
1739
2
1739
4
1739
5
1741
7
1764
3
1766
2
1766
9
1767
2
1767
9
1816
1
1852
1
1852
4
1852
6
1852
8
1852
9
1853
3
1853
4
1853
5
1853
5
1853
6
1854
0
1854
2
1854
4
1854
6
1854
9
1855
0
1855
2
1880
9
STRENGTH OF POSITION FOR/AGAINST THE SALE OF BAKER SCHOOL WITHIN THE HPNA LIST SERVE POSTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
HPNA logics diagram seven
FOR
the
sale
of B
aker
Sch
ool
AG
AIN
ST th
e sa
le o
f Bak
er S
choo
l
post number
HYDE PARK NATIONAL
HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SHADOW LAWN NATIONAL HISTORIC
DISTRICT
HYDE PA
RK LOCAL HISTO
RIC DISTRICT BO
UNDAR
Y
100 100
100
100
100 100
39th Street
Guad
alup
e
Aven
ue B
Duva
l
40th Street
42th Street
38th Street
Spee
dway
National and Local Historic District Boundaries
PRESERVATION INTERESTS [PREZ]
Hyde Park was designated as a Local Historic District in December of 2010. The designation followed an extensive process undertaken by members of the community which lasted over three years.1 These activists constitute the pres-ervationists relevant social group. Through the entire designation process, articles were published monthly keeping fellow residents apprised of the process and advocating support. The preservationist logic was analyzed through the articles presented in the Pecan Press, the Hyde Park newsletter.2
In contrast to the HPNA list serve review, the preservationists writings required consideration as a continuous stream of discussion.
The main thrust of the argument in these narratives is: Hyde Park is unique, its historic character is valuable, and its integrity is threatened. A delicate line between maximizing protection of the historic character and the individuals property rights was walked throughout the discourse and designation process.
1 Lorre Weidlich, Interview with Ms. Weidlich, Hyde Park LHD nominator, in person, November 6, 2011.2 Lorre Weidlich et all, The Pecan Press (Hyde Park, Austin, TX, 2011 2008), Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Newsletter archive edi-
tion, sec. Historic Preservation related articles, http://www.austinhydepark.org/newsletter/old-archives/.
DIAGRAM: ARGUMENTS/NARRATIVES OF PRESERVATION INWORD LENGTH BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRONOLOGICALLY
Preservation publication diagram
LW
LH
CM
DB
DO
DS
JD
JPM
KH
MCG
MLS
SEC
2010 20112008 2009
Method + Data:
THE HYDE PARK COMMUNITY
preservation logics diagram two
2008.4 2008.6 2008.8 2008.10 2008.12 2009.2 2009.4 2009.6 2009.8 2009.10 2009.12 2010.2 2010.4 2010.6 2010.8 2010.10 2010.12
Message without argument expressed
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
others
compiled
LW
2008.4 2008.6 2008.8 2008.10 2008.12 2009.2 2009.4 2009.6 2009.8 2009.10 2009.12 2010.2 2010.4 2010.6 2010.8 2010.10 2010.12
Message without argument expressed
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
others
compiled
LW
100 100
100
100
100 100
39th Street
Guad
alup
e
Aven
ue B
Duva
l
40th Street
42th Street
38th Street
Spee
dway
boundary defining Proximal Residents
PROXIMAL RESIDENTS [PR]
The Proximal Resident relevant social group is defined as people living or working within 500 of the Baker property. Because the defining characteristic of this relevant social group is spatial, the group did not have documented dis-course. Thus the analysis consists of on-site observation and survey responses.
The Neighborhood consists of some light commercial, along the Guadalupe corridor, bordering a residential neigh-borhood. South of Baker there are several larger scale multifamily buildings, either apartments or condominiums which contain more than four units. Single family, duplex and up to quadraplexes are presented in the adjacent dia-grams as residences.
Of the 122 surveys sent, 9 surveys were returned completed. All of the completed surveys were from individual resi-dents (no businesses responded). All responses, if a name was attached, received a follow-up letter or e-mail. This attempt at continued participation met with no response. The content of these surveys became the proximal resident discourse used throughout the remainder of the project.
commercial
multifamily
residences
Hello.
You are receiving this letter because you are within 500 of Baker School. I am a graduate student at UT in architecture and I am working on a thesis project about the future of Baker.
I would be very grateful if you would take a mo-ment to help me understand what someone who lives/works near Baker thinks is valuable about the place, and its best possible future.
Enclosed is a pre-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience returning this brief survey.
Thank you very much for your time. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions
Amalia Leifestea.leifeste@gmail.com
Hello.
You are receiving this letter because you are within 500 of Baker School. I am a graduate student at UT in architecture and I am working on a thesis project about the future of Baker.
I would be very grateful if you would take a mo-ment to help me understand what someone who lives/works near Baker thinks is valuable about the place, and its best possible future.
Enclosed is a pre-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience returning this brief survey.
Thank you very much for your time.
Amalia Leifestea.leifeste@gmail.com
Please feel free to use additional pieces of paper, include photos or anything else that communicates your response to these questions (or that youd like to share with me about Baker in general).
1. What do you value about the community (physical and social/ cultural) around Baker School?
2. What do you value about the Baker School property itself (physical and social/cultural)?
3. What would Baker be, and be like, in five years in the best-case scenario?
Again, I appreciate your time with this survey.
I would like more information about this project
I would like to be further involved in this project
Name:
__________________________________________________________
Best Method of contact: e-mail address/phone number/mailing address
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
(optional)
35
LA
AUSTIN ISD FACILITY LOCATIONS
AUSTIN ISD FACILITY LOCATIONS
Prepared by AISD Communication Services.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
MIDDLE SCHOOL
OTHER FACILITIES
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
N
S
EW
LOOP 1
2222
LAMAR
CONGRESS
SLAUGHTER
FM 1826
MANCHACA
LOOP 1
I-35
71
I-35
290
290
183
183JULY 2010SUMMITT
DAVIS
COOK
LANIER
WOOLDRIDGE
BARRINGTON
MCBEE
WALNUTCREEK
HILL
PILLOW
GRAHAM
DOBIE
HART
PICKLE
CLIFTON CDS
REAGANANDREWS
HARRIS
BLANTON
MAPLEWOOD
WINN
SIMS NORMAN
ORTEGA
PEARCE
NELSON FIELD
GULLETT
LAMAR
CASIS
GARZA IND.
ALC
ALLAN
BROOKE
GOVALLE
ZAVALA
KEALING
CAMPBELL
BLACKSHEAR
MARTIN
LINDER
RODRIGUEZ
LANGFORD
HOUSTON
MENDEZ
PEREZPALM
BLAZIER
WIDEN
TRAVIS
SANCHEZMETZ
ALLISON
CAC PEASE
AUSTIN
ZILKERFULMORE
GALINDO
CROCKETT
BEDICHEK
COVINGTON
PATTON
SMALL
OAK HILL
CUNNINGHAM
BARANOFF
KOCUREK
COWAN
JOSLIN
BOONE
BAILEY
BOWIEKIKER
MILLS
GORZYCKI
CLAYTON
BALDWIN
WILLIAMSCASEY
PAREDES
MENCHACA
AKINS
ST. ELMO
ODOM
SHRC
DAWSON
O. HENRY
BURNET
READ PRE-KCENTER
WOOTEN
BRENTWOOD
ROSEDALE SCHOOL PECAN
SPRINGS
OAKSPRINGS
SUNSETVALLEY
TRAVISHEIGHTS
BARTONHILLS
PLEASANTHILL
BURGER CENTER
BECKER& ACES
MCCALLUM
EASTSIDEMEMORIAL
HOUSEPARK
ANN RICHARDS
LEE
BAKER/PDC
RIDGETOP
MATHEWS
BRYKERWOODS
BROWN NOACKSPORTS
COMPLEXDELCOACTIVITYCENTER
OVERTON
GARCIA
LBJ
JORDAN
WEBB
REILLY
DOSS
ANDERSON
MURCHISON
HIGHLAND PARK
AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT [AISD]
The sale of The Baker Center was formally initiated in the 2010 Facilities Master Plan (FMP).1 This planning effort sought to begin the dialogue within the Austin community about deficiencies in the current school facilities, how to better utilize the resources available.
Because much of the discussion and negotiations surrounding the sale of The Baker Center occurred in the executive session of the AISD board of trustees, there is limited information available on the logics AISD used in their argumenta-tion or decision rational. While bearing in mind the prominent message from the interview that the AISD decision pro-cess to offer The Baker Center for sale hinged on additional, perhaps not easily documented features, the FMP served as the primary document for coding the AISDs logics. Using the same, Cultural, Economic, Personal, Physical Use, and Social Logics the following diagrams and data depict a version of the logics being employed in AISD discussions about the value of The Baker Center.
1 DeJONG-RICHTER LLC et al., Austin Independent School District-Wide Facilities Master Plan, Final Report (Austin, TX: AISD, March 2011).
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Asset Logic
Social Logic
AISDs Facilities Master Plan logics
DEVELOPERS [DEV]
Two developers have placed bids on Baker. The higher priced bid, with conditions, was submitted by Bula Lewis Farms, LLC. The second, unconditioned bid was submitted by Hyde Park Historic Properties.1
Part of the bid documents received from AISDs agent is the formal question and answer document from the pre-bid period. This document itemizes the twenty questions that interested parties asked of the school district before the bid deadline. Though these questions were anonymous, and therefore cannot be explicitly linked to the developer relevant social group, it is a fairly safe assumption that these questions represent the concerns of those interested in bidding the project.
Further information on the character of one of the potentially relevant developers (pending AISDs decision on De-cember 13th), was given in an interview with Thad Avery of Hyde Park Historic Properties.2
In both sources, as throughout the study, the logics were not considered exclusive during coding.
1 Austin Independent School District, Baker Center Bid Package (AISD, March 17, 2011).2 Thad Avery, Interview with Mr. Avery of Hyde Park Historic Properties, LLC, Phone call, December 3, 2011.
BULA LEWIS
HYDE PARK HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Developer logic through interview
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
LOGICS WITHIN THE INTERVIEW NARRATIVE WITH TA IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
LENGTH OF DISCUSSION POINT
Developer logic through pre-bid question and answer
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
LOGICS WITHIN THE PRE-BID QUESTION AND ANSWER DOCUMENT
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
THE CITY OF AUSTIN [CITY]
The City of Austin and Travis County, as regulatory and political entities, are also relevant social groups of Baker. Though depicted as an objective formal entity, the rationale and logics embodied in regulation and political processes around buildings, zoning and public process have great bearing on Baker. Through formal codes and laws such as zoning the city exerts direct influence on the future of Baker.
The City of Austin as a searchable online database of digitized records. References to Baker School extend back as far as 1913. Very few of the allusions to Baker are substantiative, meaning that most simply refer to Baker as a voting loca-tion, not about issues surrounding the property. The few documents that had content specific to Baker were pulled out and coded, as all previous documents from relevant social groups, for Cultural, Economic, Personal, Physical and Social logics.
These logics were not considered exclusive during coding. A single sentence could receive multiple logic codes.
nominal reference
substantative reference
Baker Center
Baker Center School
1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Baker School{
{
LHD process
CHRONOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BAKER SCHOOL / THE BAKER CENTER IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN
city record diagram
9
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Cultural Logic
Economic Logic
Personal Logic
Physical Use Logic
Social Logic
LOGICS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RECORDS SUBSTANTITIVELY REFERENCING BAKER BY CHRONOLOGY AND DOCUMENT
city logics diagram
Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Preservationists
Austin Independent School DistrictProximal Residents
Developer[s] The City
Using a semi-transparent green to highlight features that were specifically referenced as positive in the discourse of each relevant social group, and a semi-transparent white to white out undesirable features, the adjacent diagrams of value are generated.
For example, when a proximal resident said I love the look of the old facade, even in disrepair in a survey response, then the 1911 facade received a green highlight. When Thad Avery, the developer, noted that the chiller unit in the courtyard was a million dollar mistake that decision makers had made in locating the mechanical equipment, the mechanical space in the courtyard received a semi-transparent white out.
0 10' 20'
AVEN
UE
B
NORTH ELEVATION
1345678
0 10' 20'
AVEN
UE
B
NORTH ELEVATION
1345678
010'
20'
AVENUE B
NO
RTH
ELE
VATI
ON
1345678
010'20'
AVENU
E B
NORTH ELEVATION
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
010
'20
'
AVENUE B
NO
RTH ELEVATIO
N
1 3 4 5 6 7 8
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
Criteria:Weighted Value List
1 big parcel (1)1911 over 1952 (3)ADA accessibility (1)Approach/Entrance (7)Art Deco Character (2)Courtyard (2)Craftsmanship (5)Faade (5)Grounds/park/openness (9)Height (spaces inside) (3)Historic Lighting (1)Kitchen (2)Massing (2)Materiality (8)Maximum building height (2)Maximum impervious cover (2)Out buildings (1)Playing Fields/sports (5)Porch size and location (1)Roof shape (5)Scale (3)Setbacks (2)Shadow line to other buildings (1)Structure (5)Trees (9)Windows/Fenestration (6)
123
5
6
74
89
10
11
12
13
14
14
1 decentralized waste water treatment2 health care facility3 commercial4 food supply/service5 mixed use6 park7 civic [library, city offices etc]
8 housing9 museum10 school 11 complete community12 arts + culture13 community center14 jobs generation/training
Post-it note exercise result; scenario groups
Post-it note exercise result; scenario groups
parameters in parameters out
97 12
job related
14
WHAT IS CONTESTED?
identify points of friction
This exercise generates the range of potential programs for the future of Baker as the relevant social groups have discussed them. It is fully inclusive in the first step of the exercise, but pro-vides for differentiation among possibilities in later iterations.
AISD dev HPNA prox prez city
1. decentralized waste water treatment2. healthcare3. commercial4. food suply/service5. mixed use6. park7. civic8. housing9. museum10. school11. complete community 12. arts + culture13. community center14. jobs generating/training
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9 9
10
10
10
10
1010
10
10
1112
12
12
1314
13
13 10
11
13
13 14
Frequency
FREQUENCYall rsg
INCLUSIVITYall rsg
COMPATIBILITYprez
FEASIBILITYprez
ACCEPTABILITYcity (re: zoning)
FEASIBILITYdev
Compilation scores1. -332. -1.53. 7.54. -10.55. 126. -57. 2.5
5 78
41013
239
14 12 6 1
10 6 8 13 3 7 24
11 5 19
10 13 14 9 7 12 6 8 4 2 1
5 3 8 967
8 2 9 5 6 3 4 1
8 5 3 9 1
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
+7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
8. 269. 210. 1911. -612. 4.513. 814. 8.5
12 714
Meaning:the schemes with the most dialogue and consensus are
[8] housing [10] school [5] mixed use
[14] job [13] community center
HS M M+
CONDO EFF
CONDO 1
CONDO 2
CONDO 3
60 X 15 60 X 9
30 x 30 30 x 16
41 x 22 2 x 22
60 X 186 60 X 9
30 x 37 30 x 16
50 x 22 2 x 22
33 x 336 33 x 1
336 x 33 1 x 33
60 X 28 60 X 9
30 x 56 30 x 16
76 x 22 2 x 22
41 x 41 1 x 41
41 x 41 41 x 1
60 X 38 60 X 9
30 x 76 30 x 16
103 x 22 2 x 22
48 x 476 48 x 9
476 x 48 9 x 48
AFFORD EFF
AFFORD 1
AFFORD 2
AFFORD 3
60 X 126 60 X 9
30 x 25 30 x 16
34 x 22 2 x 22
60 X 166 60 X 9
30 x 25 30 x 16
34 x 22 2 x 22
31 x 32 13 x 32
32 x 31 32 x 13
60 X 23 60 X 9
30 x 46 30 x 16
63 x 22 2 x 22
37 x 37 1 x 37
37 x 37 37 x 1
60 X 34 60 X 9
30 x 68 30 x 16
92 x 22 2 x 22
45 x 45 1 x 45
45x 45 45 x 1
27 x 27 1 x 27
27 x 27 27 x 1
These diagrams illustrate the weighted value grid system of Baker. Lines from the primary components of the ex-isting fabric [the interior face of load bearing walls, iden-tifiable column grid lines, primary corridors, etc] receive line weight value according to corresponding architec-tural elements.
The different program grains [unit size or specific area, particular dimensions if locked-in, primary vs secondary spaces, etc] are determined by rule of thumb numbers, and/or evaluation of relevant precedents [such as in the case of the school programs].
These program areas, if flexible, are investigated through grids of varying dimensions and are overlain on the ex-isting perimeter. The most important bay dimensions of the existing structure guide the first several grid dimen-sion investigations.
first Student/Elderly grid analysis second Student/Elderly grid analysis
Codes and ordinances are, in fact, not dissimilar from the values that this research seeks to discover in the relevant social groups. Zoning regulations are codified values.
These are values which have a clear directive of how they should be translated into spatial decisions. Thus the next phase of the research looks at several parameters established by the City of Austin through zoning laws.
Many different codes and laws govern the site. This analysis will cover the basic zoning parameters with significant impact at a programming or schematic design level. Additional zoning analysis would be required including detailed analysis for the way that various codes overlay one another, including the Hyde Park Neighborhood Plan, the Local Historic District design standards, relevant building codes, ADA accessibility standards, and the significantly more de-tailed restrictions within the Citys Land Use zoning code.
In acknowledgement that this analysis is far from exhaustive, seven parameters are taken into consideration to guide further visioning of the site.
Lot size Setbacks Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Coverage Impervious Cover Parking Heritage Trees
Zoning Analysis: Value List
lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: ..........................................................................................................
compliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliant
Lot size
Setbacks
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Building Coverage
Maximum Impervious Cover
H MZONING PARAMETER MF-4 moderate to high den-sity multi-family residential CSgeneral commercial +MF-4 MUmixed use neighborhood overlay8,000 sf
50 min
5,750 sf
50 min
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
frontstr
eet s
ide ya
rd
front
rear
stree
t side
yard
interior
side y
ard
10
15
15
1510 10
60 60
60% 95%
70% 95%
+
Zoning Analysis: Typology
MParking
Heritage Trees
Structured Parking Guidelines
ZONING PARAMETER
X 155 X 208
H S M+
X 112 X 124
x
x
see reference PDF. Minimum efficient dimensions, slopes, ingress and egress standards, etc.
Zoning Analysis: Site Heritage Tree Survey
Species + trunk diameter indicates if a tree is protected by the City of Austins Heritage Tree Ordinance.Several of Bakers Trees are protected. Though a threshold that triggers municipal codified protection, this is not the only indicator of value for the trees on the Baker property. Additional trees are taken into consideration in volumetric exercises, particularly in light of the high incidence of relevant social group allusion to valuing the trees of the property.
Type 1Live Oakheritagelist
species
Type 2Crepe Myrtle
Type 3Hack-berry / Pecan
Type 4Chinese Tallow / Paper Mul-berry
Type 5Hack-berry
Type 6Red Mul-berry
Type 7Green Ash / Ligus-trum
Type 8Pome-granate
WEST 40TH STREET
WEST 39TH STREET
TYPE 5TYPE 6
TYPE 2
TYPE 7
TYPE 2
TYPE 3
TYPE 8
TYPE 4
TYPE 4
TYPE 5
non-native invasive
non-native invasive
heritage treeheritage tree species, but slightly under size at presentnon-heritage tree species, but a tree of quality
KEY
The primary limiting factor, or constraint, es-tablished through the zoning analysis is the parking space minimum requirements.
This requirement, is further reinforced as an established local value by the Hyde Park Neighborhood plan which specifies that off site parking is not a permissible strategy for reaching minimum parking requirements within the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Thus, parking schemes became the initial driving force initiating the various schemes investigated in the volumetric studies.
Existing Parking 22
1724
15 13 18
total of 109 existing parking spaces
WEST 39TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 2[H PS2]
HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 2[H PS2]
WEST 39TH STREET
WEST 40TH STREET
AVE
NU
E B
AVE
NU
E A
GU
AD
ALU
PE
STR
EE
T
181316
30
11 22
2417
Zoning Analysis: Parking Schemes
impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 29.5%
WEST 39TH STREET
WEST 40TH STREET
AVE
NU
E B
AVE
NU
E A
GU
AD
ALU
PE
STR
EE
T
181316
30
11 22
2417
HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 1[H PS1]
impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 25%
WEST 39TH STREET
WEST 40TH STREET
AVE
NU
E B
AVE
NU
E A
GU
AD
ALU
PE
STR
EE
T
22
17 24
181316
SCHOOL PARKING SCHEME 2[S PS2]
impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 25%
MIXED USEPARKING SCHEME 1[M PS1]
WEST 39TH STREET
WEST 40TH STREET
AVE
NU
E B
AVE
NU
E A
GU
AD
ALU
PE
STR
EE
T
99 + 71
22
MIXED USE PARKING SCHEME 2[M PS2]
impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 29%
MIXED USEPARKING SCHEME 2[M PS2]
Existing:
Beginning with constraints- both the codified values [zoning] and implicit values as discovered in the RSG research[weighted value list], multiple schemes of volumetric studies are developed for each programmatic scenario.
Though a starting point for design schemes, these constraints are not viewed as completely immutable. Variances are possible, as is carefully reasoned rational for overruling implicit values. Deviating from or compromising these constraints or parameters would require significant justification, however, as the respect for the situated perspective accessed by discovering these values is central to the ideology of this project and research.
Of the many iterations of volumetric configurations one version of each programmatic scenario is presented.
lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................
compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant
intactintactintactintactcompromisedintact + compromisedcompromisedintactintactcompromisedcompromisedcompromisedenhancedcompromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact? intact
lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................
compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant/ possibly noncompliant
intactintactenhancedintactcompromisedintact + compromisedcompromisedintactintactcompromisedcompromisedintactenhancedcopromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact + compromised? intact
lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................
compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant
intactintactenhancedintactenhancedintactcompromisedintactcompromisedintactintactcompromisedenhancedcompromisedintactintactintactintactintactintact? intact
lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................
compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant
intactintactenhancedintactminimally compromisedintact + compromisedminimally compromisedintact intactcompromisedcompromisedminimally compromisedenhancedminimally compromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact? intact
SchoolScheme:
HousingScheme:
Mixed UseScheme:
Mixed Use +Scheme:
The Baker School circa 1915
The Baker School circa 2012
The original building is shown in its context, circa 1911, and as it exists today with the major 1952 addition and the accumulation of smaller changes. The massing perspectives show an abstracted version of what the property would look like following the four schemes.
Clearly the different massing arrangements prioritize different characteristics of the existing building and site condi-tion. These perspectives are conceived of as both a way to test how the massing effects ones read of the building, and also as a tool to initiate dialogue. Showing that there are trade-offs will help move along the spectrum of deci-sion making. For example, showing that if the original massing is maintained then a large mass is added to the back of the site forces these compromises to the forefront.
Massing perspective- as existing
Massing perspective- School Scheme
Massing perspective- Housing Scheme
Massing perspective- Mixed Use Scheme
Massing perspective- Mixed Use + Scheme
The architectural logics, described in the adjacent chart, are employed in the spatial ar-rangements of the volumetric studies. Micro decisions within the design require expedi-tious, quasi-intuitive rationalization while testing arrangements. Looking more deeply at this process or the underlying logics guiding it, makes the design decisions more trans-parent, and allows for their comparison to the logic systems expressed as valuable by the relevant social groups during previous research.
The architectural logics are, once again, not treated as mutually exclusive. Some, in fact, overlap to a large degree.
As discussed in the definition, these logics are not understood as value-free, but are about an oriented set of ideas and meanings. Though distinct from the values established through the research and taken as constraints [depicted in the adjacent lists], these logics are not thought of as value-free. The logics are not taken as neutral and natural.1 The ori-entation of these logics is seen in the specific spatial implications/ possible manifestations lists on the following pages.
While revealing and investigating the values and assumptions behind decisions of spatial arrangement, there are a great many infrequently contested values embedded in the log-ics were accepted as assumptions. Premises such as people should have access to natural light and ventilation in their living accommodations, or that efficiency, minimizing waste [of space, of time], should be attempted in laying out sequences of spaces are discernible in the spatial arrangements, and fall within the architectural logic, but are not explicitly reconsidered.
1 concept frequently employed in course discussions with professor Steven Moore
ARCHITECTURAL LOGICS
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
Functional Organization sequence of spaces /programs path of travel of different users of building programs and spaces relative to point of entrance clustering based on programmic similarity based on internal organization (departments, appropriate mixes) adjacencies of things with similar equipment needs Physical Considerations relationship to grade/perimeter ease of access to public relationship to street activity egress existing structure ease of manipulation character of column structure vs bearing wall ease of systems integration [HVAC, electrical etc] Environmental Considerations sun path shadows to adjaceny properties self shading sunlight/shading to outdoor spaces window orientation relative to function (north light for art vs. south light for vegetated areas) relationship to grade/perimeter thermal potential of ground mass vs. breeze Qualitative align qualitiative features of building with program needs height of space orientation relative to street/entrance cardinal directions massing of building (corner vs courtyard etc) relationship to oudoor access to outdoor space natural light views of nature natural ventilation relationship to entrances/exits eggress publicity older/newer character (1911 vs 1952) Consistiency with the Grain of the Building minimize demolition, maximize reuse/retention significant overlap with RSG logic of Physical Use and Economics
Functional Organization
Physical Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Qualitative
Consistiency with the Grain of the Building
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
dining
administration
rr
college centercounciling
health
rr
work roomcustodial
lablab
labArt
student lounge
foreign languageclassroom
rr
rr
foreign languageclassroom
foreign languageclassroom
Scienceclassroom
Scienceclassroom
ES lab
Bio lab Scienceclassroom
Science classroom
GS lab
musicclassroom
healthclassroom
LAclassroom
LAclassroom
Language Arts
rr
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
SSclassroom
SSclassroom
SSclassroom
WEST 40TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
0
facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
WEST 39TH STREET
10' 20'
rr/concession
locker room
locker room
storage
lobby
Gymnasium
storage
choir roomall purposemusic room
theater class room
band/orchestraroom
storage
oce
storage
auditoriumlibrary
college center
computer lab
rr
rr
zero and ground floor plans
first floor plan
second floor plan
third floor plan
Coded PlansSchool Scheme
Public/Private Magnet Middle School programs potential for engaging values within the logics
Cultural
Economic
Personal
Physical Use
Social
H S M M+
sliding scale evaluation of the School program, relative to the other three programs
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
Detailed Program: Public/Private Magnet Middle School
CORE Language arts Classroom 3@ 800 Math Classroom 4@ 800 Science Classroom 4@ 850 Biology laboratory 1,000 Earth science laboratory 1,000 General science labora-tory 1,000 Storage 3@ 75/laboratory
Social studies/history Classroom area 3@ 850 14,850 sf
GENERAL ELECTIVES Art Classroom 1,500 Material storage 200 Exhibition area 150 Photographic darkroom 100 Kiln room 400 Music Classroom 850 All Purpose Music Room 2,000 (25/student) Vocal (choir) 1,920 (24/student) Instrumental (band, orchestra) 2,000 (25/student) Theater (classroom) 850 Practice room 100 Instrument storage 2/student (500 min) Uniform/robe storage 1/student (500 min) Library resource 1/student Office 125GENERAL ELECTIVES [cont] PE/health Gymnasium 5,850 (2@ 65 x 90) Safety lanes
Public/Private Magnet Middle School [continued in book]
third floor axon
second floor axon
first floor axon
zero floor axon
Coded Exploded Axon
ground floor axon
H
Public/Private Magnet Middle School programs potential for engaging values within the logics
Cultural
Economic
Personal
Physical Use
Social
H S M M+
sliding scale evaluation of the School program, relative to the other three programs
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
WEST 40TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
0
facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
WEST 39TH STREET
10' 20'
rr/concession
locker room
locker room
storage
lobby
Gymnasium
storage
choir roomall purposemusic room
theater class room
band/orchestraroom
storage
oce
storage
auditoriumlibrary
college center
computer lab
rr
rr
dining
administration
rr
college centercounciling
health
rr
work roomcustodial
lablab
labArt
student lounge
foreign languageclassroom
rr
rr
foreign languageclassroom
foreign languageclassroom
Scienceclassroom
Scienceclassroom
ES lab
Bio lab Scienceclassroom
Science classroom
GS lab
musicclassroom
healthclassroom
LAclassroom
LAclassroom
Language Arts
rr
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
Mathclassroom
SSclassroom
SSclassroom
SSclassroom
student lounge
foreign languageclassroom
rr
rr
foreign languageclassroom
foreign languageclassroom
Scienceclassroom
Scienceclassroom
ES lab
Bio lab Scienceclassroom
Science classroom
GS lab
musicclassroom
healthclassroom
LAclassroom
LAclassroom
zero floor axon
H
ground floor axon
third floor axon
second floor axon
first floor axon
Functional Organization
Physical Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Qualitative
Consistiency with the Grain of the Building
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
s ss
r
r
rr
rr
rr
r r r r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rrrrr
r r r r r
r
r
r
r r r r
r
rr
rr
rr
r r r r
sss
s s s
u
u
u
l r
u u
u u
uu
uu
l r
WEST 39TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
WEST 40TH STREET
multipurpose
theaterhealth
rr
rr
library
fitness
businesscenter
cust
odia
l
custodial
spastaff dining
kitc
hen
et a
ll
dining
kitchen et all
admin
zero and ground floor plans
first floor plan
second floor plan
third floor plan
Detailed Program: Senior Living
Assisted Living Units Suite 15@ 1150 (900-1400) (based on an affordable two bedroom) assuming 2-4 residents per unit Bedroom Bathroom Shared com-munal space Kitchenette Single 25@ 625 (500-750) (based on an affordable efficiency) assuming 1-2 residents per unit Bedroom Bathroom Living room space Kitchenette
Nursing Home Units Room 50@ 425 (350-500) Bedroom (double occupancy) Bathroom 155-210 residents 54,125 sf Amenities and Service Spaces Food Services Dining 15/resident (210) Staff dining 500
Business center 600 Computers Conference rooms Financial counseling Travel agent counseling Communal living room 400 Health consulting 300 Nutritionist Counseling Health Services Examining area 500 Cot area 200 Nurse office 300 Toilet 160 Storage 300 Custodial Office/storage 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (90) External storage 150 Laundry 800 Administrative Directors office
Coded Plans
Housing SchemeSenior Living programs potential for engaging values within the logics
Cultural
Economic
Personal
Physical Use
Social
H S M M+
sliding scale evaluation of the Housing program, relative to the other three programs
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
third floor axon
second floor axon
first floor axon
zero floor axon
Coded Exploded Axon
ground floor axon
S
Functional Organization
Physical Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Qualitative
Consistiency with the Grain of the Building
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
retail
retail
lobby
retail
gallery
m r m r
m r m r
m r m r
m r m r
rr
rr
tness
6o
6o
sl o sl o
sl o sl o
sl o conf
m o
m o
m o
m o
m o
m o
break/mail
m o m o
leasing
retail
eunit
eunit
eunit
1b unit
1b unit
1b unit
1b unit
eunit
WEST 39TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
WEST 40TH STREET
2b unit2b unit
1b unit 1b unit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
1b unit1b unit1b unit1b unit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
eunit
2b unit
commercial kitchen
laundry/custodial
6oadmin
4o4o4o4o4o
2o
2o
2o
2o
2o
2o
2o
2o2o
2o
2o
2o
2o
2o
rr
rr
zero and ground floor plans
first floor plan
second floor plan
Detailed Program: Mixed Use [w/ jobs]
Office 2 office suite (shared toilets) 15@ 360 + 40 (+72) 4 office suite (shared toilets) 5@ 720 + 50 (+144) 6 office suite(shared toilets) 3@ 1080 + 100 (+216) Property manager/leasing office 200 16,038 sfRetail Retail unit 4@ 2,400 + 100 (+480?) 11,920 sfResidential Units Efficiency 20@ 700 1 bedroom 10@ 925 2 bedroom 4@ 1,400 Fitness 1,000 Custodial Office/stor-age 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (26) External stor-age 150 Laundry 800 Administrative Directors office 200 Storage 200 Mail, recep-
Coded Plans
Mixed Use SchemeMixed Use programs potential for engaging values within the logics
Cultural
Economic
Personal
Physical Use
Social
H S M M+
sliding scale evaluation of the Mixed Use program, relative to the other three programs
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
second floor axon
first floor axon
zero floor axon
Coded Exploded Axon
ground floor axon
M
Functional Organization
Physical Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Qualitative
Consistiency with the Grain of the Building
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
bounding/interface condition
directional condition
eld condition
tness
tness
hotellobby
rest rooms
businesscenter
retail
retail retail
retail
retail
lobby
breakfast
art reception
bar
admin
admin
mini artstudio
e unit
mini artstudio
e unitmini artstudio
1b unit
e unite unit
o o
e unit e unit
o o
e unit
e unit
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hote
lro
oms
hotelsuite
hotelsuite
hotelsuite
hotelsuite
1b unit
mini artstudio
1b unit
mini artstudio
1b unit
mini artstudio
1b unit
mini artstudio
1b unit
mini artstudio
1b unit1b unit 1b unit1b unit1b unit
ooooo
o
e unit
e unit
o1b unit
1b unit
mini artstudio
mini artstudio
e unit
1b unit
1b unit 1b unit
o
e unit
e unit e unit
o
1b unit
e unit
1b unit
1b unit
1b unit
e u
nit
e u
nit
e u
nit
e u
nit
e u
nit
mini artstudio
WEST 39TH STREET
AVEN
UE
B
20'10'0
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District
WEST 40TH STREET
room service/kitchen
recordingstudio
recordingstudio
recordingstudio
art studios art studios
housekeepinglaundry
laundry
custodial
art studiosart studios
retail
retail
mini artstudio
mini artstudio
mini artstudio
mini artstudio
recordingstudio
o
zero and ground floor plans
first floor plan
second floor plan
third floor plan
Detailed Program: Mixed Use + [w/ arts]
Retail Retail unit 4@ 2,400 + 100 10,000 sfLive/Work/Create Units Efficiency 20@ 700 1 bedroom 10@ 925 + [2] office suite 15@ 360 + small art studio 15@ 840
Fitness 1,000 Custodial Office/storage 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (30) External storage 150 Laundry 600 Administrative Directors office 100 Storage 100 Mail, reception 150 Lobby/mixing 800 44,354 sf Boutique Hotel Rooms Single/double 10@ 350 Suite 4@ 600 House keeping/laundry 900 Lobby/ guest services 400 Room service kitchen 1,000 Breakfast service/dining 800 Bar 100
Coded Plans
Mixed Use + SchemeMixed Use +programs potential for engaging values within the logics
Cultural
Economic
Personal
Physical Use
Social
H S M M+
sliding scale evaluation of the Mixed Use + program, relative to the other three programs
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
o
+
-
third floor axon
second floor axon
first floor axon
zero floor axon
Coded Exploded Axon
ground floor axon
M+
THEORETICAL PROCESSING
The following diagrams and thinking rely heavily on the notion of the Black Box, as presented by Bruno Latour in the Introduction to Science in Action, entitled Opening Pandoras Black Box. In this article, Latour defines [t]he word black box is used by cyberneticians whenever a piece of machinery or a set of commands is too complex. In its place they draw a little box about which they need to know nothing but its input and output. No matter how controversial their history, how complex their inner workings, how large the commercial or academic net-works that hold them in place, only their input and output count. (Latour, 2-3) He adds, that the black boxes represent what ...are now routine choices. (Latour, 3)
This study looks at [at least] three categories of Black Boxes. The first is the early PROCESS of design. The second is the definition of sustainability, and, following, its relationship with historic preservation. The third is the Black Box of decision making about Baker. In a bizarre way, through this research, I am challenging the closure of the first two conceptual Black Boxes by illuminating a different method for closing the lid of the third.
[re] Situating This Study, Black BoxesPublic Perspective on the Academic Design Process
Designer Perspective on the Academic Design Process
program [professor]
site analysis[student]
[commnity members][public]
site analysis[student]
[collective studio]
program [professor]
concept/thesis[student + professor]
concept/thesis[student + professor]
massing[student + professor]
massing[student + professor]
conceptual design [student + professor]
conceptual design [student + professor]
schematic design[student + professor]
schematic design[student + professor]
nal review[student + professors +community memebers]
nal review[student + professors +community memebers]
nal review[student + professor]
publication/display[public]
publication/display[public]
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
Public Perspective on the Academic Design Process
Designer Perspective on the Academic Design Process
program [professor]
site analysis[student]
[commnity members][public]
site analysis[student]
[collective studio]
program [professor]
concept/thesis[student + professor]
concept/thesis[student + professor]
massing[student + professor]
massing[student + professor]
conceptual design [student + professor]
conceptual design [student + professor]
schematic design[student + professor]
schematic design[student + professor]
nal review[student + professors +community memebers]
nal review[student + professors +community memebers]
nal review[student + professor]
publication/display[public]
publication/display[public]
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
Public Perspective on the Professional Design Process
Designer Perspective on the Professional Design Process
program generation[client + designer]
[developer]
zoning/code researchsite analysis
public charette
schematic design design development
initial zoningreview
construction documents
media attention
zoning/code review
marketing marketing marketing
construction
program generation[client + designer]
[developer]
feasibility studies[designer]
[developer]
nished building
public charette
schematic design
initial zoningreview
design development construction documents construction
nished building
pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]
design tasks[per IDP categories]
pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]
cost analysis
bidding
zoning/code review bidding + contract negotiations
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
Public Perspective on the Professional Design Process
Designer Perspective on the Professional Design Process
program generation[client + designer]
[developer]
zoning/code researchsite analysis
public charette
schematic design design development
initial zoningreview
construction documents
media attention
zoning/code review
marketing marketing marketing
construction
program generation[client + designer]
[developer]
feasibility studies[designer]
[developer]
nished building
public charette
schematic design
initial zoningreview
design development construction documents construction
nished building
pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]
design tasks[per IDP categories]
pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]
cost analysis
bidding
zoning/code review bidding + contract negotiations
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT
This Design Process
literature review
[Amalia + professors]
research RSGs and their methods of discourse[Amalia + RSG reps]
midterm + shared documents
[Amalia + professors + RSG reps]
nal review[Amalia + professors +
RSG reps]
publication/display[public]
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
chapter 3chapter 4
chapter 5chapter 6
chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9
chapter 10
chapter 11chapter 12
precedent + process design work physical design work
DISCOVER AND CHARACTERIZE
RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER
UNDERSTAND WHAT IS VALUED ABOUT BAKER FEASIBILTY STUDIES/DESIGN SCENARIOS FEED-BACK LOOPS/ TEST
AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th
sell
AISD interest dries up
LITERATURE REVIEW
WHO+
LOGICS
RSG meetings + shared documents
[Amalia + RSG reps]
WHAT[VALUES]
RSG meetings + shared documents
[Amalia + RSG reps]
WHAT[PROGRAM]
volumetric exercises/ massing[Amalia]
AISD copyHPNA copy
Developer copyPecan Press article
future decision-making ????howS
This Design Process
literature review
[Amalia + professors]
research RSGs and their methods of discourse[Amalia + RSG reps]
midterm + shared documents
[Amalia + professors + RSG reps]
nal review[Amalia + professors +
RSG reps]
publication/display[public]
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
chapter 3chapter 4
chapter 5chapter 6
chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9
chapter 10
chapter 11chapter 12
precedent + process design work physical design work
DISCOVER AND CHARACTERIZE
RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER
UNDERSTAND WHAT IS VALUED ABOUT BAKER FEASIBILTY STUDIES/DESIGN SCENARIOS FEED-BACK LOOPS/ TEST
AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th
sell
AISD interest dries up
LITERATURE REVIEW
WHO+
LOGICS
RSG meetings + shared documents
[Amalia + RSG reps]
WHAT[VALUES]
RSG meetings + shared documents
[Amalia + RSG reps]
WHAT[PROGRAM]
volumetric exercises/ massing[Amalia]
AISD copyHPNA copy
Developer copyPecan Press article
future decision-making ????howS
AMALIA LEIFESTE1309 E 13th STAustin, TX 78702ph 720.771.7360
Thank you for your interest. I welcome any further communications:
a.leifeste@gmail.comAMALIA LEIFESTE