REflex - park - Thesis 2014

�ex - parkRE

Carnegie Mellon University2013 - 2014 ThesisRE�ex - park�ex-park.tumblr.com

Advised by Art Lubetz, Dale Cli�ord, Hal Hayes, and Mike Je�ers

Designed by Samuel Sanders

Text © 2014 by S. SandersPhotographs by S. Sanders © 2014 by Lulu Press, Inc. Illustrations © by Samuel Sanders

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of AmericaLulu Enterprises, Inc., 3101 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27607e-mail: [email protected]

All copyrighted materials are the property of their respective owners. All �nal construction documents are suggestive in nature and should be veri�ed by a licensed architect / engineer for certi�cation. Neither designer is responsible for any damage or injury that may stem from improper or unadvised use of product.

table of contentsBOOK I - Fall Book 1. �ex - park Fall 2013 Book 2. Fall Semester Key Points

BOOK II - Fall Review 1. �ex - park Fall 2013 Review

BOOK III - Spring Book 1. �ex - park Spring 2014 Approach

BOOK IV - Fall Iterations 1. Mock I Design & Review

2. Mock II Design & Review

3. Mock III Design & Review

4. Mock IV Design & Review

5. Mock V Design & Review

6. Mock VI Design & Review

7. Mock VII Design & Review

BOOK V - Spring Iterations 1. Mock VIII Design & Review

BOOK V - Spring Iterations cont. 2. Mock IX Design & Review

3. Mock X Design & Review

4. Mock XI Design & Review

5. Mock XII Design & Review

6. Mock XIII Design & Review

BOOK VI - Mock XIII 1. Design Details and Con�gurations

BOOK VII - Spring Review 1. RE�ex - park Spring 2014 Review

BOOK VIII - Mock XIV 1. Design Details and Con�gurations

BOOK IX - Looking Past

All copyrighted materials are the property of their respective owners. All �nal construction documents are suggestive in nature and should be veri�ed by a licensed architect / engineer for certi�cation. Neither designer is responsible for any damage or injury that may stem from improper or unadvised use of product.

FALL BOOK

f-pRE

I

Mock XIFALL BOOK

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS AN ABBREVIATTED, UN-REFORMATTED EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL �ex - park BOOK

Originally published December 13, 2013

For RE�ex - park continue to “Book II”

Mock XI

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec hendrerit libero eu nulla lacinia gravida. Morbi ornare tortor eu gravida pulvinar. Aenean diam arcu, volutpat a sem eget, lobortis suscipit libero. Maecenas pretium pretium luctus. Nam sodales ullamcorper sem. Nullam sapien lacus, tincidunt aliquet ante vitae, pulvinar varius ante. Aenean ullamcorper nulla velit, eget adipiscing mi pharetra vitae. Nam vitae auctor nulla. Sed consectetur porta dolor, eget pretium nibh feugiat in. Maecenas ut eleifend lacus. Integer cursus lorem vitae libero pharetra, nec ornare purus semper. Sed non feugiat arcu, nec eleifend est.

Suspendisse varius rhoncus eros a ultricies. Nulla gravida urna placerat massa dapibus ultricies. Aenean non nunc nec nulla accumsan eleifend sit amet ut metus. Cras ante magna, tempus viverra erat sed, consequat accumsan est. Pellentesque aliquam nisi et pretium scelerisque. Cras adipiscing vitae ligula non fermentum. Sed fringilla massa eget urna adipiscing, consectetur consectetur enim suscipit.

Aenean sed mi at purus bibendum ornare. Nunc a dolor ac libero vulputate ornare vel sit amet purus. Phasellus iaculis tempus est

eu dignissim. Maecenas sollicitudin orci venenatis, feugiat arcu ac, ullamcorper lorem. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nam pellentesque massa quis orci lacinia, eget ultricies dui

commodo. Curabitur congue dui quis elit posuere varius. Aenean ut rhoncus lorem. Duis venenatis, purus nec facilisis

tincidunt, nisi mi tempus dolor, sed aliquam ante risus ac mi. Etiam id cursus turpis. Curabitur vel commodo lorem. Vestibulum malesuada

laoreet purus, id sagittis nisi consequat eget. Aenean congue lorem non turpis lacinia pellentesque. Sed aliquet eros eu auctor cursus. Etiam eu volutpat eros, quis malesuada erat. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.�xed,

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS AN ABBREVIATTED, UN-REFORMATTED EXCERPT FROM THE ORIGINAL �ex - park BOOK

Originally published December 13, 2013

For RE�ex - park continue to “Book II”

What �ex- park is

1. an exploration of a how architecture can allow for a symbiotic relationship where children can cognitively learn and interact with the built environment and how, through user manipulation, the built environment can foster and expand ones imagination

1. an exploration of how architecture can readily be manipulated in real time to an individual’s specific desires. Through using a play-space, I am able to develop an architecture where the user brings little precognitive knowledge to the environment allowing for the architecture to teach them.

1. exercise or activity for amusement or recreation.2. to exercise or employ oneself in diversion, amusement, or recreation.3. fun or jest, as opposed to seriousness

1. an area used for outdoor play or recreation, especially by children, and often containing recreational equipment such as slides and swings.2. any place, environment, or facility used for recreation or amusement, as a resort

1. a playful landscape characterised by the occurrence of enjoyment by the public & all those that interact with it2. a set of playground equipment that is designed in an integrated pattern

[thee-sis]

[�eks-pahrk]

[pley]

[pley-ground]

[plā, skāp]

SAMUEL G. SANDERS ‘13 - ’14 THESIS PROPOSAL 10/20/2013

DEFINITIONSthesis-

flex - park-

play-

playground-

playscape-

1. an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation.

1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy ( def 2 ) .4.the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness

1. susceptible of modification or adaptation; adaptable2. easily changed : able to change or to do different things

1. the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences.2. this faculty as possessed by a particular individual3. the length of time over which recollection extends

[pahrk]

[�ek-suh-buhl]

[ih-maj-uh-ney-shuhn]

[mem-uh-ree]

10/20/2013 SAMUEL G. SANDERS ‘13 - ’14 THESIS PROPOSAL 10/20/2013

DEFINITIONS-park

-flexible

-imagination

-memory

“The architecture thesis is the rite of passage for graduating students of architecture in many American academic institutions. It is meant, in principle, to demonstrate mastery of architecture, both as a field of study and a profession, through a yearlong concentrated engagement with an architectural project, encompassing both a written and a design proposal. Much as the thesis marks a climax in architecture education, coming as it does at the culmination of years of studying the subject, it is reasonable to assume that it would be relatively easy to define, or in the least have explicit objectives and requirements that are readily enumerated. However, the architecture thesis has been from conception fraught with ambiguities and difficulties that seemingly defy explanation.” –Amir H. Ameri

The concept of architectural thesis has been debated for centuries, especially those of the academic nature. What is a “thesis”? How do we go upon this idea of “thesis”? My personal opinion of this concept of an architectural “thesis” is that thesis can be simple summed up or defined as a multiple phased explorative process of a narrowed speculative theoretical concept that, through rigorous research, practical development, and investigative real world applications of various scales and sets, can be implemented to further the practice, the discipline and the overall field of the architectural practice. Using this ideology as a governing framework for which my fall and spring

semesters were built upon, I allowed this means of thinking to not only guide my ultimate design process, but I’ve also allowed and permitted for it to steer my ultimate analysis of the successes and or failure of that of flex – park. In relation to this idea of what a thesis is and my concept of it, I have taken a unique approach to develop. With the concept of my thesis I have been working to develop a complete research basis upon which I will conceptually develop. Throughout the thesis development process my primary focus has been and will continue to be on how the architecture we design and the systems that are inherent thereof can be conceptualized, design, and constructed to help and foster children to use their natural cognitive reasoning and their vastly infinite imaginations to build, interact, and, ultimately, understand their own self-made play spaces. Whereas the majority of the architecture that we design and develop is solely focused on the growth and development of the public at large, my intention for my thesis is a research and design assessment of how we, as a design field, can design our architecture towards a different clientele who experiences our same environmentally through a different set of eye: an architecture for children.


flex - park and Thesis

Inquest is the research phase of the design process. Within this I plan to focus on a number of the vast aspects of the site and context. One of the main focuses will be that of the landscape and greenery of the site and how might topography and landscaping of the site be manipulated to better foster unique experiences and moments that most modern parks and playgrounds shy away from. Another major focus will be on texture and material and how the sensual experience of touch changes through time. I’m planning to look at materials such as woods and metals whose tactility changes with age, thereby changing ones association with the material. To bring in a contrast of materials, I would also employ the use composite plastics, fiberglass materials, and rubber whose composition change much less over time. Through this I can explore how we relate the sense of touch and memory in our experiences. Another major aspect that the inquest stage will explore is the idea of modularity and actually designing for flexibility within the park program. This is mostly the largest and most experimental aspect of the research process as well as where a large portion of the design project hinges upon. Most parks and playground systems are pre-constructed structures with little to no liberty of flexibility.

Jungle gyms don’t change their shape and monkey bars never move. I’m planning to challenge the conventionality and strict adherence to those unspoken ideas by breaking the traditional

playground into divisible parts where the user can decide the orientation and arrangement of their park experience. Think of this like the Lego brick concept. Much like a Lego set, the parts are all designed and constructed, yet their arrangement and relationships are at the will of each user’s imagination and personal desire. To get a better understanding of the real world physical limitations that are raise by this diversion I’m planning to meet with community recreation centers, schools, and child development centers throughout the greater Pittsburgh area. A number of local resources I’ve reached out to are the University of Pittsburgh Child Development Center, Ammon Community Recreation Center, and John Heinz Family Center in partnership with the Jubilee Association. By doing this I can better understand how parks and recreation currently weave into the urban fabric and test aspects that can allow for them to fit more cohesively. With these visitations that I hope can be arranged in a bi-tri-weekly fashion, I will bring prototypes and “Mocks” developed in the Iteration and Influence + Implement phases to test their practicalities.

Iteration is the mass prototyping phase of the design process. With this stage of develop I would take the information gathered in the Inquest phase and employ it in a workable scale to investigate design possibilities. This would be the more traditional phase


Approach to Thesis

of the process in terms of studio work. The core idea would be to build study models of various scales to understand the entirety of the site in respect of scale and context to the community and neighbors. You can look at this stage as testing a variety of shapes sizes and orders of the Lego bricks., ultimately assembling those bricks to see the possibilities and the unique opportunities the unfold. Through working on a smaller scale, I can easily produce a number of prototypes in a faster period of time in order for a greater rigor in establishing the optimal design set. As stated in the Inquest phase, I would meet with children as well as members within the community of focus to determine which characteristics are the most lucrative and work to further those traits. Once they’ve been developed they would move into the third stage, Influence + Implementation.

In�uence + Implementation is the third phase of the design process. Within this stage the test models, “Mocks,” are made into full scale mockups. This is the most difficult of the three, involving the most labor and manpower to ensure its ultimate success. Having taken the successful traits of the Iteration phase, I would be able to construct 1:1 scale mock ups of said pieces and test their relationships between one another. By doing this, I am able to see how the public interacts with the components and how successful they work together. This phase is the most experimental as a whole of all

the three phases due to the fact that it is something that hinges upon the communities reception to something unconventional. Ideally, this phase works in tandem with the research phase, as mockups and relationships will be tested and modified based upon their results. This will help me get a better understanding of the data I compile in Inquest. Ultimately, looking optimistically, a full scale final build will be constructed that reflects the culmination of data, research, and trial and error assembled throughout the entire design process.

A major key component that I want to ensure that is respected and followed to the letter is the code and legislation in relation to public gathering places, pars, and recreations. I believe that this aspect, in particular can be used as a strongly influential design parameter rather than a constraint or limitation. For this I would have to contact the city as well as the county for a full spectrum of zoning codes, sizing requirements, height limitations, and safety regulations, amongst a slew of other rules. By compiling this data and applying it to the rigor of the Iteration phase, it helps to shape the project in a real world context as well as provide a safe and constructive flexible environment. Contradictory to what most modern communal spaces do and use code to butcher creative design, leaving the cheapest, least inspired result, I want to be able to maintain the freedom of unhinged creative


Approach to Thesis

design. By utilizing advisors whom have worked with in the constraints of the Pittsburgh building code system, I can more readily get an understanding of the differences in the more restrictive codes and the codes that have room for flexibility and exceptions.

I have chosen the members of my advising teams with considerations to specialties as well as experience within the various elements of the subject and the site. A number of my first choices have experience with materiality and the change of materiality through time and how certain building elements can be view through a different scope than they conceptually are. Likewise, a number of the advisors have experience with constructing within the community and aiding to develop communities that don’t always receive the same level of attention and consideration as others. This way the flex – park can fit within the community more harmoniously rather than being the sore thumb in the group. I believe that this team will be able to give me an insight that only years of experience and trial and error can reveal.

Bringing previous experiences to the table myself; I believe I can incorporate techniques that previous studios have given me. Fall 2011 – Environmental Center – Christine Brill: I plan to bring aspects of what I learned in terms of landscape manipulation and designing open “public” spaces. Spring 2012- Materials

and Assembly (Team R) – Dale Clifford: With this particular project, I’m hoping to continue my investigation in constructible and deconstructible structures that occupy a public realm, while modifying those structures to be functional yet artist. Fall 2012 – Issues of Practice (Crossing Uptown) – John Folan: Within this project, I am planning to further develop aspects of designing with real world constraints various income communities as well as improving the neighborhood fabric and help grow overall community connectivity. Spring 2013 – Systems Integration (T1 – X) – Hal Hayes: Through this studio I plan to bring to the table how an architectural piece can become both an efficient and affective aspect of the contexts as well as an individual, independent, artistic statement. These coupled with experienced working at a number of architectural firms and working hand in hand with said firms in park and community center projects, I believe that I can successfully take flex – park from an inspiring Thesis Proposal idea, to the harbinger of countless memories and an ever expanding imagination.


Approach to Thesis


Goals and DirectionsResearch the relationship of children and space

Design play unit child can cognitively understand

Explore how people can interact with park

Explore how the park can benefit the community

Explore how these improvements can be replicated

With the number of self-imposed requirements and desired design outcomes and overall criteria that each thesis student was required to hold themselves at and too, the coordinator of the fall 2013 thesis semester, Kai Gustchow, held each student responsible for meeting a number of bench markers and assignments to proceed through the fall semester. These criteria included advisory contracts, various proposal packages, thesis poster sessions, as well as Mid and Final reviews. With these assignments, each student was held accountable for organizing and completing their own part of each requirement. The following is a summation of those require pro forma.


Establishing flex - park

The thesis advisorary contract was a contractual agreement between the respective thesis student and their group of at least three selected advisory council members. The agreement stipulates that all the advisory members as well as the thesis student are required to meet at least twice a semester to convene and discuss the development and progress of the thesis as well as the directions that would further benefit the thesis’ growth moving forward.

With my thesis advisory agreement, three of my four thesis advisors signed. Art Lubetz, Hal Hayes, and Mike Jeffers.

I was unable to obtain Dale Clifford’s signature before the contract submission deadline.



Along with the advisor contract, we as thesis students were obligated to hand in a number of iterations of our thesis proposal, which each volume chronicled the progress of our various thesis’ throughout the duration of the semester.



Where �ex- park was


children are admitted to hospitals for playground-related injuries

children su�er serious injuries, such as fractures, concussions and amputations

children die from playground related injuries or the complications resulting from playground related injuries

emergency room treatment charges for playground related injuries


children are admitted to hospitals for playground-related injuries in Europe

children su�er serious “unintentional injuries,” such as in a number of European nations

children per 10,000 cases who die from playground related injuries in China and Eastern Asia in 2010

hospital charges for playground related injuries in Europe in 2010


45%

51%

73%

20%

3%

19%

3%

55%

treated and released required hospitalization resulted in death

happened on public playground equipment

happened on home playground equipment have not been recorded

of injured are female of injured are male

childhood injury rates*

* according to npps


67%

5%

36%

3%

20%

2%

17%

8%

fracturescontusions / abrasions lacerations

internal / organs other concussions

equipment failure

localhazards

childhood injury rates

7%collisions

7%entrapment

11%other

23% 22% 17%climbers sliders swingers

12%strains and sprains

9%over head ladders

*

* according to npps


Throughout the latter half of the twenty-�rst century the United States has had each state’s playground safety ratings quanti�ed, measured and “graded.” This mapping allows for a frame of reference for both play-ground safety improvements are necessary and which states currently possess the most lenient playground safety regulations. Each state is graded on a typical “A” to “F” rating system; “A” being the most e�cient and highest performing playground systems where as “F” represents the most ine�cient and lowest performing playground systems all based on a number of predetermined and prescribed criteria. Along with the grading system the National Program for Playground Safety (NPPS) classi�es the best and the worst performing states.

Florida is the best improved and highest performing state within the United States. From 2000 to 2004 Florida’s State Report Card went form a “D-” to a “B+”, and has maintained said ranking for nearly a decade. This drastic increase in overall ranking is due in part to major legislative modi�cations that Florida implemented around 2002 to improve child safety in both schools and public environments. These legislations lead the way for a massive playground improvement where older, dilapidat-ed playgrounds where readily disassembled and replaced with more modern, plastic playgrounds.

Florida's Child Care Standards include playground safety. Florida's Child Care Standards (F.A.C. 65C-22.003) include playground safety in the list of potential courses required to be taken by childcare providers.


While Florida is currently leading the pack with a “B+” ranking, this grade is not common. On the contrary, the majority of the United States levels out at around just average. Within this, though, one state is falling far behind the rest of the pack with a consistently poor performance record.

Wyoming is not only the least improved and but it is also the lowest rated state in regards to playground safety. From 2000 to 2004 Wyoming has gone from a “B-” to a dismal “D” for which, since 2004, said ranking has gone further down even hitting “D-” at one point. In subsequent years the grade has slightly increased but not enough to move out of the lowest state ranking. These unfortunate numbers are due to the fact that Wyoming’s playground regulations have not updated since the 1990’s, as well as, unlike most well performing states, Wyoming’s Department of Family Services lacks a solely “child safety in relation to public space” focused division. The division of the DFS that is responsible for handling these regulations is the Administrative Rules for Certi�cation of Child Care Facilities. This regulation not only incorporates playgrounds, but also Child Care Facilities, foster care, public child focused works, Early Childhood Development Centers, Adoptions, Juvenile Probation centers, as well as a vast number of other public service types. This broad spanning focus limits the amount of �scal support and legislative focus that the playground safety regulations can be allotted, thereby allowing the safety regulations to be highly outdated and under treated.

Wyoming's regulations cover child care centers and family child care homes. Rules address outdoor play space size, supervision, surfacing, use zones and equipment. Wyoming also has standards for weather conditions and natural environment of play areas.


According to the National Program for Playground Safety (NPPS) each states grade is metered by the following criteria: Supervision, Age- Appropriate Design, Fall Surfacing, and Equipment Maintenance. The pint system value system is as follows: 24 – 20 = A, 19 – 17 = B, 16 – 13 = C, 12 – 8 = D, and 7 – 0 = F.

This mapping is a representation of which states NPPS ranking have improved, not moved, or decreased between 2000 - 2004 and 2004 - 2010. GREEN = Improved YELLOW= No Change RED= Decrease GREY= No Data


TOP OF THE CLASS

States with a C ranking are:

Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin

States with a B ranking are:

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

States with a D ranking are:

Wyoming


STATE REGULATIONS*

Florida's Child Care Standards include playground safety. Florida's Child Care Standards (F.A.C. 65C-22.003) include playground safety in the list of potential courses required to be taken by childcare providers

CPSC guidelines have been adopted as voluntary for public use playgrounds. Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection (Title 21a, Chapter 416, Section 21a-12a) required the development of a training and educational program and the adoption of standards for playground safety issues and the adoption of standards for playground equipment. The state subsequently adopted CPSC guidelines-as voluntary rather than mandatory-with an e�ective date of January 1, 1997 and made the annual presentation of a training and education program merely permissive rather than required.

*according to http://www.playgroundsafety.org/standards/regulations

CPSC guidelines adopted for all public playgrounds. No state funds may be used for the planning, development, or redevelopment of a playground unless the playground conforms to the regulations. The California Health and Safety Code (115725) was the �rst state legislation to mandate development of comprehensive statewide regulations for playground safety, requiring adoption of such regulations by January 1, 1992. The statewide regulations are required to be at least as protective as the CPSC guidelines. They also must include special provisions for childcare settings and address the needs of the developmentally disabled. After the e�ective date of these regulations, no state funds may be used for the planning, development or redevelopment of a playground unless the playground conforms to the regulations. In addition, all public agencies must speci�cally upgrade their playgrounds by replacement or improvement as necessary to satisfy the regulations (115730).Until recently, however, no regulations had been enacted. Title 22 "Safety Regulations for Playgrounds" of the California Code of Regulation was �led on December 12, 1999 and went into e�ect on January 1, 2000. These statewide regulations provide detailed speci�cations for the design, installation and maintenance of public playgrounds, referencing compliance with CPSC and ASTM guidelines as mandatory. In addition, operators of public playgrounds are required to have an initial inspection of their playgrounds by a Certi�ed Playground Safety Inspector by October 1, 2000; then upgrades must be made to satisfy the regulations as required by the previous noted code provisions.

CPSC guidelines adopted as standard for outdoor play areas for early childhood programs funded under the Better Chance Program. Sections of CPSC also adopted for regulations concerning licensing of child care facilities. The Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Arkansas Better Chance Program Regulations (Code Ark. R. 005 24 001) sets the general guidelines for the operation of early childhood programs funded under the Arkansas Better Chance Program. In section 13.13, the regulation outlines that outdoor play areas should be developmentally appropriate and meet the Consumer Product Safety requirements for child care facilities (Ark Code Ann. § 20-78-201-20 and the Child Care Facility Licensing Act, Act 434 of 1969 as amended) the regulation also requires that all equipment installed on or after September 1, 1997, which is designed to be permanently anchored, must meet and be installed according to CPSC standards which are in e�ect at the time (Section 902(2) and 802(1) respectively).


STATE REGULATIONS*

Sections of the CPSC guidelines have been adopted in child care facilities. North Carolina addresses sections of the CPSC guidelines. The sections of CPSC that have been adopted include requirements for use zones and surfacing, age and developmentally appropriate equipment, and prohibitions of protrusions and entrapments. These state requirements also prohibits the use of gravel for surfacing if the area will serve children less than three years of age.

CPSC guidelines have been adopted for public use playgrounds. New Jersey enacted a playground safety law on March 23, 1999 to require that the Department of Community A�airs and Department of Education promulgate rules and regulations for the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of playgrounds. This law also mandates that those rules and regulations be those contained within the CPSC guidelines. Further, it requires that special provisions be included to address playgrounds appropriate for children in childcare settings. Government entities and private entities must upgrade their playgrounds to satisfy the rules and regulations for surfacing within �ve years and for all other elements within eight years. Non-pro�t entities must upgrade their playgrounds to satisfy the rules and regulations for surfacing within �ve years and for all other elements within �fteen years. All playgrounds built more than six months after the e�ective date of the rules and regulations must conform to those rules and regulation. New Jersey PIRG was instrumental in achieving this statewide mandate.


Require that all new playground equipment must meet CPSC and ASTM speci�cations. Laws in Michigan require all new playground equipment to satisfy both CPSC and ASTM speci�cations, e�ective September 1, 1997, while also imposing state civil penalties for those who violate these speci�cations for manufacturing or assembling playground equipment.

Licensing standards for child care centers require that protective surfacing be in compliance with CPSC guidelines. Illinois' licensing standards for day care centers (89 Ill. Adm. Code 407.390) set forth requirements for playground equipment at day care centers. The standards require that protective surfacing be in compliance with CPSC guidelines. Other components of the standards do not speci�cally mandate compliance with CPSC guidelines but outline similar requirements. For example, the Illinois law requires that there be a six-foot fall zone around all equipment except for swings. The fall zone for swings must extend both forward and backward a distance of at least two times the height measured from the supporting bar. In addition, swing seats are to be made of rubber or impact-absorbing material and design. Standards are included to prevent entrapment hazards such that no openings between 3 ½ and 9 inches shall exist. In addition, daily inspection of the playground is required by a day care director or designee before children go out to play


STATE REGULATIONS*

Tennessee's Child Care Standards suggest that child care centers use CPSC guidelines for guidance on playground construction and maintenance. Tennessee's Licensure Rules for Child Care Centers Serving Pre-School Children (Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-4-3-.08) include that the CPSC's "Handbook on Public Playground Safety" or similar authority be used for guidance on playground construction and maintenance. While consultation with the guidelines is suggested, compliance with the guidelines is not required. In fact, Tennessee rules explicitly state that fall zones should be between four and six feet, which is not in compliance with CPSC guidelines, which require a minimum of six feet. However, the Tennessee rules for playground surfacing (in appendix E) require that surfacing type and depth be in compliance with CPSC's guidelines.

Requires that public school playgrounds comply with CPSC guidelines. Following a statewide audit of municipal playgrounds by the Department of Health, personnel in local parks and recreation received education and training to improve playgrounds. Space bond money was allocated to remove old, dangerous equipment and installing new, safer playgrounds. In addition, in December 1999, Rhode Island's Rules and Regulations for School Health Programs (R16-SCHO, Section 35) were amended to require that all public school playground equipment and surfaces meet current CPSC safety guidelines by July 1, 2002. To ensure that school o�cials understand the new rules and regulations and how to implement them, the Department of Education provided a statewide workshop.


Oregon has no published regulations as of 2013.

Oklahoma's Child Care Standards include playground safety. The Oklahoma Administrative Code includes standards for playgrounds in child care settings as part of its licensing standards. (O.A.C. 340:110-3-22). The standards make no mention of CPSC guidelines; rather, the standards set out, for the most part, weaker requirements than CPSC and ASTM. For example, the regulations maintain that grass is an acceptable surface under equipment less than four feet high (340:110-3-22(b) (2) (B)), and that six inches of loose �ll material is su�cient for adequate protective surfacing (340: 110-3-22(b) (4)). The regulations set out standards for fall zones of at least six feet for all equipment except for swings, which require a fall zone a distance twice the length of the swing's chain. The regulations also include entrapment and entanglement hazard prevention, as well as swing seat composition requirements


STATE REGULATIONS*

Wyoming's regulations cover child care centers and family child care homes. Rules address outdoor play space size, supervision, surfacing, use zones and equipment. Wyoming also has standards for weather conditions and natural environment of play areas. For further regulations in Wyoming, please visit the Department of Family Services for the state at http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/.

Virginia's Child Care Standards include playground safety. The Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Day Centers for Virginia (22 VAC 15-30-310) require that a center develop written playground safety procedures, which must include provision for active supervision by sta� and a method of maintaining resilient surfacing.


Licensing for child care centers require that the protective surfacing must comply with CPSC guidelines and ASTM standards. The administrative rules setting forth standards for child care center licensing (Utah Admin. R. 430-60) require that the protective surfacing in child care center playgrounds must comply with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and ASTM guidelines. The rules also require a fall zone of six feet surrounding all playground equipment.

Requires compliance with the CPSC guidelines for the purchase and installation of new playground equipment and surfacing if public funds are used. The Texas Health & Safety Code (756.061) requires substantial compliance with the CPSC guidelines for the purchase and installation of new playground equipment and surfacing beginning on September 1, 1997 if public funds are used.


PUBLIC COLOR STUDYThe Public Color Study was the second part of the oversell color study in which I examined both how the public responded to various colors as well as what emotional, psychological, personal, or associative relationships they drew with any given color they chose. This studies focus was twofold: a subconscious evaluation and a cognitive natural response to a given stimuli in relation to visual associations.

With the subconscious evaluation, I purposefully ignored what people wrote or how they cared to express their selection of the given color, instead I focused on the fact that they selected the color from the �rst place. This, is an expression of how the color responds with the eye optically and how the minds response of appeal to a given color.

Through this I can more visually see how people respond to color in a purely natural and an unbiased sense. To quantify this particular part of the study I placed 4 color wheel studies throughout Carnegie Mellon University’s campus and openly invited the public to participate. After 48 hours of exposure, I consolidated the various wheels and tallied the responses on each respective color.

0

3

1

4

2

5


PUBLIC COLOR STUDY The other aspect of investigation was the publics cognitive natural response to a given stimuli in relation to visual associations. Within this part I ignored which colors they selected and solely focused on the written responses with the various

romanceseductionhappiness

lipstick

valentine’s�owers

warmlove

glitteroranges

love

CMYK

CMYK

CMYK

1%98%18%

0%

1%78%15%

0%

1%40%98%

0%

emotions various nature food n/a

PLASTICS - High Density / Low Density Impact Resistant Reinforced Fiberglass + Recycled High Density Polyethylene

In order to assure safety and ease of �exibility in regards to moving parts, a number of the components that make up the park will have to be composed of a number of plastics. By using recycled milk jugs or, HDPE, the park can not only be environmentally conscience, but also, as time passes and components su�er from wear and tear, ultimately remodeled and replaced. This will ultimately insure the longevity of the park as an entirety. Texturally, the very distinct texture of the �berglass will counter that of the �nished woods.

METALS - Treated and Acrylic Enamel Painted Aluminum

Like most playgrounds, the park with have both �xed and structural parts. To both reduce costs and improve longevity the best option for elements such as money bars, etc. is metal. E�ectively speaking, by covering the metal in a coat of enamel paint, it not only prevents visible damage to the metal that can come with high user numbers, but it can also help to add color to the park.

ROUGH WOODS - Repurposed Aged Pine / Cedar Wood without Finish Coat

The aged wood can be recycled from various sources and would come at a much reduced cost from its treated counterpart. Yet, unlike the treated wood, the aged wood presents a greater risk of splintering and a severely decreased life span. For this reason, it would have to be used selectively, and with a higher consideration to children safety. The wood, on the positive, would bring a unique textural feel that most sterile playgrounds are void of.

FINISHED WOODS - Solid Cedar Wood with Mutli-Coat Polyurethane Finish

Fresh cedar gives o� a warm and distinct scent that with �nish coats is preserved. This will help to bring the sense of smell into the whole sensual experience of the park. Cedar has a strong reddish hue which will help to both contrast and compliment the greenery of Frick Park. With the introduction of wood, a more homely feel is given to the park, as well.


Material Studies

The Mock VI was an return to the previous design set in which the overall unit for was of the original triangular prism and the form was that of a skelital nature. With this iteration I modifed the connection system to be much more mechinized than the previous versions. With the Mock VI I choose to have the units fit to one another with a slide in face-to-face joinery system. by doing this the individual units could be more readily seperated from one another in a much more, user driven action than the magnetic versions.

The Mock VI is also the first iteration to take into consideration the connectivy of the base plate of the unit block set. With this, the units would be fixed to the ground with a sort of, keys tone, system.


Mock VI


Mock VI

A major failure of this system was its lack of mass flexibilty like its previous versions as well as the complexityies that came with the slide to fit face design. It was post determined that this system, opposite of the previous versions, may ultimately be too complicated for children to understand unassisted.


Mock VI


Mock VI


block mock IV

SAMUEL G. SANDERS ‘13 - ’14 THESIS PACKAGE 12/13/2013

MOCK VIIThis is the documentation of the most current adpataion of the flex - park unit. With the Mock VII attatention waspaid not only to the unit itselfbut to the site conditions that the total form would ultimately live.

Having analysised the failures and shortcomings of the previous Mocks I pushed the developement of the most current iteration to avoid those same shortcomings and to be a much more realistic and peasible approach.


Mock VII

The latest iteration is Mock VII which is an edge to edge rotional sytem. Where as the previous versions all relied on face to race connections, Mock VII is much more �exible on a tri side connected system.


Mock VII

Intitially I designed a regulated triangular grid layout based on the dimensions of the units within the zoned range, and from there I pull key pinch points where the structuure of flex - park would make joint connected relationships to the ground.

lay grid pinch points


Mock VII

make connections lay topo form

From there I used the pinched geometery to create a warped grid system that, rather than housing regulated triangular form, has modified and skewed triangles. Through this I creadted key connection points that act as the “harth” center point of the skewwing where the ground connection unit would lay. After that I imposed a geometric “blanket” to transform the site from an 2 dimensional plane to a 3 dimensional topography.


Mock VII

Finally, I added pathways and circulation means as not to cross or conflict the primary connection points. By doing this around the park it gives the park a sense of destination and prominence throughout the site. The form work of these paths was set to offset those of the modified topography.

draw paths combine


Mock VII

This diagram is to show the relationship between the unit joint and the ground connection.


Mock VII

Because of the highest rate of childhood injury in playground spaces is caused by falls and head injuries, I designed a high energy absorbing ground system that would, rather than dispures the force of the fall, absorb it in single cells, reducing the risk of injury.


Mock VII

This particular iteration of the surface material is a 7 layered - 5 part system that will also allow for most �ow and prevented deteriation to the respective parts. The system is composed of High Impact Viscoelastic Polyurethane Foam (LPRu), Jamboree Rubber Tiling, Vinyl Nitrile Foam, Rigid Extruded Polystyene, and layered vapor membranes. The LPRu will act as an absorption cushion to take the brute force that is applied. Conceptually, this system will be able to withstand falls from about 8 ft. Granted, this design is still in theory and will need to be further test and evaluated throughout the Spring Semester to insure its usefullness.


Mock VII

This is a Mock VI conceptual drawing.


Mock VII

This is a Mock VII render


Mock VII

This is a Mock VII experiential render


Mock VII

This is a conceptual reder of what flex - park can look like with the Mock VII Unit and the modified ground absorbtion units. This current iteration is still under development.


Mock VII


Mock VII


Wrapping Up flex - park

Research process from 01 Sept. 2013 to 05 Dec. 2013 Design process from 10 Oct. 2013 to 20 Nov. 2013 Design process from 21 Nov. 2013 to 08 Dec. 2013 Expansion process from 08 Dec. 2013 to 18 May 2014

�ex – park’s initial inspiration is drawn for my own childhood experience. The concept is to foster childhood wonder and to tap vast imaginations to allow an architecture where one is free to create their own personal environment. In order to fully and more comprehensible understand how a child thinks I had to step out of the walls of my own mind for a second. By studying not only how a kid thinks but how they perceive space, I was able to extrapolate how they would engage said space. According to a number of child psychologists, it’s not that children aren’t intelligent; it’s not even the fact that they have limited resource of independent abstract conceptual reasoning, it’s more so the fact that their brains are simply wired di�erently. From my extensive research, a child, having had no previous exposure to a system of �ex – park’s nature, would easily be able to not only understand the function of the system, but also be able to make consciences reactionary design and modi�cation choices.

Building upon a broad knowledge base, I had a number of key focus studies to rear the research phase of the thesis. The primary studies where: scale, movement, proportions, safety, color, psychology, ground and build. Throughout the earlier half of the semester a number of independent public and private tests were performed to quantify the e�ectiveness of each proposed solution. Through my readings, various theories and concepts were introduced, some mere variants form one another and some were in stark contrast with others. From this wide spanning pool of data, I consciously chose to ignore those theories that would not contribute to furthering �ex – park as I moved into the design phase. With the selected list of theories, data, and criteria, I moved from strict information gathering to practical implementation.

Leading to the current in progress design module, �ex – park has undergone about six dated iterations. Mocks I through Mock III as well as Mock V are primarily variants of the same system. With Mock I the system was targeted to maintain a simple �xed geometric layout and form intro a more complicated design. With Mocks II and III the system became more of a rib like joinery system where each individual unit is independent from the entirety of the system. Mock IV was the �rst variation from this system, using a more ridged “ball and socket” joinery system. Mock V was a return to form with a modi�ed connection basis and modi�ed ration connection. Mock VI was a failed attempt to design a �xed, non-mobile park system, which ultimately proved counter intuitive to my thesis.

The previous iterations of Mock I through Mock V faced a number of system complications in which Mock VII was ultimately primed to learn from. For instance, the �rst three design schematics as well as Mock VI were all based on a face-to-face rotational grid alignment locking system. With said system a number of complex factors of functionally began to limits the practicality of the respective designs. Clearance, rational alignment and stability limitations, scale, massing, and design limitations were just a small number of issues that arose from this approach. By having the modules based in a cubic geometric boundary with a �xed lock and join system, not only would the mere act of user driven on site assembly be a nearly insurmountable task in and of itself, but the combined massing of the larger blocks would make support for more free standing structures, nearly impossible.

The current iteration of �ex – park, the Mock VII, takes a number of factors into consideration based on the failures and shortcomings in the design, practicality, and functionality of the previous six-odd design iterations. Where are the previous versions of the unit design where solely focus and the functionality, and usability of the unit components, and remained void of any ground formation consideration, the Mock VII, not only is the �rst generation to incorporate a full ground system into the playscape, but it is also the �rst iteration to institute a re-envisioned and much more modernized ground safety system. With the culmination of the various reanalyzed tectonics of the previous versions, it also incorporates a number of the complied studies that had been collected throughout the thesis process.

Mock VII has taken previous system shortcomings and adapted to accommodate both the client base and the physical possibilities that may be pushed by such a free thinking client. Mock VII is and edge-to-edge based connection system where a limited number of module variants, existing within the parameters of a prescribed matrix, can easily connect with one another a freely pivot open their respective edge based connection points. Like the previous Mock VI, VII is design on a reduced scale to be more suitable for the anatomy of a kid. With the modi�ed unit there are a select number of variant modules, each of which serves its own respective and specialized function. The ground system is designed to absorb the force of an individual falling from heights up to 8 feet and evenly disperse the impact through a high energy absorption system.

Moving forward into the Spring Semester �ex – park will begin to materialize into a becoming a more feasibly plausible environment where a number of the key aspect will be �ushed out in greater detail. The �rst portion of the semester will be focused on assessing the strong points and the failures of Mock VII. Unlike the previous times where a function vs. complications was weighed based on a study of limitation, this iteration will be tested by the client market in real time.

My goal for the �rst half of the semester is to build a number of working full scale modules in order to take them to the various children’s schools in Pittsburgh and examination and rationalize how kids actually use them. With that information based on my research of playgrounds throughout the city of Pittsburgh, I plan on devoting the middle portion of the semester to �tting and relating �ex – park to a real world, tangible site. Through this I will be able to create more complete “park” space in the more traditional sense of the word. I can study and explore how such a revolutionary park space can not only have a visible and measurable social impact on the community, but how it also begins to act as the catalyst for people to rethink how they engage the built environment itself.

Leading into the �nal portion of my thesis, I plan on exploring how said developed park system can be reassembled, rearranged, and repackaged to easily replace any failed existing playground space and maintain the same community improving, perception changing architecture. My goal is ultimately to see what aspects of this conceived playground not only bene�ts the children that enjoy it, but the community that houses it.

Core Concepts + Assembled Analysis Previous Iterations + Investigations Managing �ex - park Mock VII Moving to Spring Semester + Speculative Solutions

f-p f-p f-p f-p

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/48-509/students.html

Imagine a place where you can create an adventure, a place where walls are there, not to contain you, but to inspire you . . . . challenge you.

Imagine a place where every time you come back it’s a new place, never the same but always familiar; a place where you always �nd something new and more exciting than before. What does a child imagine? Do they see a far o� some planet or a deep sea submarine? One thing they most de�antly don’t see is an old rundown playground. So then simply, why do we as architects and designers continue to paint that image for them? Why do limit they’re imagination to static structures and �xed furnishings? With a child’s imagination being in�nitely boundless, so is the possibilites of �ex – park. By rethinking the modern playspace, we can turn playgrounds back into a place of “awe-inspiring wonder.”

Simply put, �ex – park is that childhood explorer and adventurer in all of us that drove use to take some chairs, a couple of moms bed sheets, and a few throw pillows and a make an impenetrable fortress. My inspiration for the �ex – park came in at childhood. When I was a child there was a large playground on the outskirts of my neighborhood, in which, kids from miles, towns away would gather together to play at. This massive playground of hand crafted wood workmanship was a beautiful masterpiece of carpentry and innovation. It had places to hide, place to climb, and places to fall all working together to form priceless irreplaceable memories. Even in the winter, the park was never short of at least twenty kids. It was, well at least for a kid, an unreal place. No, that wooden playground didn’t come apart and fold and bend and twist, and yes, it was anchored to the ground and it was always the same every day. But that wasn’t what made it special; what made it special is that it was designed on the leave of a child, so that I, even as a kid, could �nd a new adventure every day. In a way, it was di�erent every time you came back.

�ex-park.tumblr.com/

2013 - 2014 Thesis Series

Carnegie Mellon Univesity SoArch

Samuel Sanders

F-2013 Thesis Presentation

Imagine, and entire world that you know, you controlled, that you knew every nock and cranny of; an architecture for kids. It’s actually a memory that made me want to get into architecture. How could I make something this unreal? Unfortunately for those coming up now, some time ago, the county deemed the park “unsafe” and costly to maintain. In response, the wooden playground was pulled down and replaced with a “safer” plastic park. With said new “improvement,” the entire park lays barren and void of the laughter of the children whom had once �lled it. This raised the question within me of, why do we sacri�ce space that allows an opportunity to foster truly special memories for void and uninspired space that can be more easily applied?

My thesis stands the as “return to form,” the leap forward that society has needed by taking a small step back. By inspiring imagination, fostering independent thought, and pushing user active interactions, �ex – park is that �rst step in the right direction that playground design has long since missed.

In the �rst weeks of my thesis, we as a class, both re�ned the thesis’s focus as well as establish our advisory team. My team was speci�cally chosen for each player’s particular skills and expertise in the various design �elds that would have a direct e�ect on the design of a playscape. Within this time we also presented our �rst iteration Thesis Proposal Packages and Thesis Proposal Poster which determined if we would be permitted to continue the process. At this time I began to research precedents, and building typologies of this nature.

I emailed the University of Pittsburgh Child Development Center to discuss how child interact with one another to understand the social implications and e�ects of building a shared controlled space. I began my active studies of movement through space. By creating obstacles in space, I mapped how one could a�ectively navigate through said environment and the volume of which they would encompass to move through that volume. Based on this information I began to develop the initial Mocks whose primary focus was to create pockets of space for people to engage. Along with this, the �rst full scale prototype was constructed.

Mid-Review was held to analyze the progress of the thesis thus far. Within my review it was assessed that the project had developed too quickly too soon and that it was, “Too real, Too early.” The best option at the time was to go back and reanalysis my research in order to make informed and more genuine architectural gestures.

"Mounted on plywood panels that suggest the walls of an impromptu recreation room, this jam-packed show uses photographs, �lm, books, architectural plans and models to illuminate the golden decades after World War II, when cities around the world felt the need to build new play areas in parks and on streets.”- Carol Kino, New York Times

From my visit I dove deeper into the interactive research. I setup a public color study to engage the community and garnish an understanding of how the public response to any given color. This study was quanti�ed using a number of criteria. I revised my studies on scale and how individuals of various body types and build engage aspects of the environment that having varying scales.

As a class we simple met to discuss the progress of our respective thesis’ and held a second Thesis Poster Session.

Moving into the �rst quarter of the thesis process, I began to expand my research base to further include more press aspects of my design development. I began to study human anatomy through various medical journal and the studies of

Leonardo Da Vinci. As a collective class, we were required to solidify our thesis’s and begin to work collaboratively with our various advisors and we were advise to consult with outside resources and non-architecture based �elds to whom relate to the topic matter.

Through the latter half of the semester the unit design process tool a back seat to expanding my research base. At this point in the semester I began to explore outside resources. Following my Mid-Review, I contacted both

Gabriela Burkhalter

[email protected] and her husband and

business partner Daniel Bauman. Gabriela

Burkhalter is the curator of “The Playground Project” at the Carnegie International. The exhibition, described as

The latest part of the semester has been devoted to furthering the progress of relating the units design to that of the site. The past week has be used to compile all of the assembled work for the Final Thesis Review as well as updating the Thesis Book and the �ex – park website.

Final Review results and suggestions that will be utilized in the coming semester are to follow.

�ex - park f-pThesis Presentation

December 8th, 2013Art Lubertz, Hal Hayes, Dale Cli�ord, Mike Je�ers

sept

oct nov dec

1/8

2/8 3/8 4/8


Wrapping Up flex - park












f-p f-p f-p f-p








Samuel Sanders













Gabriela Burkhalter








sept

oct nov dec

1/8

2/8 3/8 4/8

FALL REVIEW

f-pRE

II

Fall Review

Sunday, December 8th in the Carnegie Mellon University CFA Great Hall, at 4:15 PM.

�ex - parkthesis presentation invitation

o�cial












f-p f-p f-p f-p








Samuel Sanders













Gabriela Burkhalter








sept

oct nov dec

1/8

2/8 3/8 4/8

Official Thesis Presentation Invitation for Reviewers

For the final review of flex - park in the Fall the review was catered to discussing the design process of the seven mocks as well as the practical implications of building a flexible play space. Within the review a number of the reviewers described the project as potential dangerous and a high

Final Fall Semester Thesis Boards

risk liability due to the current design of the units and the fact that children could hit each other with them. Suggestions were made about looking into different geometries and scales as well as how can this park be secured at night. Overall, flex- park was successful, and was highly received.

SPRING BOOK

f-pRE

III

Spring Approach

For the Spring semester of thesis I wanted to take flex - park itself into a new direction. Rather than having the system be a series of static units that the child had to activate and engage with, I had considered turning flex - park into a partially user activated modular system that hapically responded according to various stimuli. Basically, the idea was that you just don’t play with the park; the park plays with you too. This means of thinking spawned the thinkingthat would become known as REflex - park.

The HypoSurface was used a jumping point of inspiration to see how haptic systems that engage and respond to user stimuli could be applied in the physical sense.

I looked at how the HypoSurface was broken up into smaller modular systems in order to understand how something like flex - park could implement such a system.

RE�ex - park

active

update 2/14

�ex - park or RE�ex - park and what is it?

active play / passive play / inactive playactive play / passive play / inactive play

the mock b II and mock a VII v.2

work now, play later

“The playground that plays with you too.”

Continuing with the concept of user modified architecture, REflex - park is a haptically responsive modification of the original flex - park playspace. The modified system allows for both user engaged modification and now, user based interaction. The park typology is broken into two distinct but interconnected and symbiotic systems: active play spaces and passive play spaces. Along with modifications to the play unit from flex - park, REflex - park also user responsive unit systems (Playfields) to highlight the effects of direct action as well as indirect action in a space. By engaging ones sensory perception of a space the playground acts to help children further cognitively understand action based responses as well as engaging their sense of wonder and curiosity in the built environment.

3 types of play

In order to layout REflex - park in a workable sit that best arranges and fosters creative play I started by breaking the idea of play into its most basic principles. Through this, I derived 3 types of play: Active, Passive, and Inactive.

“The playground that plays with you too.”

Continuing with the concept of user modified architecture, REflex - park is a haptically responsive modification of the original flex - park playspace. The modified system allows for both user engaged modification and now, user based interaction. The park typology is broken into two distinct but interconnected and symbiotic systems: active play spaces and passive play spaces. Along with modifications to the play unit from flex - park, REflex - park also user responsive unit systems (Playfields) to highlight the effects of direct action as well as indirect action in a space. By engaging ones sensory perception of a space the playground acts to help children further cognitively understand action based responses as well as engaging their sense of wonder and curiosity in the built environment.

ACTIVE

Active play is any form of physical play that engages the limits of the body in space such as running, climbing, or stacking.

PASSIVE

Passive play is any form of play that engages the mental aspect of play and spatial exploration like analyzing, or testing an idea.

INACTIVE

Inactive play is any form of play that does not require any valuable exertion of the body in a space such as sitting, watching, or resting.

Points to push

Moving into the coming weeks my plans for REflex - park are to primarily focus on how this system can relate to a site contexts, in the fact that the majority of design playgrounds, parks and recreational spaces are designed void of their contexts. Past that I plan to further develop the Mock B line of units and the Playfields as a whole so that I can vary their user interactions and responses (ie moving in different directions or different responses all together). After that I plan to bring the original Mock A line up-to-date, but that shouldn’t require as much focus.

run

climb

jump

lift

roll

swing

slide

passive inactive

hang

build

connect

disassemble

stack

crawl

spin

understand

question

interact

respond

modify

analyze

move

replace

try

feel

see

hear

touch

smell

sitting

resting

laying

sleeping

staring

standing

Things to do

Learn Scripting / Learn Grasshopper / Test Mid Scale Models / Construct Full Scale Tests / Update Site / Update Booklet

REflex - park will spend a greater amount of energy focusing on the macro scale impact of a community playspace as well as the micro scale functionality of its parts, whereas flex - park was only established in the marketable scale (that of the unit as a product). Reflex - park will study how this can relate to a specific contexts.

Spring ApproachThe core conceptual driver at the beginning of the Spring semester was that REflex - park would spend a greater amount of energy focusing on the macro scale impact of a community playspace as well as the micro scale functionality of its parts, whereas flex - park was only established in the marketable scale (that of the unit as a product). Reflex - park will study how this can relate to a specific contexts.

Ideally, my perception was a continuation of the concept of user modified architecture. This aspect of the thesis was central and therefore was never subject to change. On the other hand though, with REflex - park in its earlier phases, I was engaged in looking into how haptically responsive modifications of the original flex - park playspace could change the ultimate experience of the park going experience. My major idea was to use, not environmentally based or electrical sensors, but physical mechanisms to build and increase user-architecture interactions. The modified system would have allowed for both user engaged modification and now, user based interaction. The park typology was broken into two distinct but interconnected and symbiotic systems: active play spaces and passive play spaces. This was done not to diverge from the original concept that sculpted flex - park. Along with modifications to the play unit from flex - park, REflex - park would also implement user responsive unit systems (Playfields) to highlight the effects of direct action as well as indirect action in a space.

By engaging ones sensory perception of a space the playground acts to help children further cognitively understand action based responses as well as engaging their sense of wonder and curiosity in the built environment.

To better understand what aspects of play itself that I wanted REflex - park to engage, I broke it into three typologies: inactive, passive, and active. All three typologies can be used to describe not only how a child engages the built environment in relation to play, but what kind of activity and life that said built environment can both foster and develop at any given moment. These three typologies and the research that was drawn from them therein, was essential the growth and further redevelopment of REflex - park.

active

run

climb

jump

lift

roll

swing

slide

passive inactive

hang

build

connect

disassemble

stack

crawl

spin

understand

question

interact

respond

modify

analyze

move

replace

try

feel

see

hear

touch

smell

sitting

resting

laying

sleeping

staring

standing

Spring Approach

Activity mapping based one the two major types of the three types of play.The goal was that this would help inform how a possible layout of the park could be solved for or approached.

passiveactive

1. run

2. climb

3. lift

4. crawl

5. connect

6. stack

7. build

8. hang

9. disassemble

10. slide

11. jump

12. swing

13. roll

14. spin

1. question

2. interact

3. modify

4. try

5. see

6. hear

7. touch

8. feel

9. move

10. analyze

11. respond

12. understand

13. replace

14. smell

21

1413

3

11

11

1

13

6

8 9

58

10

7

4 5

9

7

10

6

12

12

4

3

14

6

2

5

2

5

10

10

9

4

14

11

13

12

11

12

1

8

3

7

4

6

13

3

2

4

1

1

31413

12

115

26

1410

7

98

8

97 6

9

8

54

3

21

10

11 7

12

13 14

3 types of play

In order to layout REflex - park in a workable sit that best arranges and fosters creative play I started by breaking the idea of play into its most basic principles. Through this, I derived 3 types of play: Active, Passive, and Inactive.

ACTIVE

Active play is any form of physical play that engages the limits of the body in space such as running, climbing, or stacking.

PASSIVE

Passive play is any form of play that engages the mental aspect of play and spatial exploration like analyzing, or testing an idea.

INACTIVE

Inactive play is any form of play that does not require any valuable exertion of the body in a space such as sitting, watching, or resting.

FALL ITERATIONS

f-pRE

IV

Mock XIFALL ITERATIONS

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS COVERED THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL �ex - park BOOK

Content covered in “Chapter 2”

For RE�ex - park continue to “Book V”

Mock XI

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec hendrerit libero eu nulla lacinia gravida. Morbi ornare tortor eu gravida pulvinar. Aenean diam arcu, volutpat a sem eget, lobortis suscipit libero. Maecenas pretium pretium luctus. Nam sodales ullamcorper sem. Nullam sapien lacus, tincidunt aliquet ante vitae, pulvinar varius ante. Aenean ullamcorper nulla velit, eget adipiscing mi pharetra vitae. Nam vitae auctor nulla. Sed consectetur porta dolor, eget pretium nibh feugiat in. Maecenas ut eleifend lacus. Integer cursus lorem vitae libero pharetra, nec ornare purus semper. Sed non feugiat arcu, nec eleifend est.

Suspendisse varius rhoncus eros a ultricies. Nulla gravida urna placerat massa dapibus ultricies. Aenean non nunc nec nulla accumsan eleifend sit amet ut metus. Cras ante magna, tempus viverra erat sed, consequat accumsan est. Pellentesque aliquam nisi et pretium scelerisque. Cras adipiscing vitae ligula non fermentum. Sed fringilla massa eget urna adipiscing, consectetur consectetur enim suscipit.

Aenean sed mi at purus bibendum ornare. Nunc a dolor ac libero vulputate ornare vel sit amet purus. Phasellus iaculis tempus est

eu dignissim. Maecenas sollicitudin orci venenatis, feugiat arcu ac, ullamcorper lorem. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nam pellentesque massa quis orci lacinia, eget ultricies dui

commodo. Curabitur congue dui quis elit posuere varius. Aenean ut rhoncus lorem. Duis venenatis, purus nec facilisis

tincidunt, nisi mi tempus dolor, sed aliquam ante risus ac mi. Etiam id cursus turpis. Curabitur vel commodo lorem. Vestibulum malesuada

laoreet purus, id sagittis nisi consequat eget. Aenean congue lorem non turpis lacinia pellentesque. Sed aliquet eros eu auctor cursus. Etiam eu volutpat eros, quis malesuada erat. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.�xed,

THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS COVERED THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL �ex - park BOOK

Content covered in “Chapter 2”

For RE�ex - park continue to “Book V”

SPRING ITERATIONS

f-pRE

V

“REuse what worked...”

Mock VII v2

Mock VII v2

The Mock VII v2 was the next step from the �nal design of the Fall semester. With this particular iterations many large leaps were made that drastically adjusted the design of �ex - park for the upcoming semester. Namely, the

major changes came in the form of the overall geometry, the scaling of the unit itself, and how its connection points relate. With the Mock VII v1

there were only three edges of connection for the units to meet one another. Here, the indented semi-circle allows for a greater

arrangement of connection types and edge to edge relationships. The unit was reduced in scale by nearly 50% to

act as more of a “toy” in nature than a real building component. Based on suggestions at the Fall �nal review, all edges and corners of the unit were rounded for safety and

aesthesic concerns.

connection

Mock VIII v1

Mock VIII v1

The Mock VIII v1 temporarily removed the redesigned connection system in search for a more simplistic resolution, even though none was found in this particular iteration set. The Mock VIII v1 is the most divergent model in the RE�ex - park Mock set. This model, whilst still maintaining a triangular form

and a pyramid like base design, is much more domed than any iteration prior or since.

This design decision came from an exploration in the �exibility in other rigid geometric formworks. Within these explored form works, a small handful were considered the most appropriate for this project typology: domes, pyramids,

tetrahedron, and complex polygons.

Mock VIII v1 attempted to modify the form to work with that of a smoothed dome. Unfortunately, because of the geometry of a dome by

its own natural properties, there was a high level of facial and edge based biases that prevented the possibility of �exibility.

Mock VIII v2

Mock VIII v2

Based on the short comings of the previous version of Mock VIII, Mock VIII v2 reintroduced the connector face of the unit, giving the unit a four face design again. Another aspect of the units that was becoming a continuing failure that was slightly adjusted for this iteration was scale. This iteration

was made slightly larger than the previous two had been imagined. Even still, once physically modeled, it was still apparent that the scale was

still o�.

Mock VIII v2 was the �rst physically modeled iteration since Mock IV in the Fall. Structurally, since it still played on the domed design of its predecessor, it was not as structurally

stable as to be expected.

It was also one of the �rst iterations in at least four generations to honestly consider assembly and manufacturing. The tiled “crown” of the

unit was an exploration as to how one would cap o� a unit built and assembled face by face.

Its ultimate failure was its ground connectors, also referred to as the “bones” that limited the units from being individual parts of a whole.

Mock IX

Mock IX

With the Mock IX the “bones” of Mock VIII v2 were replaced with the ball and socket. The design of the base face was simplified in parts and more resolved in others. The entire structure was more “pipe like” in comparison to the face design iterations before. This caused an awkward connection between the top three faces of the

unit to that of the base. Parts of the base face were hollowed out in order to allow for the ball and socket of another unit to pass along.

Because of the design of the ball and socket, and the fact that it could only allow units to pass along each other in the X and Y plane, any structure built in this iteration would not be able to fold unto itself, like the previous iterations, rendering any configuration, merely a

ground treatment element.

All edges were re-smoothed and the scale was bumped up to its original, Mock VII v1, scale.

This is also the first iteration to consider 3D printing a viable manufacturing solution.

redesigned joint system

Mock X

Mock X

With the Mock X I modi�ed both the scaling and the connection system from the previous models. Mock X ended up being about 27.5 inches in height, about 4 inches taller than Mock IX.

Along with an improvement in scale the connection system was improved with end stoppers at the ball and socket point. The piping

overall was slightly widened in order for the wheel house to better �t a slightly larger wheel.

Even with these improvements, the momentum of another unit bending at a point as small as the ball and socket point

would cause the connection to snap, the unit to break, and the system to fail. A temporarily considered solution was to make

the connection point both a steel rod and a steel channel for it to glide along.

This poses its own problems with not only weight and cost e�ectiveness, but as well as safety and longevity. Further solutions needed to be considered.

Mock XI

Mock XI

With the Mock XI instead of redesigning the speci�cs of the unit as in previous iterations, I more thoroughly investigated the relationships of tetrahedrons and how they are none facially biased. This was the �rst iteration since the Mock VI to have a face to face to face relationship rather

than and edge to edge.

I also tested this iteration by merging it with the ground and landscape treatments of the park. This acted as the inspirational

and the jumping o� point for the new redesigned keystone that was to come with Mock XIII.

Mock XII

Mock XII

Mock XII was the re�nement of the previous iteration. By taking the aspects of the previous 11 units and what worked for them, Mock XII is a nearly perfect protoype. Unfortunately, Mock XII did not fully develop the concept of male and femaale connectors as the next iteration did, so the units are only conceptually able to be assebled.

Much like the versions that came before it, it hase open faced surfaces in order for a child to climb through them.

Mock XII would be fully 3D printed by a 6 axis robot.

Mock XIII

Mock XIII

RE inventing the block

MOCK XIII

f-pRE

VI

“REimagine a place...”

Mock XIII

Render of the Mock XIII

Renders of the Mock XIII

Mock XIII


“REworking simple...”

Diagramming Play

The three types of play were once again used as a major design factor that drove how I approached how people would engage the individual units.

1

inactive

2

passive

passive

3

active

Both the user and the architecture manage to come together to speak a mutual langange of activity levels and typology.

Types of Play

Diagramming Play

Because stability is a major concern with this typology, I investigated how I could most efficiently maintain said concern. A major aspect of the project that was considered was; how exactly would one of these units actually be

1

webbing

1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9

2

cross cut

produced? I did an fair amount of research in both 3D and “4D antigravity” printing that could be used for something of the scale of one of these units. Through this research I came to an understanding of how expensive and cost inefficient that printing a single unit would be. That cost could be much more greatly reduced through the use of sparse printing. Sparse printing uses internal webbing structures to account for the stability needed for something of the size of a large print. This webbing reduces the need and the required amount of internal support material. I tested a number of various webbing typologies until I found the one that maintained the highest level of structural stability whist reducing the greatest percentage of material. This will reduce weight and materials. Inside the unit, to keep its own rigidity, inner support material is needed. This support material will be “webbed” in nature and act as inner bracing for the unit. This system can reduce up to 45% of material use.

unit modeling

Diagramming Play

Because stability is a major concern with this typology, I looked into how this could be compromised. It can be compromised, not only by the structure of the units alone and their own individual flexibility, but it can

1

stability

stability

also be compromised by the structural integrity of the units as a combination. Because the units are stackable, the system runs a high risk of toppling or buckling under its own momentum and weight.

Diagramming Play

Like it’s precedent studies, Mock XIII uses male and female connectors. This way they can more easily be connected and removed from one another.

Because each of the unit’s four faces can have their own gender connection type, each unit can be one of five kinds of relationship:

1

the lego brick theroy

homogeneous : 4 MALE - 0 FEMALEheterogeneous male :3 MALE - 1 FEMALEheterogeneous even : 2 MALE - 2 FEMALEheterogeneous female : 1 MALE - 3 FEMALEhomogeneous : 0 MALE - 4 FEMALE

male / female

Diagramming Play

The Mock XIII in scale in relation to the Mock VIII and the Mock IV.

1

scale

scale

You can see how these units relate to the scale of both a child and an adult.

Diagramming Play

The previous iterations of Mock I through Mock V faced a number of system complications in which Mock VII was ultimately primed to learn from. For instance, the first three design schematics as well as Mock VI were all based on a face-to-face rotational grid alignment locking system. With said system a number of complex factors of functionally began to limits the practicality of the respective designs. Clearance, rational alignment and stability limitations, scale, massing, and design limitations were just a small number of issues that arose from this approach. By having the modules based in a cubic geometric boundary with a fixed lock and join system, not only would the mere act of user driven on site assembly be a nearly insurmountable task in and of itself, but the combined massing of the larger blocks would make support for more free standing structures, nearly impossible.

2

keystone

stability

The keystone is a reintroduction of an older concept from Mock IV. It’s been redesign and repurposed to act as a solid mold poured anchor point which will prevent the unit system as an entirety from toppling over. This make REflex - park safer than flex - park. They also act as key points highlighting the possible answers to the configurations of the three park layouts.

Due to the fact that REflex - park is a full de-constructible modular system, theft and missing units is a realistic problem. The solution for this dilemma is simple; during hours the park is closed each unit is locked to the keystone. This way, no units will be able to be easily stolen during the later hours. Even if a child were to take a unit home, a lone unit is an inactive object. That child or more children would have to take multiple units, thereby spreading REflex - park’s reach and fostering community and teamwork.

3

lock and key

Diagramming Play

1

climb system

a

keystone

design systems

playing with swing

2a

2b

swing system

SPRING REVIEW

f-pRE

VII

Spring Review

Final Spring Semester Thesis Boards, Mockups, and Models as displayed in the Miller Gallery

For the final review of REflex - park in the Spring the review was focused on explaining how the culmination of research and iterative design lead to the final version of REflex - park, the Mock XIII unit. Within the explanation of the process and thesis, I highlighted how, by expanding the possibilities of

Final Spring Semester Thesis Boards and “Play space”

what we allow the built environment to foster and how we engage what play itself can be, that REflex - park could not only work on a physical level, but on a cognitive level as well. During the review I expressed how, throughout the past six newer iterations, developments in the systems relationship to the ground and practicality had been thoroughly addressed. Major points that were explained were the keystone’s implementation, the redesign of the geometry of the unit, and its connection system. The reviewers suggested that I more deeply investigate other means of fabrication other than 3d printing. All in all, Reflex - park had an amazingly successful final review.

MOCK XIV

f-pRE

VIII

Mock XIV

Mock XIV

Mock XIV is a speculative design, in progress, that I hope to expand upon with my continued work on RE�ex - park.

Based on suggestions at the �nal review, I will look into how RE�ex - park can develop into a real world marketable entity.

LOOKING PAST

f-pRE

IX

“REde�ning thesis...”

de�nitions






[thee-sis]

[�eks-pahrk]

[pley]

[pley-ground]

[plā, skāp]

thesis-

�ex - park-

play-

playground-

playscape-

1. a re - exploration of how architecture can readily be manipulated and the concepts of flex - park. Through a greater focus on how the play-scape engages the body, I am able to develop an architecture where the user can more actively engage themselves in both the architecture and in play.

[re �eks-pahrk]RE�ex - park-

de�nitions

All direct de�nitions are either sourced from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/, http://dictionary.reference.com/, or personal sourcing. No Copyright Infringement is intended.All intellectual properties belong to their respective owners.

1. an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and

managed by a city, state, or nation.

1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.

2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in

literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy ( def 2 ) .


1. the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences.

2. this faculty as possessed by a particular individual3. the length of time over which recollection extends

[pahrk]

[�ek-suh-buhl]


[mem-uh-ree]

-park

-�exible

-imagination

-memory

1. of, relating to, or involving conscious mental activities (such as thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering).

2. of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering).

[’käg-ne-tiv]cognitive

1. the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced.

2. the act or process of creating something over a period of time.3. the state of being created or made more advanced.

[di-’ve-lep-ment, dē-]-development

de�nitions






[thee-sis]

[�eks-pahrk]

[pley]

[pley-ground]

[plā, skāp]

thesis-

�ex - park-

play-

playground-

playscape-

1. a re - exploration of how architecture can readily be manipulated and the concepts of flex - park. Through a greater focus on how the play-scape engages the body, I am able to develop an architecture where the user can more actively engage themselves in both the architecture and in play.

[re �eks-pahrk]RE�ex - park-

de�nitions

All direct de�nitions are either sourced from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/, http://dictionary.reference.com/, or personal sourcing. No Copyright Infringement is intended.All intellectual properties belong to their respective owners.

1. an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and

managed by a city, state, or nation.

1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.

2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in

literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy ( def 2 ) .


1. the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences.

2. this faculty as possessed by a particular individual3. the length of time over which recollection extends

[pahrk]

[�ek-suh-buhl]


[mem-uh-ree]

-park

-�exible

-imagination

-memory

1. of, relating to, or involving conscious mental activities (such as thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering).

2. of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering).

[’käg-ne-tiv]cognitive

1. the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced.

2. the act or process of creating something over a period of time.3. the state of being created or made more advanced.

[di-’ve-lep-ment, dē-]-development

bibliography

"3D-Printed Furniture Joinery by Studio Minale-Maeda." Design Milk. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Aghazadeh, Fereydoun. Advances in Industrial Health and Safety VI. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Baskinger, Mark, and William Bardel. Drawing Ideas: A Hand-drawn Approach for Better Design. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

"Cycloid." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Ergonomics & Human Factors." Ergonomics Human Factors. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Home - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Home - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Index." Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.

"LEGO®." LEGO.com Digital Designer Virtual Building Software. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"LEGO®." LEGO.com Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Lueder, Rani, and Valerie J. Berg. Rice. Ergonomics for Children: Designing Products and Places for Toddler to Teens. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2008. Print.

bibliography

"3D-Printed Furniture Joinery by Studio Minale-Maeda." Design Milk. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Aghazadeh, Fereydoun. Advances in Industrial Health and Safety VI. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994. Print.

The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Baskinger, Mark, and William Bardel. Drawing Ideas: A Hand-drawn Approach for Better Design. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

"Cycloid." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Ergonomics & Human Factors." Ergonomics Human Factors. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Home - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Home - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"Index." Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.

"LEGO®." LEGO.com Digital Designer Virtual Building Software. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"LEGO®." LEGO.com Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Lueder, Rani, and Valerie J. Berg. Rice. Ergonomics for Children: Designing Products and Places for Toddler to Teens. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2008. Print.

bibliography

"National Program for Playground Safety." National Program for Playground Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

N.p., n.d. Web.

N.p., n.d. Web.

Reilly, Thomas. Ergonomics in Sport and Physical Activity: Enhancing Performance and Improving Safety. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2010. Print.

"Safety and Health Topics | Ergonomics." Safety and Health Topics | Ergonomics. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

Siegel, Daniel J. The Mindful Brain: Re�ection and Attunement in the Cultivation of Well-being. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. Print.

"State Regulations." National Program for Playground Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"VELCRO Velcro-industrial Strength 4-ft X 2-in Tape Box Black." Shop VELCRO Velcro-industrial Strength 4-ft X 2-in Tape Box Black at Lowes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

"What Is the Density of PVC?" WikiAnswers. Answers Corporation, n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.

acknowledgementsRE�ex - park and its respective team would like to thank the following individuals for their time, assistance, and advise in making both �ex - park and RE�ex - park possible:

Carnegie Mellon University Faculty The Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture The Carnegie Mellon University School of Design The Carnegie Mellon University Department of Psychology Stephen Lee: AIA, LEED AP, Professor & Head Mary-Lou Arscott: RIBA, Associate Head of the SoArch Kai K. Gutschow: M.Arch, M.Phil, PhD, Associate Professor Jonathan Kline: Adjunct Assistant Professor Rami el Samahy: Assitant Teaching Professor Joshua Bard: Assistant Professor Erica Cochran: Assoc. AIA, LEED AP, NOMA, Assistant Professor, PhD Candidate Heather Workinger: Senior Academic Advisor Charles Kemp: Assistant Professor Sharon M. Carver: Teaching Professor David Klhar: Professor of Cognitive Development and Education Sciences

Carnegie Mellon University Advisory Team Dale Cli�ord: Assistant Professor Hal Hayes: AIA, Studio Professor Arthur Lubetz: AIA, Adjunct Professor Micheal Je�ers: Dfab Fellow

Carnegie Museum of Art The Carnegie International Gabriela Burkhalter Daniel Baumann

acknowledgementsRE�ex - park and its respective team would like to thank the following individuals for their time, assistance, and advise in making both �ex - park and RE�ex - park possible:

Carnegie Mellon University Faculty The Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture The Carnegie Mellon University School of Design The Carnegie Mellon University Department of Psychology Stephen Lee: AIA, LEED AP, Professor & Head Mary-Lou Arscott: RIBA, Associate Head of the SoArch Kai K. Gutschow: M.Arch, M.Phil, PhD, Associate Professor Jonathan Kline: Adjunct Assistant Professor Rami el Samahy: Assitant Teaching Professor Joshua Bard: Assistant Professor Erica Cochran: Assoc. AIA, LEED AP, NOMA, Assistant Professor, PhD Candidate Heather Workinger: Senior Academic Advisor Charles Kemp: Assistant Professor Sharon M. Carver: Teaching Professor David Klhar: Professor of Cognitive Development and Education Sciences

Carnegie Mellon University Advisory Team Dale Cli�ord: Assistant Professor Hal Hayes: AIA, Studio Professor Arthur Lubetz: AIA, Adjunct Professor Micheal Je�ers: Dfab Fellow

Carnegie Museum of Art The Carnegie International Gabriela Burkhalter Daniel Baumann

Miller Gallery Miller Gallery at Carnegie Mellon University Purnell Center for the Arts 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Margaret Cox: Graphic Designer + O�ce Coordinator Tesar Freeman: Exhibitions Coordinator + Facilities Manager Linda Hager: Business Administrator, Miller Gallery & STUDIO for Creative Inquiry

University of Pittsburgh Angelique Bamberg: Visiting Instructors

University of Pittsburgh Child Development Center University Child Development Center 635 Clyde Street Pittsburgh, PA 15260

And a special thanks goes out to all those who continue to inspire imagination and to those who dream of greater than the easy solution. This book is dedicated to those who can see the forest through the trees and to those who can see the smallest details. I hope RE�ex - park can in�uence others in the future as much as it has in�uenced me in the present. Thank you.

RE�ex - parkCarnegie Mellon SoArch 2013 - 14 Thesis

Samuel Sanders/ Art lubetz/ Hal Hayes/ Dale Cli�ord/ Mike Je�ers

�ex - parkRE

REflex - park - Thesis 2014

Documents

Transcript of REflex - park - Thesis 2014