Studio 101 final portfolio
description
Transcript of Studio 101 final portfolio
1
Architectural Design�Studio 101
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO101 FINAL PORTFOLIO
SPRING 2014 /JERRY LUM
JYOTHI ANAGONDANAHALLI
The Journey From This…..
2
…..To This.
3
4
To design a full-‐size model in the given site of the courtyard (of our school) with all the design skills and technical learning from our first half of the semester. Use different forms to design and construct, such as secDoning, folding, framing, tessellaDng or tensioning, that would uniquely respond to the chosen site. Create small-‐scaled models and explore different design forms before construcDng the final design element and there-‐by overcome the challenge of construcDng a life-‐size model in a place of your choice at the given courtyard. With limitaDons of different kinds, to create a design that intenDonally frames the chosen views, along with it being site-‐specific. To transform the framed views of being Mundane to something being unique, evocaDve and having variaDons in our work , by avoiding the obvious while making it to be complex.
OBJECTIVE :
Though we made a group consisDng of 8 members, we worked individually for the first couple of weeks exploring different design techniques and materials, along with exploring the relaDonship of the same with it being site specific. The final installaDon was supposed to be derived out of this by combining all the good thoughts and designs of all the good works of the team members.
First Iteration
5 Kit of Parts
STRENGTHS :basic geometric shape of ‘equilateral triangle’ was used with depressing/ appreciaDng in sizes, which would be easy to build . RepeDDon and secDoning techniques were explored in this model. The arrangement of each pieces guided us to walk through, creaDng a canopy / tunnel kind of structure.
STRUGLES : The main problem was in figuring out how it would be installed as it dint seem very site-‐specific. Also looked very simple and obvious.
LADDER TO SUCCESS: To think pracDcally and design to scale that would respond to the site of the courtyard. Not to create just another arDfact but something that relates to the surrounding and has an architectural aspect in it.
Second Iteration
6
STRENGTHS : Having an idea of secDoning and repeDDon in design, this iteraDon was constructed. The kit of parts were simple to construct and nodes where each triangle was joint to the other was interesDng and the whole appearance created a path that guided us to walk through and explore more.
STRUGLES : The appreciaDon / depression created in the structure looked very obvious and very simple in its design and was not site-‐specific.
LADDER TO SUCCESS : To develop a complex and unique model that had a relaDonship with the surrounding and was site specific.
Kit of Parts
Third Iteration
7
STRENGTHS : Again working on simple geometric structure and exploring secDoning this model was constructed. The angular joints which gave more depth and uniqueness to this model, had the noDon of rising high and leading to greater heights. Unlike previous iteraDons, the kit of parts were of all the same size and of basic geometric shape but hierarchy was created in the way each piece were aeached to the other, which was visually appealing.
STRUGLES : Though being complex, the design was not well defined and again lacked the idea of being site-‐specific.
LADDER TO SUCCESS : To maintain the sponDnuity in the design but to create a design that had a relaDonship with the walls that were used to built upon as well as the surroundings of the courtyard. Also to explore upon different materials to work with.
Fourth Iteration
8
STRENGTHS : Using a lighter material for this iteraDon, gave more flexibility to the structure. RepeDDon of simple geometric shape by joining them at same interval to each other, formed a curved structure (which was explored during the construcDon). The gaps inbetween the planes would create interesDng shadow paeerns and having 2 separate yet similar structures, gave us the freedom to place it as desired.
STRUGLES : Though it looked complex, yet the kit of parts were very simple to create. But the main problem was to create it on-‐site in different material like wood and to maintain the flexibility / flow in the design and yet remain sturdy, that this small model portrays. Joining each plane would also be a challenge while we try to retain this shape.
LADDER TO SUCCESS: To create more hierarchy in the structure and explore and different techniques of design while considering real materials and engineered tools used for joints while construcDng, to work upon on-‐site.
Fourth Iteration (continued) Exploring Different Ways of Arrangement With the Same 2 Pieces
9
Fifth Iteration
10
STRENGTHS : Considering the folding techniques which was designed by a fellow group member, this whole structure was designed. The formaDon and flexibility in the design was very appealing. The transformaDon from big to small square stars made it more complex and gave a sense of fluidity to the structure.
STRUGLES : To explore on different materials and to think about the material to join each individual while construcDng a bigger model and the difficulDes involved in installing this over the wall was a thoughjul process.
Kit of Parts
11
Aker looking through every group member’s final work based on tessellaDon and folding techniques, and finalizing on the kit of part or infact as one main element to be a star shaped structure, we all designed different ways to install the same on the site.
Finally mine and a fellow member’s work was combined to form the final model which would consist of 4 different sizes of stars but of all similar kinds and installed from above the railings of the courtyard, flowing downwards to the ground gradually, transforming the wall into a desired design.
The Final Project The most salient values we embraced for this project were 1) Sustainability & 2) Affordability. These were not necessarily our original objecDves but as our design unfolded we realized how well we could embrace these values in our choice of materials, simplicity in our construcDon, and minimalism in the kit of parts. The use of chip-‐ board greatly reduced our material cost and it can all be readily recycled, reused or repurposed for composted. AddiDonally all the metal hardware used can be just detached and reused again. The sDmulus for our design are all around us as seen in nature’s rhythmic paeerns and from the visionary minds of great mathemaDcians, architects, and arDsts. As such we drew inspiraDon using the brilliance arDculated by the likes of Fibonacci, Ron Resch, Shigeru Ban and the art of Origami folding. This is how we arrived at the star or flower – simple folds from square – yet complex in their possibiliDes, just as in the nature. As we delve deeper into the noDon of morphing the courtyard with elements of nature and topography started to emerge. Viewed from the outside one might also see a mountain range and wonder how to make the visual journey to the highest peaks or see a forest with small plants or flowers at its base rising to the canopy of leaves up above. Or, one might even imagine a Milky Way of distant stars twinkling in the night sky. Come, take a journey through nature with us.
12
SITE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE FOR MATERIAL SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS :
Once the final structure was finalized, we chose the corner of the site which would give us more area to play with. ConsisDng of different faces / planes, of different heights and materials, all these aspects would support our design structurally and thus would provide our design an interacDve and enclosed space in an otherwise open courtyard. A single-‐ faced curved or plane wall wouldn’t provide all these and thus making it more difficult to construct extra supporDng structure for our design to take shape as conceptualized. Design Concepts and Approaches : Aker finalizing our design, we planned to use wood like most of the structures built in the past, but no sooner did we discover that using wood and the all the metal joints to join each pieces would make our structure very heavy and it would be difficult to achieve our desired hanging effect. Aker learning the art of folding, we wanted to emulate the art of Japanese Origami folding, which was the iniDal idea behind the whole concept. So we chose chip-‐board to do our proto-‐type which was easier to work on as it is the most manipulated material to create intricate design and we all were very familiar using this material through out the semester.
13
14
Like Shigeru Ban has shown us that its not important to that architecture been build with wood and concrete, we at the end decided to work with chip-‐board as our main material.
We never used any nails or glue for any joints for but merely paper and string which allows the structure to have a sense of movement in this transformaDonal wall structure and also making it very sustainable and affordable material.
IniDal set up and joining the planes
KIT OF PARTS : • Chip-‐Board • 4’ Large Size Stars – 5 • 3’ Medium Size Stars – 8 • 2’ Small Size Stars – 11 • 1’ Small Square Stars – 4
• 41 Sheets of Chipboard = 200 sq feet • 24 Cut Triangles / Piece • 608 Triangles • 28 Squares • 636 Total Kit of Parts
15
MATERIALS USED: • Chip Board : 202 sq feet • U-‐Bolts : 7 • Steel Galvanized Cord : 44 feet • Anchor Bolts : 3 • Eye Hooks : 5 • 2’ * 4’ Wood : 2 • 2’ * 2’ Wood : 1 • Quick Links : 12 • Stucco Corner Piece : 1 • Fishing Line (50lb, 30lb, 20lb ) : 500
Yards • Silver Acrylic Paint : 24oz 1 boele • 3/4” Hex Bolts : 4 • Wire Cable Ferrules : 22
• DESIGN HYPOTHESIS : Trying to prove that we could work with the a very affordable / cheap manipulated material and to make the structure work with as liele suspension as possible.
• CRITICAL QUESTION : the criDcal quesDon that we were trying to explore through our design to know how we could create mulDples of an object and incorporate them in a structure as a whole and also to find the most sustainable way of creaDng something that has both tessellaDons and folding along with being site responsive.
16 Prototype
17
RESEARCH: During our class sessions, we were introduced to many forms of design techniques like tessellaDon, folding, frames, secDons etc. We also studied the works of Shigeru Ban, Ron Resch and other Origami folding. Their works inspired us to look beyond and think on different terms with the design aspect. We also experimented with different materials and explored on how each helps in construcDng planes and the play of shade and shadows that it would cast. Japanese Origami
Ron Resch’s works-‐folding paper Shigeru Ban’s work
FINDINGS, DISCOVERIES AND INSIGHTS: While we explored on different materials during our construcDon of the prototypes, the tough part was in choosing the right material that would be effecDve in connecDng each individual piece and also provide tension to hold the shape of our original origami star structure.
18
Different kind of joints used
19
Then came the issue of holding the triangular pieces in shape with right spacing in the centre. We iniDally tried with a small tennis ball and then a balloon and finally ended up using a square shaped chip-‐board of different sizes for different sized stars which were placed perpendicular to the apex and secured by notches that were cut to a certain depth on the larger triangular planes, which enables us to achieve a bracing support that would keep the overall structure in its desired shape.
We also found out that the fishing line were the best material that could be used to join each individual together which was not just the lightest and the most thinnest but also very strong and held up quite a lot of weight. It was a very integral part of our construcDon as we used it to create tension between the planes and De the joints of each pieces as well.
The kit of part being very simple in its appearance turned out to be a very laborious process as there were many pieces which had to be cut manually and all the Dme was spent mostly on cutng the planes and joining each to form a big individual structure which was again a kit of parts for the main and final structure. This took a lot of Dme and the installaDon work started only in the last week and also one other main inhibiDng factor was that we couldn’t install the pieces we were building due to the weather condiDons as well. STRENGTHS : the main strength in our design was that it was very affordable and the ecological impact of the materials being very sustainable and recyclable. We all as a group had the choice of designing something simpler, but we wanted to chanllenge ourselves as a group and design something more complex.
20
STRUGLES : The main problem occurred while joining each planes in a such a way that it wouldn’t affect the integrity of the material. As we had very less Dme, it was a huge risk in choosing the final material as chipboard as we dint know how it would react to the large amount of tension that would be applied on it.
21
Also while designing we wanted there to be a flow in the design which would be created by placing the stars on wall which would be connected / suspended from the ceiling height and also few going on the floor. Liele did we know then difficulDes of suspending from the top and this was achieved by 2’ * 4’ and 2’ * 1’ wood which were connected to the railings above the courtyard and had hooks to suspend few stars using metal links and steel cords. Another structure used metal wires and a metal cast/ mesh frame which enclosed a long piece of wood which held the enDre weight of the structure. Using pulleys and working on this enDre installaDon was the toughest and most challenging part.
22 The Shadow Play
LADDER TO SUCCESS : Given a choice to re-‐do, we would use a smaller kit of parts and a design that would be more pracDcally accomplished with the given Dme. We would also use different materials and work on the construcDon site from the iniDal days so that we could idenDfy the engineering issues well in advance.
23
Though we were all assigned of different roles to work on iniDally, we all worked together as a team and respected each other’s ideas and suggesDons and dealt with every aspect in a very mature and professional way without letng any ego or bad attude to get into our work. With many new first-‐Dmes for me, like using a drilling tool to a hammer and many such stuffs, I was able to learn a lot not just from our teacher Jerry, but also from my most supporDve and hard-‐working team members. Kudos to our team!
24