CAPSTONE PROJECT:

Christopher Butler

<RECONCILIATION>

This project is the culmination of three and one half years work at Bellevue College. It was for me a transforma-tive time where I metaphorphized from attorney to designer. Looking back on my work from Studio 1 in Winter 2011 to where I am now, it has been a remarkable transformation - one that I was not sure was possible when I started.

This effort would not have been so easily possible without the encouragement and support of Heather, to whom I dedicate this small book and the project therein illustrated.

Christopher ButlerSeattle, WAJuly 14, 2014

Table of Contents

Abstract: P. 1 Intent / Qualifiers P. 2 Analysis P. 5 Case Studies P. 9 Design Proposal P. 20 Vehicle P. 21 Site P. 22 Zoning/Occupancy P. 26 Initial Conclusions P. 27 Schematic Design P. 28 Design Development P. 36 Final Development P. 42 Final Project P. 47 Plans & Program P. 50 Physical Model P. 59 Furniture P. 65 Capstone Exhibit P. 66 Glossary P. 67 Bibliography P. 68

ABSTRACT - “RECONCILIATION”

For this unusual project, this author set out to examine the design and functional RECONCILIATIONS that occur when a well-known typology, in this case “CITY HALL,” is inserted into a spatially restricted site. In this case, “reconciliation” means the adjustment of experiencer expetations between of what a City Hall looks like and how it functions conventionally (”Ty-pology”) and the form that it must take to function within the restricted space. As such, “reconcile” is both a psychological term and architectural term. The reconciling from typology-to-necessity will be examined through the through the following quali�ers (or lenses):

(Non)Hierarchy / (De)Centralization / Liminal Spaces / Circulation / Articulation

The CITY HALL program contains the o�ces of the standard government functions: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. The space will also contain Public Spaces, which includes Forum, Gallery, and Cafe spaces. The building will also include stan-dard restrooms, maintenance closets, HVAC/electrical closets, and ample circulation. The spaces of the program comprise the elements of the spatial relationships to be examined via the quali�ers. The central examination is premised on the presumption that as our urban cores become more dense, but while there is also social pressure to preserve our architetural history, the necessity to make greater use of existing space and build-ings intensi�es. The pertinent question is what happens to the given typology when it is placed in a site not necessarily suited to that typlogy. Inspiration and examples are taken from the Japanese practice of using a given space to the utmost due to the super-dense Japanese urban environments.

In this particular case, the added element is a back-to-front demising wall that essentially splits the building in two. However, the program is set perpendicularly to that wall thus necessitating perforations in that wall. As such, a secondary examination is of the tension created not only by the examined spatial relationships, but by the spatial relationships relative to the wall. The other secondary examination, and part of the Hierarchy analysis, is levels of transparency relative to the func-tion of the space. For instance, the center of the Mayor’s o�ce suite - a private space - would be largely opaque while the public spaces would be largely transparent.

The design goal (the ultimate goal), as an analysis seperate from the above, is to assemble the given program within the restricted site in the most harmonious manner possible. A major element of that harmony is seamless yet e�ective di�er-entiation between government and public spaces using the above-noted levels of transparency, but also e�ective function-ing of the given program.

1.

INTENT / QUALIFIERS

For my Capstone II project, I intend to examine the necessary design RECONCILIATIONS regarding a new city hall where the site is a dimensionally restricted and repurposed late 19th or early 20th century building that is located in an small urban municipality. Such a design project calls for numerous considerations and reconciliations, some of which are implicit within the project. (See Dia. 1). In this instance, I limit the focus to the following qualifiers:

1) Typology; 2) Hierarchy (generally in terms of usage, but also visual/locational); 3) Decentralization - as a subset of hierarchy; 4) Liminal spaces/transparency - the affects thereupon; 5) Circulation leading to/from/through the building; 6) Articulation of spaces relative to exterior.

“Typology” commonly refers to exterior architectural signifiers that we easily recognize such as “Bank,” “Office,” “Hospital,” “House,” etc. In this case, I include “typology”generally as a banner for the sub-qualifiers and only because there exists the implicit question of installing a typological “city hall” into a space where one would not expect to find one. Peter Eisenmann in Blurred Zones states that we desire such external signifiers for the means of maintaining a comfortable status quo, so that our built environment is readily understandable. However, it is now common in architecture to “shatter typology.” Mr. Eisenmann refers to this practice as “blurring.” A prime example would be the build-ings by Zaha Hadid and her ilk. The distinction is that in the case of Hadid et al shattering is the goal, not the necessity - a mere expression of design intent. The condition of this project is one of necessity - the fiction being that the municipality has outgrown its existing city hall and wishes to expand such offices into a prominent, centralized, yet spatially problematic building.

The candidate shell buildings is very old and recognizable “type”- a commercial building that has so functioned for 126 years! At first blush, it seems that selecting a recognizable “type”of building is counter to the intent of the project. However, the type of building that I would specify (ie. design/build) for this project does not exist in America in the location and scale necessary for the project. Secondly, to specify such a building is tantamount to proposing a pre-existing solution without with-out having to show the “proof.” Also, because this is strictly an interiors project, there is an inherent juxtaposition between the reconfigured interior and the pre-existing “typological” exterior that could add a compelling dynamic to the overall nature of the project.

With the above in mind, the fundamental, meta-argument is that (1) shattering of typology can also occur with interiors and that (2) with any shattering of typology there is an affect on the design, and thus the function, of the given typology. In this case, it happens to be a city hall. When shattering of the City Hall interior typology occurs within a dimensionally restricted condition, I argue that (3) the spatial relationships within and between hierarchy, centralization, liminal spaces, circulation, and/or articulation of space are individually either compressed, expanded, or can become one-and-the-same. In other words, how a building is recognized internally, how it is expected to “work,” and how spaces and function relate. The ultimate design goal, as a question separate from the above, is to prove that shattering under the given condition can be achieved harmonious-ly and functionally and secondly to understand the spatial relationships as defined by the qualifiers under such a condition.

2.

Qualifiers: In Re. Austin City Hall et al.

HIERARCHY

According to Clark & Pause, “hierarchy is the rank of elements relative to the range of an attribute, such that impor-tance or value is ascribed according to the presence or absence of the attribute.” Clark, 2005, Precedents in Architecture. How-ever, although there is always a visual hierarchy, I suggest that in buildings of the type discussed, hierarchy by necessity is more about function than purely the visual organization of elements.

As noted, the AUSTIN CITY HALL is of an atypical exterior typology - it looks nothing like a traditional city hall, nor was it intended to. The interior typology is equally unusual. [Note that according to the City website, the majority of operations occur on floors one and three - floor two are clerks’ offices. The fourth floor contains the judicial/law offices]. The City of Austin claims on its website that it is committed to open government. In fact, the sites states, “The geometry of the building is a result of the design team wanting to create a more informal feeling, to reflect Austin’s open approach to its government. The concept of government transparency is apparent to passers-by inside the building with glass walls fronting all of the meeting rooms and the Council Chambers.”

In keeping with this concept, there is no specific hierarchy from an aesthetic/design perspective. The Mayor’s Office is located on the first floor with thus providing apparent access to all citizens. Not coincidentally, the public forum is also located on or near the first floor. However, these is very little evidence of a grid-like plan anywhere in the building nor very many 90 degree angles. The interior floor plan seems to match closely the amorphic/geologic nature of the exterior. It appears that the only concession to a specific, inferred hierarchy is that judicial/law-related offices are located at the top of the building, but I suspect that is for security purposes only. It does not appear that higher elevation within the building is any indication of intended importance. In fact, there is an implicit egalitarian gesture in locating the executive offices and public fora on the ground floor or close to the ground floor. Perhaps in this building, hierarchy, if any, is indeed functional and gestural, not a representation of governmental upper stratification. (See below & Diagrams 1&2).

DECENTRALIZATION While the Austin City Hall appears to not be on a very dimensionally restricted site [though the designdecisions made could be applied to such a location], there is a distinct lack of centralization. In fact, Fig. 4 shows that the only room that anchors the building, or could be termed as “centralizing,” is the theater-shaped forum. But, the only consistent centralizing element is the tremendous three-story high public atrium, which feels similar to a small canyon made of the copper and limestone quarried for the building. (Images 11 - 13). It seems clear from the floor plans that conventional centralization and hierarchy was never a design intent.

Such lack of centralization is in keeping with the intent of the City of Austin to create a more informal feeling.A strong centralized floor plan of a more Classical or Palladio style would definitely convey a much stronger sense of formality. In this case, the lack of centralization reflects strongly the naturalistic feel of the building’s geometry and materials. Also, a lack of centralization conveys perhaps a secondary sense of ease and figurative transparency not present in rigid floor plans. Also illus-trative of this qualifier is “House ”O”.” (See Case Study 1).

3.

LIMINAL SPACES A liminal space is one that exists between or outside other primary spaces - either intended or unintended. If unintend-ed, such spaces are commonly perceived liminally in a psychological sense. In some instances, by shattering typology and shift-ing and/or eliminating perceived hierarchies, liminal spaces/thresholds often merge or overlap with primary spaces. In the Austin City Hall, being a large building there are lots of conventional liminal spaces such as doorways, passageways, and alcoves. Perhaps the largest liminal space is the atrium. But, one could also argue that the overhanging, windowed corners and balconeys are also liminal spaces due them being peripheral or dead-ends to primary spaces. The suspended walkways above the atrium floor are also a type of liminal space because they connect and are between either side of the building (and perhaps due to their suspension).

CIRCULATION

Circulation could be described as a subset or a relation to liminal spaces because circulation by its nature is between spaces. The circulation in the Austin City Hall is punctuated by the exterior approach on the south side. (Fig. 10). There is a considerable perforated awning that establishes the first major liminal space. The viewer passes through the doors and proceeds to the grand, canyon-like atrium with limestone walls and copper roof. From the atrium, the viewer is presented with a number of doorways on either side as well as the overhead walkways. Such circulation is similar to being on a trail - less like being in a traditional, typological “city hall.” (Fig. 11). There is a sense of both horizontality as well as verticality inside the atrium. That sense is most likely continued throughout the building due to the many visible elevation changes on the interior and exterior. Again, this form of circulation is very unlike a more typical city hall.

ARTICULATION

Once standard typology is broken, the designer is free to manipulate the design to achieve specific goals - goals beyond adherence to a form. As Lewis Tsumuraki Lewis suggested, “One means to come to terms with constraints is to selectively apply principles of efficiency in order to discover relationships through which the project can be pursued in unexpected, yet seeming-ly inevitable ways.” The architects of the Austin City Hall pursued the solution in unexpected ways. In elevation, the building appears to be three/four tectonic plates that have shifted on top of each other this creating the canyon-like atrium and the numerous overhangs and balconeys. The slope of the exterior walls and surfaces and inclusion of an amphitheater on the south side further suggests the idea of geology and articulates very specific uses that would not be possible in a more traditional “city hall” typology. The architects clearly had a free hand under the directive from the City of Austin to create open and active spaces that reflect and interact with the specific site in very articulated manner, not as a typology.

SUMMATION

The Austin City Hall is not a dimensionally constricted site. However, the considerations made by Antoine Predock Architects can be interpolated into a site or building that is very constricted. One could apply 1) Lewis Tsumuraki Lewis’s princi-ple of “opportunistic architecture,” 2) the ideas set forth by Peter Eisenmann regarding blurring of typology, and 3) the design elements and program of the Austin City Hall, all in conjunction with 4) the qualifiers into a much tighter and more challenging site in any urban or sensitive environment. The ideas of a non-hierarchical and decentralized interiors with intentional liminal spaces and corresponding circulation as well as specifically site-articulated spaces are certainly not uncommon. The challenge is how to harmoniously reconcile two issues: 1) transforming the typology of “City Hall” to a “shattered” or “blurred” form of that program, and then 2) adapting that shattered form into other locations to be determined.

4.

READINGS & WRITINGS:

The Roman/Palladian ideal had descended to us through the centuries and became the model throughout the west-ern world for hundreds of thousands of homes as well as a majority of public buildings such as the early 20th century Federalist style court-house to the right. There are numerous examples in Seattle alone. Many town/city halls have adopted the same form. (Fig. 1)

It is axiomatic that a “relationship” is comprised of two or more juxtaposed parts such as noted in the Qualifiers. Obvi-ously, a relationship can exist between inanimate objects (architecture), animate objects (people), or an inanimate and an animate object (a person viewing and architecture). The juxtaposition of any relationship is most commonly described by the use of prepositions: between, over, under, beside, adjacent, etc. Such prepositions do not inherently connote a superior/inferi-or relationship, but humans infer and express superior/inferior using prepositions.

For instance, “over” or “above” is usually considered better than “under” or “below.” The prepositions “between” and “beside” are generally perceived as neutral descriptors. In architecture, the “soaring” spire above the roof of a cathedral is usually viewed with greater admiration than a foundation stone. But as a counter-point, in Japanese homes, the most import-ant part of a traditional Japanese home is the “genkan”, the threshold located immediately after the primary entrance where one removes shoes and otherwise purifies oneself, but it is otherwise perhaps a dimensionally humbly located space. These two examples raise the question as to whether it is the human activity that determines hierarchy, or whether is it merely the dimensional location of the architectural feature. Or, does the activity eventually dictate the importance of the architectural feature such that over time the activity and feature are equally weighted as in the case of an alter in a religious building? How is this analysis applied to the vehicle of City Hall?

According to Lebovich, “American city halls have their antecedents in 12th century Europe, where the feudal order was collapsing and control of the town was passing from the royalty and the church to urban inhabitants. To exercise these new responsibilities, citizens needed a place to assemble, discuss and promulgate rules; thus the town hall emerged as a distinct building type.” Lebovich, 1984, p. 14. The crucial aspect of Lebovich’s discussion is that city halls are still regarded as having tremendous symbolic value and suggests that function is no longer the singular focus, but also the form, which has changed much in recent years.

The Roman/Palladian ideal had descended to us through the centuries and became themodel throughout the western world for hundreds of thousands of homes as well as a majority of public buildings such as the early 20th century Federalist style court-house to the right. There are numerous examples in Seattle alone. (Fig. 1) Given the significance of the city hall in the development of the mostly egalitarian Western democracy, there is signfi-cant programatic and symbolic elements to the city hall. Foremost, the city hall was a location where citizens could gather to exchange information, and, as Lebovich points out, promulgate rules. There was also a commercial and cultural aspect to the city hall that we still see today. The program of any given city hall will vary widely from one municipality to the next. The most interesting are those with a broad spectrum of functions and where the spatial relationships break with the typological form.

(Fig. 1)

5.

The commonly held presumption is the city hall is the seat of the executive, the mayor’s authority. Under the mayor is a large range of other executives such as department heads and other adminstrative personnel - they all need offices. Also, there is usually a legislative branch such as a “city council,” or “aldermen” in some locations, who debate the formation of laws and codes and then enact them. And, the third estate of government, the judiciary is often located in a city hall provided a small jurisdication. The symbology of a building that houses the three primary branches of government is not insignificant.

Perhaps it is a modern phenomenae, but it seems that the power of “city hall” has become one that is self-perpetuating and defensive of its power. Regardless, city halls still serve as public fora - one may attend council meetings, lobby representa-tives, complain to the mayor’s office, ajudicate a legal issue, register one’s pet. City halls also commonly provide fora for citizens to converse with each other through lecture halls and art galleries such as in the Seattle City Hall and the first case study, the Austin (TX) City Hall. Indeed, it was a goal of the City of Austin to provide for its citizens a truly public building that reflected in its architecture not only the unique culture of Austin, but also its interactive form of government. “City Hall” is a “type” in both function and form. Regarding typology and casting it in a positive light , Schneekloth & Franck state the following in Ordering Space:

“The ordering of space into different kinds of spaces is a form of typing that is an intrinsic and constituent part of life in any society and historic period. Place types, like other categories, structure knowledge. Without place types of some kind we could not know or act; we would have no way of recognizing similarities or patters of differences, or of creating such patterns. We would have no way of structuring space or practices in space.” Franck, 1994, p. 15

In the same compendium on “type,” Thomas Markus provides more specificity:

“What are the distinct elements of our experience with buildings which, despite their apparent coherence in speci�c cases, have independence? . . . the three most significant are [FORM] or what thing look like (and to a lesser extent, what they feel, smell, and sound like): what people do in the building and its individual spaces, or what it is for [FUNCTION]; and how we sense where we are, next to whom or what, in relation to other spaces, inside and outside the building . . .” Frank, 1994, p. 151.

SUMMATION

The goal is to combine the above-stated qualifiers in conjunction with the program (discussed below) into the Marks Building. The Marks Building is in a very dimensionally constricted, pre-existing site. However, the considerations made by the Antoine Predock Architects can be interpolated into such a site or building. Indeed, one could apply 1) Lewis Tsumuraki Lewis’s principle of “opportunistic architecture,” 2) the ideas set forth by Peter Eisenmann regarding blurring of typology, and 3) the design elements and program of the Austin City Hall, all in conjunction with 4) the above-stated qualifiers into a much tighter and more challenging site in any urban or sensitive environment. The ideas of a non-hierarchical and decentralized interiors with intentional liminal spaces and corresponding circulation as well as specifically site-articulated spaces are certainly not uncommon. The challenge is how to harmoniously reconcile two issues: 1) transforming the typology of “City Hall” to a “shat-tered” or “blurred” form of that program, and then 2) adapting that shattered form into the Marks Building.

6.

INTENT::: DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENTS & SCARCITY OF SPACE DEMAND THAT DESIGNERS EXPLOIT REMAINING/EXISTING SPACES. BUT, THE DESIGNER MUST THEN RECONCILE A GIVEN TYPOLOGY/USE WITH RESTRICTED SPACES. RECONCILING TYPOLOGY CAN HAVE THE AFFECT OF >>>>>

Exterior architectural signifiers that we recognize as “City Hall,” “Bank,” “Hospital.” They maintain a visual language so that our built environment is readily understandable. HOWEVER it is now common in architecture to “shatter” TYPOLOGY both INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY.

Hierarchy in FUNCTION is determined by a subjective matrixof factors. Contributing factors are: site, purpose, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in). HIERARCHICAL adherence to TYPOLOGY for the sake of TYPOLOGY is not a factor. It WILL SHIFT AND/OR DIMISH.

A subset of HIERARCHY. In a condition of DECENTRALIZATION,the inhabited volumes are arranged in a manner without regard to any prime location such as a dome or grand axial hallways.

A LIMINAL SPACE is one that exists between/outside primary spaces. Such spaces are commonly perceived (sub)liminally. In some instances, by SHATTERING TYPOLOGY and SHIFTING and/or DIMINISHING HIERARCHIES, liminal spaces/thresholdsoften merge or overlap with primary spaces.

CIRCULATION is a subset or a relation to LIMINAL SPACES because circulation by its nature exists between spaces and only as a negative space. So, as buildings deviate from traditional forms, circulation transforms to oblique/diagonal pathways created by such forms.

ARTICULATION is manipulation of the interior/exterior RELATIONSHIP for the same purposes of HIERARCHY: function, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in), etc. Once standard typology is broken, the designer is free to manipulate the design to achieve specific goals - goals beyond adherence to a form. discover relationships through which the

DIAGRAM 1: QUALIFIER CHART

project can be pursued in unexpected, yet seemingly inevitable ways.”

SHATTERINGTYPOLOGY:

SHIFTING/DIMINISHINGOF HIERARCHY:

DECENTRALIZATION OF SPACE:

EXPANSION/COMPRESSION OF LIMINAL SPACE:

CIRCULATION:

ARTICULATION OF INTERIOR SPACES / EXTERIOR SPACES:

7.

Exterior architectural signifiers that we recognize as “City Hall,” “Bank,” “Hospital.” They maintain a visual language so that our built environment is readily understandable. HOWEVER it is now common in architecture to “shatter” TYPOLOGY both INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY.

Hierarchy in FUNCTION is determined by a subjective matrixof factors. Contributing factors are: site, purpose, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in). HIERARCHICAL adherence to TYPOLOGY for the sake of TYPOLOGY is not a factor. It WILL SHIFT AND/OR DIMISH.

A subset of HIERARCHY. In a condition of DECENTRALIZATION,the inhabited volumes are arranged in a manner without regard to any prime location such as a dome or grand axial hallways.

A LIMINAL SPACE is one that exists between/outside primary spaces. Such spaces are commonly perceived (sub)liminally. In some instances, by SHATTERING TYPOLOGY and SHIFTING and/or DIMINISHING HIERARCHIES, liminal spaces/thresholdsoften merge or overlap with primary spaces.

CIRCULATION is a subset or a relation to LIMINAL SPACES because circulation by its nature exists between spaces and only as a negative space. So, as buildings deviate from traditional forms, circulation transforms to oblique/diagonal pathways created by such forms.

ARTICULATION is manipulation of the interior/exterior RELATIONSHIP for the same purposes of HIERARCHY: function, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in), etc. Once standard typology is broken, the designer is free to manipulate the design to achieve specific goals - goals beyond adherence to a form. discover relationships through which the project can be pursued in unexpected, yet seemingly inevitable ways.”

DIAGRAM 2: QUALIFIER MODELSHIERARCHY:

Hierarchy is broken in this diagram. Not only are the three elements seperated from each other on diagonals, but they largest space (orange) is located in a space that does not suggest a traditional hierarchical location or usage (though it might have the best view). The two other spaces are located in a manner that suggests usage is more important that location.

(DE)CENTRALIZED:

The three spaces are configured in a manner without regard to a central-ized elements such as a dome or central corridor. In this diagram, there is only the curved vertical element that suggests any particular organiza-tion, but also serves as a seperating and perhaps a more decentralizing element.

LIMINAL SPACES:

The following spaces represent large, medium, and small liminal spaces. In (a), the blue and orange raised elements suggest “porticos” or other large architectural elements one passes through/under. (b) represents a more intimate foyers/vestibules where one might linger with another. They are connected by an implied liminal space/corridor. (c) is a corrridor that passes between rooms without much notice even though it is still a liminal space. All are compressed/ex-panded due to “reconciling” the space.

a) b) c)

CIRCULATION:

Circulation is an element of liminal spaces - e.g. a hallway can be liminal is it is by its nature between to other spaces. But, unlike a traditional typologic design, the circulation illustrated is not centrailzed or hierarchical. Note also how the circulation melds with liminal space (Diagram (b)). Such circulation design conforms to the genearl principle that any hierarchy is designed with usage in mind, not a visual hierarchy.

ARTICULATION:

Articulation is both a result and a goal of having to Reconcile a typology to a dimensionally restricted space. The goal is such architecture and interior design is to relate directly the interior to the world beyond the exterior walls regardless of the form of the architeture. Case Study 1, “House 0,” is an excellent example of this principle. Secondly, articulation is often the result of having to design within very restricted space where the design must conform not only to the restrictive elements, but also elements beyond.

a) b)

8.

9.

CASE STUDY 1 > qualifiers

2. Plan & Site 3. Articulated & Non- hierarchical plan

4. Restricted Site 5. Ambiguous Liminal Space

6. Articulated Space

The architect of “House O,” Sou Fujimoto, persuaded the owners to give up on their desire for a Miesian structure, the Miesian form perhaps now a typology per se. His rationale was that given the very limited and sensitive space on the craggy outcropping of rock, the structure should reflect the space. The structure is divided into eight segments that are located in sepa-rate locations . . . “each branch fulfilling a different function. The kitchen units are hidden behind a counter at oone end of the house’s “spine”, which then spans across the dining and living rooms, zigzagging across the glass wall panels, which are joined seamlessly to obtain the full visual effect of the ocen just a few meters away. . . The snakey conture of the spine terminates in the master bedroom.” Pollock, 2010, p. 202.)

The “House O” is an excellent example, like much of contemporaneous Japanese archtecture, of reconciling typogra-phy/hierarchy to a dimensionally restricted and sensitive site. Generally, the choice of unadorned concrete without any appendages such as awnings or cantilevers seems most appropriate. In America, this site probably would have been inhabited by a New England “salt-box” or a Northwest ceder cabin. While those structure are certainly not inherently unpleasant, they would have certainly dominated the space, while House O seems to meld into the space.

The second striking element of House O is the amorphic and decentralized floor plan - not unlike a molecule diagram or piece of coral (Diagram 3a - following page). While the owner’s original desire for a Miesian plan would have placed a box (though undoubtedly a very nice one) on the beautiful section of coastline near Tokyo, Fujimoto chose instead to articulate the plan for various fucntions while still providing the occupant of the given space a view of the ocean - the primary purpose of the house. (Note images 2,3 & 5). Even though the author of New Architecture in Japan refers to liminal spaces.

However, these liminal spaces appear to meld or fold into the primary spaces making it unclear as to where the primary space begins and the liminal space ends. Note in Image 5 how the bed, in what appears to be a bedroom, could actually be located at the end of a hallway/liminal space. This is also true of the desk located against a poured concrete wall and adjacent to a picture window. While the placement of this wall and desk is certainly not random, it does appear to be decentralized and perhaps even liminal. This space could also generally be described as “folded”- the space is articulated to provide spatial intrica-cy of a mathermicatical or fractal nature even though such shapes are often times mechanically created via actual folding of models.

The O House is a superb example of reconciling a desired typology (Miesian?) to a very limited and restrictve site (form), while still achieving harmony within the spaces and the desired purpose of the building (function). Indeed, it is the precise artic-ulation of the indivisual spaces to the site, but to the other spaces, too, that makes the House O so compelling.

A LIMINAL SPACE is one that exists between/outside primary spaces. Such spaces are commonly perceived (sub)liminally. In some instances, by SHATTERING TYPOLOGY and SHIFTING and/or DIMINISHING HIERARCHIES, liminal space/thresh-olds often merge or overlap with primary spaces. ARTICULATION is manipulation of the interior/exteri-or RELATIONSHIP for the same purposes of HIERAR-CHY: function, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in), etc. Once standard typolo-gy is broken, the designer is free to manipulate the design to achieve specific goals - goals beyond adherence to a form.

a) (Non)Hierarchical & (De)Centralized Spaces

b) Potential Vertical Section: (Non)Hierarchical & (De)Centralized Spaces

Qualifiers > Diagram 3

Hierarchy in FUNCTION is determined by a subjec-tive matrix of factors. Contributing factors are: site, purpose, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in). HIERARCHICAL adher-ence to TYPOLOGY for the sake of TYPOLOGY is not a factor. It WILL SHIFT AND/OR DIMISH. A subset of HIERARCHY. In a condition of DECENTRALIZATION, the inhabited volumes are arranged in a manner without regard to any prime location such as a dome or grand axial hallways.

c) Liminal / Articulated Spaces: View to the Ocean

10.

11.

7. FRONT ENTRY: (non) Typology :: Hierarchy

8. PUBLIC ATRIUM: Circulation - Articulation

9. PLAN & LONGITUDINAL SECTION: (non) Typology - Circulation - Liminal - Articulation

CASE STUDY 2 > vehicle

The Venetian Law Courts building is particularly interesting because courthouses are commonly very hierarchical in both spatial organization and activity. But, in this case the building had to fit within a very historic, SITE-SENSITIVE location, which is proportionately very narrow. So what distinguishes this courthouse from any other? What reconciliation’s had to be made? Apart from the linear nature of the building, perhaps not a great deal as to actual function, but quite a lot as to SCALE. Presuming that Italian courtrooms are like those of America, they are generally square. However, given the narrow and linear floor plan of the building, a square courtroom in the LVC could not be very large. The King County Court House (very similar in plan to that of Image 1.) in downtown Seattle is, by comparison, a massive stone cube of about 7 stories high. It is organized and CIRCULATES generally on an a central “cross” axis, which enables very large square courtrooms and many smaller subdivid-ed hearing rooms and judges’ chambers. Adminstrative offices are tucked between the larger judicial spaces. The King County Court House also provides ample room for juries and other similar uses, which the LVC would have some difficulty providing.

The general vertical organization is HIERARCHICAL only in the sense that there is one floor on top of another. However, this is a reconciliation per se in that the building could only expand in the vertical dimension. The LCV is CENTRALIZED around the atrium, butagain, this is a reconciliation regarding public space versus courtrooms - if the atrium had not been designed as it was, the space would feel like a rabbit warren. The entire central atrium, very similar in nature to that of the Austin City Hall, is the only obvious LIMINAL space. And, the exposed stairways break up the stark veticality of the liminal space and provide a sense of CIRCULATION, which gives it a slightly warmer and more human feel. The LVC is clearly not a TYPOLOGICAL courthouse, whether in America or Italy. Even though it does not shatter every qualifier in every way, it is clearly a RECONCILIATION to the senstive and restricted site, which reflects on the interior in its very dramatic manner.

While the proposed Snohomish Town Hall does not feature the extreme dimensions of the LVC, the priciples found within the LVC could be applied: very narrow quarters requires some verticality and perhaps a strict division between Public an Government space with the more dramatic space reserved for the public.

12.

Vehicle > Diagram 4

Vertical Public Circulation Horizontal Public Circulation

Public/Liminal Space

Government Space

Public vs. Government Space:Open vs. Closed

Public Liminal Space from Exterior Entryto Interior Great Hall in a Dimensionally Restricted Site

13.

10. FRONT PLAZA w/AMPHITHEATER

11. PUBLIC ATRIUM 12. FIRST FLOOR PLAN

Austin City HallAntoine Predock architects; 118,000 s.f.; 1999-2004

CASE STUDY 3 > vehicle

The Austin City Hall was sited within the trendy re-purposed Warehouse District of Austin, adjacent to the Lady Bird Lake. As such, according to the designer, Antoine Predock Architect, the program for the building was designed not as a “suit-and-tie,” but rather as a reflection on of the warm informality that characterizes Austin.” The large limestone blocks and copper that comprise the majority of the exterior appear to rise out of the hard desert of Texas - much like Taliesin West appears to be part of the landscape of Arizona.

The PROGRAM includes executive offices such as the Mayor, City Council, and Council Chambers, and judicial offices, but also includes a public forum where the for Government/Public use, a “people’s gallery,” an amphitheater, cafe, and a store. The City of Austin claims on its website that it is committed to open government The city states that “The geometry of the building is a result of the design team wanting to create a more informal feeling, to reflect Austin’s open and transparent approach to government. The concept of governmental transparency is apparent to passers-by inside the building with glass walls fronting all of the meeting rooms and the Council Chambers.” In keeping with this concept, there is NOT specific HIERARCHY from anaesthicc/design perspective. The Mayor’s Office is located on the first floor with thus providing apparent access to all citizens.

Not coincidentally, the public forum is also located on or near the first floor. However, there is very little evidence of a grid-like plan anywhere in the building nor very many 90 degree angles. And, as CIRCULATION is defined by the walls that surround them, circulation is equally off-grid. Thus, LIMINAL spaces are also unconventionally oriented relative to circulation. Indeed, the interior floor plan seems to match closely the amorphic/geologic nature of the exterior. It appears that the only concession to a specific, inferred HIERARCHY is that judicial/law-related offices are located at the top of the building for security purposes only. It does not appear that a higher elevation within the building is any indication of intended importance. In fact, there is an implicit EGALITARIAN gesture in locating the executive offices and public fora on the ground floor or close to the ground floor. Perhaps in this building, visual/locational hierarchy, if any, is purely functional.

Like the Austin City Hall, the Snohomish Town Hall will include the Public/Government mix through thelenses of the stated qualifiers. While the Marks Building is rectilinear, it is still given to a high degree of shattering, especially in the interior.

a) SHIFTING/DIMINISHINGOF HIERARCHY

b) DECENTRALIZATION OF SPACE

c) EXPANSION/COMPRESSION OF LIMINAL SPACE

d) ASYMMETRIC CIRCULATION e) ARTICULATION OF INTERIOR SPACES / EXTERIOR SPACES:

The diagrams below illustrate the qualifiers as applied to the Austin City Hall. As Antoine Predock intended for the City Hall to reference the local geology, there is a sense of arbitrariness in the design massing of the major forms (See diagram (a)), which influences the remaining design elements/qualifiers. The centralization, liminal space, circulation, and articulation of interi-or-to-exterior space forms this general form, which results in the very non-typolographical nature of the building. While the MARKS BUILDING is limited to an interior interenvtion, such intervention could still follow this precedent.

Vehicle > Diagram 5

14.

15.

CASE STUDY 4 > site

Image 1. Staircase leading from 5th Ave to 4th Ave. Note the “river” on the lower right. This urban river starts on the other side of 5th Ave. at SPD and will continue to the Civic Square.

Image 2. Continuation of the grand stairs leading from 5th Ave. to 4thAve. eventually to 3rd Ave. at the Civic Square.

Seattle City Hall was designed primarily by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson with Bassetti Architects. The significant landscaping architecture was completed by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol. Construction was completed in 2008 to replace the aging Seattle Municipal Building (completed 1962). The new building, 200,000 square feet, though somewhat controversial at the time, appears to have been intended as a statement that Seattle, as a burgeoning “world-city” is leaving behind its lumber/aero-space/backwater past. The City Hall is part of a larger and on-going urban renewal scheme to consolidate government services and agencies into a single area. (Fig. 1 - three pages forward). Surrounding the City Hall are the SPD, Municipal Building, Munici-pal Courts, County Courts, the to-be-complete Civic Square, and other government-related buildings. The City Hall is the jewel in the crown of the conglomeration.

The population of Seattle surged in the 1990s due in part to the Dot-Com boom (1990: 516,259 > 2012: 634,535) and because Seattle was fairly inexpensive relative to quality of life. As such, Seattle began to lose its dowdy pragmatic nature. Downtown Seattle now has a thriving environment - there are 200,000 daily commuters to downtown Seattle.

GENERALITIES

The plan for the City Hall and surrounding buildings and infrastructure appears to bear some resemblance to older European forms where the city hall (or palace/cathedral in earlier epochs) was the center of town from where everything else radiated. Because downtown Seattle had already been established on a grid pattern of streets, it was not possible to create a grand plaza of buildings similar to the city hall campus of Pasadena, CA. However, there is still connection between the buildings in terms or usage and infrastructure. The most apparent is the connection between the Seattle Police Department Building, City Hall, and the Civic Square. The buildings are set between James and Cherry, which run East/West, and 6th and 2nd avenues, which run North/South. The architecture of SPD and City Hall are similar and are clearly related. The obvious state-ment between the three structures is the urban river that flows from the small courtyard in front of SPD through City Hall to the Civic Square. (Such river might only be symbolic, not actual, but the point is clear - connection between governmental agen-cies). (Dia. 6; Figs 1, 7 & 8). The elevation change between SPD and Civic Square is about 50 feet in three city blocks - visually dramatic. (Dia. 6: Figs 4 & 6).

16.

PROGRAM - PUBLIC CONGREGATION

The program of the building has a direct relationship with the site. The City Hall is presented as a public space via the the grand foyer, fora, and stairs. (Image 1). To the south of the foyer is the public forum and the stairs that lead up to the admin-istrative areas. The large glass windows not only provide light for the foyer and stairs, but also a view to the soon-to-be complet-ed Civic Square. However, the City Hall also contains space for the Mayor’s office, City Council, City Attorney, administration, and other resources. Like the Austin City Hall, the building contains the executive, legislative, judicial (some) branches as well as public fora, but are are largely removed from public view. In fact, there are many other offices within the City Hall neighbor-hood such as the Municipal Tower. But, what remains for the visitor of the City Hall are the ample public spaces - the foyer and the fora/external plazas. (Image 2).

QUALIFIERS

The qualifiers for the preceding cases studies do not apply directly to the site analysis, but one can form parallels. In some ways the site and plaza fit the TYPOLOGY that we are familiar with - a gathering place for citizens to meet and exchange ideas. Indeed, these spaces are what Constitutional scholars would refer to as Public Forum - a place where anyone can speak their mind given certain limitations. Like the Austin City Hall, this is an outward focus of the Seattle City Hall. And, perhaps there was intent to suggest to “transparency in government?”

However, although the spaces are easily recognizable as Public Forum, the typology ends there. The City Hall was built on a relatively steep grade such that one experiences the site as a slope that must be accommodated. The public fora are essen-tially terraces - some of them outside, some of them inside - which are connected by the grand stairs set adjacent to the urban river. There is a breaking of typology in setting fora on terraces - this likely would not have happened in the time of Palladio or even as recent as the Modernist period in architecture.

The question of HIERARCHY is closely related to typology. In the case of the Seattle City Hall, there is an implied hierar-chy due to the differing elevations of the fora. (Figs 3,4 & 6). We assume that the higher location is the one that is preeminent. Is this necessarily so? It appears that even though the forum set insidethe foyer is perhaps the largest, the intermediary meeting space (halfway point on the stairs between 4th Ave and the West entrance of City Hall - Image 2.) is the most visually significant. However, as discussed previously, there is a profound difference between design-hierarchy and functional-hierarchy. If hierarchy is based on useage, then perhaps the large interior forum is the primary space. Reasonable minds could differ. [Curiously, there are no plans of the Seattle City Hall available on-line]. Unlike in an enclosed environment, hierarchy seems to be a more subjective question when its inside/outside.

The public spaces of the site are DECENTRALIZED. The external fora are terraces that are connected by stairs and the urban river. One could argue that the upper forum is the small plaza in front of the SPD building (Figure 8a). The circulation leads across the street to inside the City Hall where two more fora are encountered (one in its own space, and another set on stairs (like an amphitheater) that lead up to the City Council offices. The circulation then proceeds out the west foyer doors down the stairs to the three intermediate plazas - one large for public gatherings and two smaller plazas for more personal events. There is also a lower plaza for other public events. One then crosses the street to the incomplete Civic Square. Except as argued above, there is not clear hierarchy as to fora. This is due to the linear nature of the circulation that connects the fora as well as the change in elevation between the SPD building and the Civic Square. The fora are decentralized terraces connect-ed by circulation.

17.

The site has considerable LIMINAL SPACES. In preceding papers, liminal spaces have been defined as those that are between other primary spaces or between the space of one use and the space of another use. (See Figures 3-6 for this and the following two paragraphs). On the East side of City Hall, there is a long overhang that covers nearly all of the sidewalk of the public foyer. This overhang conceals the ground floor of the East side such that the new visitor cannot determine clearly what is behind the glass doors. It is not until one enters that the full volume of the foyer is apparent. The South side is comprised prominently of a sidewalk and the wall that is punctuated only by the entrance to the parking garage until halfway down at which point the visitor encounters the lower terraces/plazas. The entry to these terraces are a liminal space per se, but fairly discreet compared to the grand stairway.

The South side is probably the most articulated area. Located there are the numerous terraces and stairs. Strictly inter-preted, a large terrace/plaza is probably a liminal space per se, but generally the smaller the space the more “liminal” it will feel to be. On the South side there are not only the two large gathering areas, but also much smaller areas where City workers or visitors might spend time over lunch on a sunny day. Once once approaches the building proper on the West side, there are large cantilevered roof elements as well as a substantial portico that serves as the West entrance to the lower, internal stair-way that leads to the 5th Avenue foyer.

To the left of the West side is another set of doorways that lead to the “Red Room”- a public forum which exterior walls are translucent red. Next to the Red Room are lower entrance doors for workers. And, on the corner is a small cafe. The West side - the side exposed most openly to the sky and the Civic Square - is clearly the locus of activity and liminality. The North side of the City Hall is not much more than a blank wall except for the Northwest corner. For the City Hall, liminality is used primarily for horizontal spaces and limitedly for vertical spaces such as entry ways. This suggests that perhaps the City Hall is about hori-zontality even though the building is set on a relatively steep incline. Perhaps this was a conscious decision by the designers to de-emphasize a potentially overbearing sense of verticality?

CIRCULATION has been impliedly discussed above in the context of liminal spaces. In the case of the site, cicrculation is a simple matter. The City Hall occupies an entire city block without much set back, if any, on the North, East, and South sides - its all sidewalk. The West side has setback in the form of the lower plaza and the stairway that leads up to the West entrance.

The circulation within the site is primarily the grand stairway that leads up and into the City Hall then, at least symboli-cally, to the SPD Building across the street. However, the circulation offers many small branches that lead to the various terraces/plazas that are located on the slope of the West side. One could argue that the amorphic and curvy nature of the exte-rior path, stairs, and terraces is to off-set the strict rectilinear nature of the building - if so, I believe that the designers succeed-ed. The circulation does have a simple meandering quality that belies the rather formal nature of the City Hall. The West side/slope certainly has a naturalistic feel about it - the appearance of outcroppings of rock and foliage. (Image 2).

ARTICULATION is largely an architectural/interior design element in the context discussed in previous case studies. Articulation is the intentional placement of architectural elements for the goal of either expressing a specific idea within the architecture or for exploiting a spatial/view relationship with an exterior element. Articulation often has the function of shattering of typolgies. The affect of articulation has been subsumed in the discussions above. Architecturally, the Seattle City Hall is essentially a small office tower, except for its public spaces, which (though cubic and planar in nature) planes/mem-branes of materials are articulated to capture a grand view from the 5th avenue foyer and other locations. Additionally, the circulation and liminal spaces function together to create articulation of the site’s terraces/plazas relative to the building, the landscape architecture per se, and for spaces/buildings beyond the boundaries of the City Hall.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Site > Diagram 6

18.

19.

Figure 7.

a.

b.

c.

Figure 3. West Side

Figure 4. North Side

Figure 5. East Side

Figure 6. South Side

Site > Diagram 6, con’d

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Diagram 7

Washington State Capitol

Austin (TX) City Hall

Proposed SnohomishTown Hall

I propose to study the notion of RECONCILIATION in the context of adapting the Typology/Usage of “City Hall” to a dimensionally restricted site using the above-noted examples. (See diagram 7 below). The lenses through which I will examine this inquiry will be the qualifiers set out above. This inquiry emerged as a by-product of my general thinking about spatial relationships in architecture, how humans travel through them and thus perceive them as we so travel. As sentient beings, we are always in the process of reconcilation - we adjust our expectation/presumption to a given reality until we accept the reality, at least as perceived. Generally, we are pleased when our expectation matches the reality, and may/may not be pleased when our expectation does not match the reality. This premise extends to architecture: upon experiencing a new building, we must adjust our expectations to the realities of the given structure or interior. In an architectural sense, our expectations can be thought of as “typology” - type/usages that are signified by the look and feel of the exterior (or interior) of the building. When the typology is intentionally changed or eradicated, the expectation of the person experiencing the building might not match the changed reality. While an unmet architectural expectation is certainly not a catastrophic event (more of an expectation per se!), we must still so reconcile.

With the above premise in mind, what would happen to a given typology, and thus our expectations, if the City Hall typology/usage where inserted, due to necessity, into a very dense, urban and dimensionally restricted environment? Could a designer somehow maintain a recognizable form/use or an expected interior? - probably not. But, if not, what would happen to the fundamental spatial relationships within the building? Can such a compacted and perhaps distorted space be designed so that the spatial relationships, and thus the experiences thereof, are harmonious and fluid? If so, the inquiry then proceeds to the study of those ratios and relationships. However, with an abundance of caution, the answer might be that such RECONCILIATION is not achievable given our ingrained expectations.

20.

21.

GOVERNMENT SPACE: 30% Executive - (40%) Mayor’s office w/ adminstration: 50% Meeting room: 35% Waiting room: 15% Legislative- (35%) Meeting Room (large): 33% Meeting Rooms (small): 50% Administration: 17% Judicial - (25%) Hearing Rooms (2): 20% Magistrates’ Office (2) 15% Law Clerks’offices 20% Ombudsman’s office 10% Administration: 35% PUBLIC SPACE: 35% Forum: 50% Gallery: 40% Cafe: (inlc. seating) 10%

RESTROOMS: (Based on Occ. A3/B > 4M + 5F toilets) MAINTENANCEHVAC & POWER: 10%

CIRCULATION: 25% (government & public)

100%

VEHICLE > CITY HALL

To be combined in a suite.

To be combined in a suite.

Will likely require more spaceand to be spread out throughthe Marks Building.

To be distributed throughoutthe West side of the Marks Building.

I chose “City Hall” for the primary reason that city halls incorporate a broad spectrum of uses and program, which is necessary to demonstrate my arguments about spatial relationships via my qualifiers. The secondary reason is that there are compelling design juxtapositions available within that typology: public/private; transparent/opaque; hierarchical/non-hierar-chical, etc. NOTE: in this instance, the Marks Building is merely a stand-in for a site in a more dense environment such as Tokyo, Rio de Janiero, or New York City. Refering to the programs of the Venetian Law Courts and the Austin City Hall, the Snohomish Town Hall will feature both “Government Space” and “Public Space” with the balance weighted toward public space, which will be open and transparent. Government space will consist of offices for the three branches of government and will consist of a mixture of material trans-parency and opacity. Given that the largest candidate space is only 11,640 s.f., the individual interior spaces will be quite small relative to the sizes of the Venetian Law Courts and the Austin City Hall. Also, as the foucs of the project is to RECONCILE a given typology/function within a very restricted space, estimations of allocated space are given in percentages as the precise dimen-sions of the space are not yet known.

22.

The site requirements for the Snohomish Town Hall are minimal relative to the very large structures and sites of the case studies. Snohomish is a very small municipality - much of the surrounding area is adminstered by Snohomish County. (See Diagrams 8 & 9). The town is one of the oldest in Washington having been founded in 1859, only seven years after the founding of Seattle at Alki Beach. The population in 2012 was estimated at 9,275 persons. The small poplations reflects the size of the town - only 3.6 square miles, which includes both a lake and the Snoqualmie River, which flows past the south side of the commercial area of the town. The town has been fortnate, at least in retrospect, to have saved its historic downtown core due to perceived ill-luck in the past - the town did not receive a highway, not did it receive funding for a massive urban redevelop-ment in the 1960s that would have razed the historic part of town to create a covered mall.

The town’s commercial focus is the retail establishments located on First Street and the streets that run north from First Street. There is also farming, light/medium industry, and considerable tourism. Public transportation is provided by Communit-yTransit, which makes stops near First Sreet. But, based on casual observation, most transit is completed by private vehicles of all types. Despite the town’s recent influx of commercial-driven revenues, the town remains diminutive and, as such, does not require much of a town hall - indeed the existing one is smaller than the proposed. Street parking would be readily available except perhaps in the high summer months. But, as the present town hall is located in the same general parking area, this is a factor that the town already accommodates. (See Diagram 8). As such, the Marks Building, a stand-alone building/site is enough to accommodate the full program.

The site of the Seattle City Hall, 118.000 s.f., by comparison, is very complex in all categories and particularly in terms of transportation logistics and site design. Seattle, a city of about 650,000 persons, has around 200,000 persons commuting to/from downtown every day. In order the transport so many people, the City of Seattle has developed bus/light rail tunnels, bus-specific streets (at various times of the day), bicycle lanes and other bicycle-related infrastructure, and wide/accessible sidewalks to accommodate the thousands of pedestrians. The site itself is essentially three city blocks oriented East-West between the west side of 6th Avenue and the east side of 3rd Avenue, and between James and Cherry streets to the North-South. The Seattle City Hall is between the Seattle Police Department HQ to the east, and the yet-to-be-completed CivicSquare to the west. The three combined sites (joined by what appears to be a common urban river) comprise the core of the governmental area of downtown Seattle. (See Diagram 6 / figs. 1-7). Snohomish has nothing of this complexity or magnitude.

Synopsis

The Snohomish Town Hall project has very simple site requirements - one building on one site without any substantial adjacent relationships. The Seattle City Hall is more of an edifice, while the Snohomish Town Hall would feel far more accessible and, perhaps, friendly due to its longstanding and familiar facade. Out of the three candidates examined for this project, the Marks Building is the best compromise between visibility, visual interest, accessibility, and ease of installing the intervention.

The Austin City Hall was sited within the trendy re-purposed Warehouse District of Austin, adjacent to the Lady Bird Lake. As such, according to the designer, Antoine Predock Architect, the program for the building was designed not as a “suit-and-tie,” but rather as a reflection on of the warm informality that characterizes Austin.” The large limestone blocks and copper that comprise the majority of the exterior appear to rise out of the hard desert of Texas - much like Taliesin West appears to be part of the landscape of Arizona.

The PROGRAM includes executive offices such as the Mayor, City Council, and Council Chambers, and judicial offices, but also includes a public forum where the for Government/Public use, a “people’s gallery,” an amphitheater, cafe, and a store. The City of Austin claims on its website that it is committed to open government The city states that “The geometry of the building is a result of the design team wanting to create a more informal feeling, to reflect Austin’s open and transparent approach to government. The concept of governmental transparency is apparent to passers-by inside the building with glass walls fronting all of the meeting rooms and the Council Chambers.” In keeping with this concept, there is NOT specific HIERARCHY from anaesthicc/design perspective. The Mayor’s Office is located on the first floor with thus providing apparent access to all citizens.

Not coincidentally, the public forum is also located on or near the first floor. However, there is very little evidence of a grid-like plan anywhere in the building nor very many 90 degree angles. And, as CIRCULATION is defined by the walls that surround them, circulation is equally off-grid. Thus, LIMINAL spaces are also unconventionally oriented relative to circulation. Indeed, the interior floor plan seems to match closely the amorphic/geologic nature of the exterior. It appears that the only concession to a specific, inferred HIERARCHY is that judicial/law-related offices are located at the top of the building for security purposes only. It does not appear that a higher elevation within the building is any indication of intended importance. In fact, there is an implicit EGALITARIAN gesture in locating the executive offices and public fora on the ground floor or close to the ground floor. Perhaps in this building, visual/locational hierarchy, if any, is purely functional.

Like the Austin City Hall, the Snohomish Town Hall will include the Public/Government mix through thelenses of the stated qualifiers. While the Marks Building is rectilinear, it is still given to a high degree of shattering, especially in the interior.

23.

1888; 11,640 SQ FT; 3+ POSSIBLE FLOORS

1024 1st Street

SITE > MARKS BUILDING

General Site Skylight & 2nd Floor Lobby Back Lot of Building

1st Floor Plan Longitudinal Section

1/64” = 1’- 0”

The MARKS BUILDING is on the National Historic Register and is still owned by a member of the original family. It is the largest and most prominent space on First Street. It features a flexible interior (except for the demising wall that is set in the middle of the building, front to back (See Diagram 8)). As with the Pioneer Market Building, the Marks Bulding is set in the middle of the commercial area. (See Diagram 9 and the small map section above). As such, it would be easily serviced by public and private transportation and other infrastructural elements. It also features a small parking lot in the back that could be purchased or leased from the lots owner to provide more parking, if necessary.

The top floor has such high ceilings that a small mezzanine could be installed. The ceiling features a large skylight that provides ample natural light to the present top floor and perhaps to floors below depending on the nature and scope of the intervention. There is considerable fenestration, especially on the top floor, whichis practical for emphasizing inside/outside elements. The existing floor plan/elevations appears to be quite flexible and amenable to modifications. Additionally, the build-ing features a full-footprint basement with full-height ceilings. As such, the Marks Building could accommodate four floors + a small mezzanine. Additionally, there is a full basement with adequate ceiling height to accomodate perhaps a cafe/restaurant.

The only negative aspects are that 1) the Marks Building might be, ironically, too easy of a space in which to fully express the design intent; 2) the exterior architecture could be considered too “typological.”However, as discussed in previous pages, the fact that the exterior is of a recognizable type works in favor of creating a dynamic juxtaposition between the exterior and the non-typological interior.

24.

78’-0”

58’-0”

32’-0

” App

rox.

The substantial demising wall the runs the depth of the building provides numerous opportunities for design development. Foremost would be to create a stark division between Public and Government space with only a few performations between and perhaps differing transparencies / opacities in strategic loca-tions to emphasize such division. The juxtaposition between government (closed) and public (open) would provide a very dynamic design environment.

78’-0”

32’-0

” App

rox.

Public Government

Public

Government

Site > Diagram 8

N.

25.

EXISTING CITY HALL

TRANSIT ROUTE

HISTORIC COMMERCIAL AREA

KIA-YA-HA PARK

LUMBER MILL

Snoqualmie River

Site > Diagram 9 IND.: Retail/Commercial, Tourism, Farming, Light Manufacturing

TRANSIT: Private Vehicle CommunityTransit (multi-county)

FOUNDING: 1859

AREA: 3.6 Square Miles (including water)

POP.: 9,275; Median Age: 34 Median Income: $46,396

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&�le_id=8508

http://becca-homeiswheremystorybegins.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-love-this.html

26.

ZONING / OCCUPANCY

SiteDiagram 10 - Snohomish Zoning

The site is located at 1024 First Street, which falls within the Historic Business District. And, the building is on the National Historic Register. Section 14.205.050 “Historic Business Designation” states that “The purpose ofthis designation is to provide a commercial area which is in the Historic District. The Historic Business Designation (HBD) is both pedestrian and auto-oriented, and will provide a broad range of pedestrian-oriented commercial services and goods, including offices, specialty shops, and entertainment activities, and has reduced parking requirements to encourage the preservation and renovation of existing struc-tures.”

The Snohomish Municpal Code, Section 19.04.040 adopts the Washington Administrative Code, Section 50-51, which adopts the Interna-tional Buidling Code. WAC 50-51-481201.1 states about historic buildings that, “It is the intent of this chapter to provide means for the preservation of historic buildings as defined in Chapter 2. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage cost-effective preservation of origi-nal or restored architectural elements and features and to provide a historic building that will result in a reasonable degree of safety, based on accepted life and fire safety practices, compared to the existing building. Historical buildings shall comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to their repair, alteration, relocation and change of occupancy.

WAC 50-51-1204.1 holds the following about accessibility: The provisions of Sections 705, 806, and 906, as applicable, shall apply to facili-ties designated as historic structures that undergo alterations, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with the requirements for accessible routes, entrances, or toilet rooms would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility, as determined by the professional responsible for the historical documentation of the project, the alternative requirements of Sections 1204.1.1 through 1204.1.4 for that element shall be permitted.

Additionally, WAC 50-51-3409.1 states about historic buildings that ”The provisions of this code relating to the construction, repair, alter-ation, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occupancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard.”

The occupancy/use categories will most likely be “A3” (Gallery, Community Hall and other public areas such as a cafe). The government administrative areas will likely be deemed occupancy/use “B”. Given the above codes and the fact that the chosen building is officially “historic,” any rulings regarding change of use, and/or construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration, and/or accesibility will be entirely at the discretion of the senior building official of the Town of Snohomish.

27.

CONCLUSION of 471/Research > RECONCILIATION

This project is fundamentally an academic study of spatial relationships and how humans are likely to perceive and respond to them when those spatial relationships are inserted into a pre-existing and dimensionally restricted location.* Those spatial relationship are, in other words, the qualifiers:

(Non)Hierarchy(De)CentralizationLiminal SpacesCirculationArticulation

The secondary topic, the design goal, is the creation of a city hall in the given dimensionally restricted location as a vehi-cle for examining and illustrating the spatial relationships/qualifiers. As a by-product of creating the city hall, the spatial relationships by necessity will likely be expanded, compressed, melded, or perhaps even eliminated. This goal, somewhat sepa-rate for the academic study of spatial relationships, is to prove that it is possible to compress a city hall into the restricted space, but still have it function harmoniously. It must be acknowledged that there is a possibility that the academic study could be succesful, but that the design study could be a failure.

The given location, the Marks Building in the town of Snohomish, is merely a stand in for a more dense and urban loca-tion such as Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, or New York City. [In reality, it is unlikley that the Town of Snohomish would undertake such a project given the amount of available land and real estate in that general location.] However, the historic district of Snohomish ironically serves well as a “restricted site” due to the compression of the buildings to each other and the sensitive and historic nature of the location. The Marks Building is an excellent platform for the same reason - very restricted and historically sensi-tive.

In its totality, the project is perhaps a glimpse at a not-so-distant future where whether by wisdom or necessity, or both, humans will be compelled to use every possible cubic foot of urban space. As such, the designer’s mandate would assume an urgency unknown before. Its possible that the fictional Snohomish Town Hall could be a blueprint for future and non-fictional projects.

*Some presumptions will have to be made about human psychological response to building-scale spatial relationships - however, this is indeed not a study of psychology.

28.

N

N

Entrance toUpper Levels

SCHEME No. 1: “BICAMERAL”

“Bicameral” refers to two bodies joined together yet often opposed to each other as in the case of a legislature. But in this case the OPPOSITION is the tension between PUBLIC & GOVERNMENT spaces.

This scheme addresses the QUALIFIER of(1) HIERARCHY, the fundamental qualifier in the question of TYPOLOGY as well as thequalifier of (2) DECENTRALIZATION with aneye toward EGALITARIAN floor plan/design.

Secondarily, there is the constant theme inherent in the City Hall vehicle of “Transparent /Opaque” and/or “Public / Secret.”

In this Scheme, the major design elementand thus the STRATEGY is longitudinal demising wall that splits the building in two (Public/Government), but alsocreates two very narrow “sliver buildings”within the same envelope, which is one of the design problems/questions established from the outset.

GOVERNMENT SIDEw/ Large ExteriorWindows for public observation PUBLIC SIDE

“DEMISING” WALL

Executive Officesw/ Transparent “Store Front”.DE-CENTRALIZED from a typologicalexecutive location. Set in aegalitarian location in thatpublic can view government at work.

Public Forum & Services

N

Basement Gallery& Cafe (Storage?)

Public Forum & Services

Grand Staircase

SCHEMATIC DESIGN DEVELOPMENT / 472 Investigation in to potential floor/section schemes. Emphasis for thisproject of sectional orientations. (DE)CENTRALIZED:

The three spaces are configured in a manner without regard to a centralized elements such as a dome or central corridor. In this diagram, there is only the curved vertical element that suggests any particular organization, but also serves as a seperating and perhaps a more decentralizing element.

29.

SCHEME No. 2: “LAYERED/MIXED”

In further attempt to create an EGALITARIAN interior design where the PUBLIC space is equal to if not more important the the GOVERNMENT space,SCHEME No. 2 attempts to layer and mix the government and public spaces throughout the MARKS BUILDING. Within the lens of the qualifiers, thisscheme is still about HIERARCHY, but continues to examine transparency/opacity, open/secret. Additionally, this scheme will examine the qualifier of ARTICULATION.

ARTICULATION:

“Articulation is both a result and a goal of having to RECONCILE a typology to a dimensionally restricted space. The goal is such architecture and interior design is to relate directly the interior to the world beyond the exterior walls regardless of the form of the architecture.Secondly, articulation is often the result of having to design within very restricted space where the design must conform not only to the restrictive elements, but also elements beyond.”

To apply HIERARCHY and ARTICULATION, sections of the MARKS BUILDING couldbe left unfinished or even open to the elements. For instance, an upper corner of the building could be turned into a observation platform where the inner walls of the structure are left open. Or, it could mean that as well as the location of PROGRAM are shifted in the X/Y/Z coordinates, but the program could be rotated in order to gain such ARTICULATION. There is also an element oTf DE-CENTRALIZATION when spaces are ARTICULATED.

Rooftop Meeting Space

Public Forum

Executive & Legislative

Basement Cafe& Storage

Judicial &Administration

“Carve-out”of the interior of building

Side Entranceto Basement

Entrance to Executive &Legislative Offices

N

N

N

Rooftop Meeting Space

Public Forum

Executive & Legislative

Basement Cafe& Storage

Judicial &Administration

“Carve-out” of the interior of building

Entrance to Executive &Legislative Offices

Judicial &Administration

Rooftop Meeting SpaceN

“Carve-out” of the interior of building /Space between original outer wall and new build

Public Forum

SCHEME No. 3: “PERPENDICULAR”

The spatial balance in the MARKS BUILDING s between the volumes that contains the GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC spaces. So far, the balance has been expressed in “Bicameral” (symmet-ric) and “Mixed and Layered.” Of course, in a box-like building with tight dimensions, there are only so many possibilities. However, with the goal of creating an EGALI-TARIAN, non-HIERARCHICAL spatial relationship between government and public spaces, there would be an emphasis on PUBLIC space. As such, because the MARKS BUILDING features very prominent fenestration on the street-sides, it could make sense to place public spaces in the front and govern-ment spaces in the back of the building.

The secondary QUALIFIER included in this set of diagrams is CIRCULATION.

“Circulation is an element of liminal spaces - e.g. a hallway can be liminal is it is by its nature between to other spaces. But, unlike a traditional typologic design, the circulation illustrated is not centrailzed or hierarchical.Such circulation design conforms to the general principle that any hierarchy is designed with usage in mind, not a visual hierarchy.”

PERPENDICULAR refers to orientation of the Government and Public spaces relative to the central demising wall. There are very few openings in the wall such that new doorways would have to be constructed via the use of moderate struc-tural elements such as wide-flange beams. CIRCULATION would be emphasized due to its passage through these doorways (see the illustration above).

Rooftop Meeting Space

Public Forum

Executive & Legislative

Basement Cafe& Storage

Judicial &Administration

Circulation to UpperGovernment Offices

Side Entranceto Basement

Entrance to Executive &Legislative Offices

N

Entrances toPublic Spaces

Circulation to UpperPublic Spaces

N

Entrance to Executive &Legislative Offices

Basement Cafe& Storage

Rooftop Meeting Space

Executive & Legislative

Judicial &Administration

Circulation to UpperGovernment Offices

Circulation to UpperPublic Spaces

Public Forum

30.

GOVERNMENT SPACE: 30% Executive - (40%) Mayor’s office w/ adminstration: 50% Meeting room: 35% Waiting room: 15% Legislative- (35%) Meeting Room (large): 33% Meeting Rooms (small): 50% Administration: 17% Judicial - (25%) Hearing Rooms (2): 20% Magistrates’ Office (2) 15% Law Clerks’offices 20% Ombudsman’s office 10% Administration: 35% PUBLIC SPACE: 35% Forum: 50% Gallery: 40% Cafe: (inlc. seating) 10%

RESTROOMS: (Based on Occ. A3/B > 4M + 5F toilets) MAINTENANCEHVAC & POWER: 10%

CIRCULATION: 25% (government & public)

31.

SITE > Analysis

30’

15’

45’60’

“The Repp”Restaurant

VIEW FROM FRONTOF MARKS BUILDING

WIDE SIDEWALKS FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC

2-WAY, SINGLE-LANE ROADLIMTED STREET PARKING

RECONCILIATION“CITY HALL”The MARKS BUILDING - 1888SNOHOMISH NATIONAL HISTORIC DIST.

NORTH SIDE: FIRST STREET

SOUTH SIDE: FIRST STREET

El. 39’ El. 39’

El. 62’ El. 62’

El. 39’

El. 47’El. 29’

WEST SIDE: “B” STREET EAST SIDE: “B” STREET

2nd Street

El. 47’El. 29’

Unio

n Av

e.

Ave.

A

Ave.

B

Ave.

C

Ave.

D

First St.

Snohomish River

Pioneer Bldg.Circa 1888

Past SnohomishTown HallCirca 1927

Oxford Saloon1900 - Known asParanormal “Hot Spot”

American LegionPost 96

Kyi-Ha-Ya Park / River Walk / Snohomish River

N

N

N

N

N

The ex-SnohomishHotel

First St.

Summer Solstice: 66 deg.

Winter Solstice: 19 deg.

@ 1:10 PM

Shadows @ Equinox

SOLAR STUDY

N

32.

RECONCILIATION“CITY HALL”Snohomish National Historic Dist.1858 - 2014: 156 YEARSPOPULATION: Approx. 9,275AVG. ELEVATION: 66’

30’

15’

45’60’

2nd Street

Unio

n Av

e.

Ave.

A

Ave.

B

Ave.

C

Ave.

D

1st Street

Snohomish River

GOVERNMENT / PUBLIC BUILDINGS

ThE 1927 Town Hall was originally placed between to pre-existing buildings such that its wall’s were not its own. This buildings served Snohomish until it became too small. It eventually moved to the present site on Union Ave.

The present Snohomosh Town Hall is situated in a 1930s Carnegie Library converted for the purpose. It serves executive, legislative, and administrative functions. Its location is somewhat removed from the primary activity of the town. The MARKS BLDG, by comparison is in

FACT/MYTH #1:

The Town of Snohomish was founded in 1858 (three years before the US Civil War!) as a result of the short-lived and little-known “Pig War” in the San Juan Islands between British and American forces. The US Army constructed a road between FortSteilacoom (south of present-day Tacoma) to Fort Bellingham. The road was plannedto be inland to prevent against British naval bombardment of coastal towns and routes.In 1861, the Town split from Island County to form Snohomish County. The Town was the seat until the faster growing town of Everett assumed the responsibility.

NEW: 2000+2nd Street is a moderndevelopment thatserves the HistoricDistrict with infrastructure:fuel, public transport, goods.

OLD: 1888Only a few hundred feet away from 2nd Street, 1st Streetcontains the fabric that binds Snohomish as a town and a viable tourist/commerical destination.

INDUSTRY / RIVER: The Snohomish River had been a TRANSPORATION highway for nearly 150 years.The LUMBER MILL has also supplied jobs and revenueto the Town of Snohomish for nearly as long. The twoelements were inseperable. The river is no longer usedfor transportation, but the MILL is still very active.

LUMBER MILL

N

The Old/New dichotomy between 1st Street and 2nd Street (the N/S extent of the town) createstension, interest, and a living visual time line.

TEXTURES / FABRICS / PATINA

The MARKS BUILDING is on the National Historic Register and is still owned by a member of the original family. It is the largest and most prominent space on First Street. It features a flexible interior (except for the demising wall that is set in the middle of the building, front to back (See Diagram 8)). As with the Pioneer Market Building, the Marks Bulding is set in the middle of the commercial area. (See Diagram 9 and the small map section above). As such, it would be easily serviced by public and private transportation and other infrastructural elements. It also features a small parking lot in the back that could be purchased or leased from the lots owner to provide more parking, if necessary.

The top floor has such high ceilings that a small mezzanine could be installed. The ceiling features a large skylight that provides ample natural light to the present top floor and perhaps to floors below depending on the nature and scope of the intervention. There is considerable fenestration, especially on the top floor, whichis practical for emphasizing inside/outside elements. The existing floor plan/elevations appears to be quite flexible and amenable to modifications. Additionally, the build-ing features a full-footprint basement with full-height ceilings. As such, the Marks Building could accommodate four floors + a small mezzanine. Additionally, there is a full basement with adequate ceiling height to accomodate perhaps a cafe/restaurant.

The only negative aspects are that 1) the Marks Building might be, ironically, too easy of a space in which to fully express the design intent; 2) the exterior architecture could be considered too “typological.”However, as discussed in previous pages, the fact that the exterior is of a recognizable type works in favor of creating a dynamic juxtaposition between the exterior and the non-typological interior.

33.

FACT/MYTH #3

The Oxford Saloon was built in 1900 originally at“Blackman’s Drygoods”. Soon after it became the Oxford Saloon, which it has been ever since. The upper floors were for many years a “high-class” bordello (as were numerous buildings in Snohomish). There were numerous acts of violence committed in or around the building. As a result, the Oxford Saloon is considered to be a “paranormal hot-spot” with no less than three identifiable entities (two women and one man, thought to be a mudered police officer) plus some lesser entities. Upon investigation of the bar, I did not find anything notable other than a miraculously disappearing beverage.

Store room features old HOLDING CELLSfrom when the bldg was a couurthouse. Now a workshop for one of the tenants.

The MARKS BUILDING has had a discreet, but very interactive relationship with its immediatesurroundings. Unknown until recently, the building served as a COURTHOUSE for an unknownnumber of years as well as a JAIL(!), storehouse, commercial building, and restaurant. All ofthese functions has informed how the building relates physically both within and without.

“Skylights” in the basement/sidewalkstill provides natural light in the basement.

The mezzanine in a present retailbusiness was the gallery of

an ad-hoc COURTROOM in theearly part of the 20th century.

In order to promoteTRANSPARENCY and

democratic virtues, the publicwere allowed to view proceedings.

The foundation walls are constructedwith limestone, which “weep” ground

water for which there is still a sump.Also, the phots show blocked TUNNELS

that once led the length of 1st St. andto the shore of the Snohomish River

for the portage of goods delivered byships in 19th & early 20th centuries.

FACT/MYTH #2: --The MARKS BUILDING is, according to two tenants, hunted by at least two entities. The first is a handle-bar mustached manwho occassionally pulls people’s hair and has appeared a few times. The second is an old woman who sits in a wing-back chair in the basement.The tenant was going to reupholster the chair - its remains unfinished. And,the small elevator will often arrive or the occupant without the elevator being summoned.

Original location of stairway to the basement

and couthouseHOLDING CELLS.

Now blockedpermanently.

N

34.

SITE > Code/Egress Analysis

Sidewalk

First Street

Parking Lot

Aven

ue “

B”

FIRST FL. SECOND FL.

Scale: 1/16” = 1’-0”

Exit To Exterior

Exit Path w/in Building

The presumed Square Footage is about 11,500., but that may/may not include the mezzanine.

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III

OCCUPANCY TYPES: A2/3: Restaurant/cafe and forum B : O�ces

MAX OCCUPANCIES: A2/3 : 4,025 square feet / 15 net = 268 occupants (+Storage Space = 575/300 gross = 2 occupants) B : 3,450 square feet / 100 gross = 34 occupants

95’ 95’Exits to beno less than48’ distant

RESTROOMS: 4 Male + 5 Female

ADA: To be determined by �nal �oor plan, but will require the use of elevators at the back of the building.

The Snohomish Municpal Code, Section 19.04.040 adopts the Washington Administrative Code, Section 50-51, which adopts the International Buidling Code. WAC 50-51-481201.1 states about historic buildings that, “It is the intent of this chapter to provide means for the preservation of historic buildings as defined in Chapter 2. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage cost-effective preservation of original or restored architectural elements and features and to provide a historic building that will result in a reasonable degree of safety, based on accepted life and fire safety practices, compared to the existing building. Historical build-ings shall comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to their repair, alteration, relocation and change of occupancy.

WAC 50-51-1204.1 holds the following about accessibility: The provisions of Sections 705, 806, and 906, as applicable, shall apply to facilities designated as historic structures that undergo alterations, unless techni-cally infeasible. Where compliance with the requirements for accessible routes, entrances, or toilet rooms would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility, as determined by the profession-al responsible for the historical documentation of the project, the alternative requirements of Sections 1204.1.1 through 1204.1.4 for that element shall be permitted.

Additionally, WAC 50-51-3409.1 states about historic buildings that ”The provisions of this code relating to the construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occu-pancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard.”

The occupancy/use categories will most likely be “A3” (Gallery, Community Hall and other public areas such as a cafe). The government administrative areas will likely be deemed occupancy/use “B”. Given the above codes and the fact that the chosen building is officially “historic,” any rulings regarding change of use, and/or construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration, and/or accesibility will be entirely at the discre-tion of the senior building official of the Town of Snohomish.

35.

36.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT > SCHEME No. 1: “BICAMERAL”

“Bicameral” refers to two bodies joined together yet often opposed to each other as in the case of a legislature. But in this case the OPPOSITION is the tension between PUBLIC & GOVERNMENT spaces.

This scheme addresses the QUALIFIER of(1) HIERARCHY, the fundamental qualifier in the question of TYPOLOGY as well as thequalifier of (2) DECENTRALIZATION with aneye toward EGALITARIAN floor plan/design.

N

GOVERNMENT SIDEw/ Large ExteriorWindows for public observation

PUBLIC SIDE

“DEMISING” WALL

> The INTENT of this paper is to examine SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS in the context of THE RECONCILIATIONS neces-sary for inserting the spatial relationships of a city hall into a dimensionally restricted space. In this sense, “reconcil-iation” refers to adjusting expetations between of what a City Hall looks like conventionally (”Typology”) and the form that it must take to function within the restricted space. As such, “reconcile” is both a psychological terms and architectural terms. The reconciling from typology-to-necessity will be examined through the through the following qualifiers (or lenses):

Typology / (Non)Hierarchy / (De)Centralization / Liminal Spaces / Circulation / Articulation

I chose the “City Hall” VEHICLE for the primary reason that city halls incorporate a broad spectrum of uses and pro-gram, which is necessary to demonstrate my arguments about spatial relationships via my qualifiers. The secondary reason is that there are compelling design juxtapositions available within that typology: public/private; transparent/-opaque; hierarchical/non-hierarchical, etc. NOTE: in this instance, the Marks Building is merely a stand-in for a site in a more dense environment such as Tokyo, Rio de Janiero, or New York City.

CAFE

STORAGE

ELEVATOR MECHANICAL

W.C.

UP

UP

OUT

PUBLICFORUM

IN IN

UP

UP

MAYOR’SOFFICE

GALLERY

Legislature

W.C.

IN

W.C.W.C.

PUBLICSERVICES

Reception

DNDN

Open toBelow

Open toAbove

Meeting

Offices

Offices

HearingRoom(s)

DNUP

DN

Glass Floor to Below

GlassBuild-Out

Public/Gov’tFORUM

2nd Fl.

West Section: South Section:

BASEMENT: GROUND FLOOR: MEZZANINE: SECOND FLOOR:

ROOF TOP:

Demising Wall Dividesthe Public/Gov’t Sides Established

Division

Roof

Mezz.

Ground

Base

View into South-East Entrance

JUDICIARY

37.

In further attempt to create an EGALITARIAN interior design where the PUBLIC space is equal to if not more important the the GOVERNMENT space,CHEME No. 2 attempts to layer and mix the government and public spaces throughout the MARKS BUILDING. Within the lens of the qualifiers, thisscheme is still about HIERARCHY, but continues to examine transparency/opacity, open/secret. Additionally, this scheme will examine the qualifier of ARTICULATION.

ARTICULATION:

“Articulation is both a result and a goal of having to RECONCILE a typology to a dimensionally restricted space. The goal is such architecture and interior design is to relate directly the interior to the world beyond the exterior walls regardless of the form of the architecture.Secondly, articulation is often the result of having to design within very restricted space where the design must conform not only to the restrictive elements, but also elements beyond.”

Rooftop Meeting Space

Executive & Legislative

Basement Cafe& Storage

Judicial &Administration

Side Entranceto Basement

N

Materials for All Plans: Existing brick & stone w. the addition of Raw Steel, glass of differing opacities, reclaimed woods, & harware.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT > SCHEME No. 2: “LAYERED/MIXED”

38.

BASEMENT:

2nd Fl.

Roof

Mezz.Ground

Base

CAFE STORAGE

MECHANICAL

W.C.

UP

OUT

PUBLICSERVICES

LEGISLATURE

PERFORATIONS IN DEMISING WALL MIXES &LAYERS THE TWO SIDES

FULL HEIGHT GLASS WALL

LEGISLATURE JUDICIARY

50% GlassWall

90% GlassWall

GROUND FLOOR: MEZZANINE: SECOND FLOOR:

ROOF TOP:

GALLERY

OPEN TO BELOW

PUBLIC FORUM

OPEN TO ABOVE/BELOW

ININ IN

UP

DN

West Section: South Section:

View from South-East Main Entrance

Offices

Offices

HearingRoom(s)

Offices

DN

UP

ELEV.

39.

Rooftop Meeting Space

Public Forum

Executive & Legislative

Basement Cafe& Storage

Judicial &Administration

Circulation to UpperGovernment Offices

Side Entranceto Basement

N

Entrances toPublic Spaces

Circulation to UpperPublic Spaces

EXISTING CITY HALL

TRANSIT ROUTE

HISTORIC COMMERCIAL AREAKIA-YA-HA PARKLUMBER MILL

Snoqualmie River

MARKS BUILDING

The spatial balance in the MARKS BUILDING is between the volumes that contains the GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC spaces. With the goal of creating an EGALITARIAN, non-HIERARCHICAL spa-tial relationship between government and public spaces, there would be an emphasis on PUBLIC space. As such, because the MARKS BUILDING features very prominent fenestration on the street-sides, it could make sense to place public spaces in the front and government spaces in the back of the building.

The secondary QUALIFIER included in this setof diagrams is CIRCULATION.

“Circulation is an element of liminal spaces - e.g. a hallway can be liminal is it is by its nature between to other spaces. But, unlike a traditional typologic design, the circulation illustrated is not centrailzed or hierarchi-cal.Such circulation design conforms to the general principle that any hierarchy is designed with usage in mind, not a visual hierarchy.”

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT > SCHEME No. 3: “PERPENDICULAR”

40.

SECOND FLOOR:

ROOF TOP:

BASEMENT: GROUND FLOOR: MEZZANINE:

2nd Fl.

Roof

Mezz.Ground

Base

South Section:

View into South-West Corner

CAFE STORAGE

ELEVATOR MECHANICAL

W.C.

UP

UP

OUT

PUBLIC FORUM GALLERY

LEGISLATURE& PUBLIC SERVICES

MAYOR’SOFFICE JUDICIARY

PUBLIC &GOV’T FOURM

West Section:

41.

42.

FINAL DEVELOPMENT > THE “PERPENDICULAR” SCHEME

Process Images

Perpendicular Study Layering Study

Abstract Thought-Generating Sculpture

FINAL DEVELOPMENT > GENERAL PLANS

N

PUBLIC SPACE

GOV’T SPACE

43.

Roof Top

Open to Below

DN

DN

UP

Mezzanine

DN

UPDN

RECEP.

PUBLICFORUM

EXECUTIVEMEETINGROOM MAYOR’S

OFFICE

Ground Floor

DN

DN

UP

UP

GALLERY

ADMIN. &PUBLIC SERVICES

UP

UP

UP

Basement

Public Gatheringin summer weather

JudiciaryOffice

Office

Office/Hearings

HearingRoom

Government/PublicConferenceRoom

JUDICIARY FEATURES TRANSPARENT WALLS, OR TOPWALLS, (EAST AND NORTH SIDESPECIFICALLY) WHEREVERPOSSIBLE EXCEPT WHERE ACOUSTIC PRIVACY IS REQUIRED.

Second Floor

CAFE

LEGISLATURE/COUNCIL

LEGISLATURE OFFICES

The presumed Square Footage is about 11,500., but that may/may not include the mezzanine.

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III

OCCUPANCY TYPES: A2/3: Restaurant/cafe and forum B : O�ces

MAX OCCUPANCIES: A2/3 : 4,025 square feet / 15 net = 268 occupants (+Storage Space = 575/300 gross = 2 occupants) B : 3,450 square feet / 100 gross = 34 occupants

South Section:

Exterior Perspective Exterior to Interior Perspective:East Stairs

South Section

44.

N

45.

Exterior Perspective

West Section: 1/4” = 1’-0”

N

West Section

46.

Roof top

Second Floor

Mezzanine

Ground Floor

Basement

Exploded Axon(s)

FINAL PROJECT/472 > RECONCILIATION The INTENT of this FINAL PROJECT is to examine SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS in the context of THE RECONCILIA-TIONS necessary for inserting the PROGRAM of a CITY HALL into a dimensionally restricted space. In this sense, “RECONCILIATION” refers to adjusting expetations between of what a City Hall looks like conventionally (”Typology”) and the form that it must take to function within the restricted space. RECONCILING is here examined through the lenses of:

(Non)Hierarchy / (De)Centralization / Circulation / Articulation / Liminal Spaces

The VEHICLE is “City Hall” because city halls incorporate a broad spectrum of uses and program, which is neces-sary to demonstrate my arguments about spatial relationships/qualifiers. The secondary reason is that there are compelling design juxtapositions available within that typology: public/private; transparent/opaque; hierarchi-cal/non-hierarchical, etc. In this instance, the Marks Building is merely a stand-in for a site in a more dense environ-ment such as Tokyo, Rio de Janiero, or New York City.

The CONCLUSIONS of this project were reached by starting with the simple idea of how to best use existing/diffi-cult spaces for established programs. This notion was linked to an original study of spatial relationships between competing uses located within the same envelope. This led to the use of the qualifiers to the right and the program of a Public/Government program where there is a natural TENSION, but with the goal of EGALITARIANISM and REC-ONCILIATION.

For those of you who are interested, the physical model is constructed of Dorex boards, which are available at the University of Washington Bookstore. The interior is constructed of basswood, pvc/acryllic sheets, museum board, and a few incidental pieces of aluminum strips. Total construction time was about 200 hours.

47.

DECENTRALIZATION

NON-HIERARCHICAL

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Mayor’soffice perchedb/w spaces

SCHEMATIC/THEORETIC

Theory versus Practical Design

48.

Circulationaccomodatesthe existingarchitecture

Spacesoriented tolocationsexterior ofthe building

CIRCULATION

ARTICULATION

LIMINAL SPACES

Liminal spacescreated b/w existing siteand intervention

49.

50.

Plans & ProgramProgram selected due to (1) tension b/w public & gov’tneeds, and (2) highly specificand varied program within atown hall / civic administration.

ROOF TOP

Elevator

East Section

North Section

Storage

Stage

Open to Below

DN

Public / Government rooftop space for fair-weather events, lectures,movies, etc.

ALL PLANS: 1/16”= 1’-0”

N

51.

W.C.

SECOND FLOOR

Magistrates’ & LawClerk’s Offices

Administration

DN

UP

Broken wall filledwith acrylic

Open to Below

Clerks’s & SecondaryHearing Rooms

Public/Gov’t Forum

Primary Hearing Room

Primary judicial functionwith combined public /government forum forannouncements, debates,and other 1st amendmentfunctions.

DN

UPDN

Mayor’s Office & Suitew/ Administration and Reception

Executive conference room w/sliding partition.

Upper Public Gallery/Forum

Open to Below

W.C.

Mayor’s offices and executive functions arelocated at the front of this level, with the upperpublic gallery in the back (north) side. Tensionbetween the two spaces is created by the curvedglass wall and the peneration of the brick demising wall between the two sides.

MEZZANINE

52.

DN

UP

UP

The Ground Floor is devoted to publicservices, reception for the legislative offices and the lower floor of the Public Gallery/Forum.There is also a public/gov’t intranet connection.

Public Gallery/Forum

1:12 Ramp

1:12 Ramp

Reception & Services

Legislative Reception& Self-Help Area

Open to Above

GROUND FLOOR

W.C.

53.

BASEMENT

1:12 Ramp

The Basement is divided front/back b/wLegislature (Town Council), the Ombudsman’soffice and a public cafe in the back (includingstorage and a mechanical room for the building).

Cafe - split by demising wall

Mechanical Room

Coucil Meeting Room

Legislative/Council Offices

Glass partition in wall

Ombudsman’s Office

UP

UP

54.

55.

AdjacentBuilding21

Roof Top Deck

Public/Gov’tMeeting Space

Judiciary

Exec. Conference Room Mayor’s Office

Services Leg. Reception

Legislature

2 View from original grand entrance to mezzanine and second floor1 Ground Floor gallery stairs to mezzanine.

1/16” = 1’-0”

N

NORTH SECTION

56.

3

4

Legislature Cafe

Leg. Reception

Mayor’s Office

Lower Gallery

Upper Gallery

Judiciary

Grade from First Street to back of Marks Building

1/16” = 1’-0”

N

EAST SECTION

3 4Landing on Second Floor in front of Judiciary. Elevator landing on Second Floor: view of Public/Gov’t meeting space

Roof top

Second Floor

Mezzanine

Ground Floor

Basement

Public/Gov’tMeeting Space

Judiciary

Executive Space

Upper GallerySpace

Admin/Services

Lower GallerySpace

Legislature/Council

Cafe/Storage

EXPLODED AXON(S)

57.

N

Roof Top Deck: 37’-0”

Second Floor: 21’-10”

Mezzanine: 12’- 0”

Basement: -12’-0”

Sidewalk: 0’- 0”

58.

DETAIL: SECTION >SOUTH WALL1”= 1’- 0”

59.

PHYSICAL MODEL

N

60.

NJudiciary

Leg. Reception

Mayor’s Office

Gallery Space

61.

N

Judiciary

Legislature CafeGallery

62.

N

63.

N

Cafe

Gallery Gallery

Gallery

Judiciary

64.

N

Hearing Room

Govt’/Pubic Forum

Offices

FURNITURE & DETAIL OF TABLE CORNER

65.

66.

CAPSTONE EXHIBIT

67.

GLOSSARY

Amorphic - Adj.: 1) Formless, of no determinable shape; 2) of no specified kind or character.

Articulation - Noun: ARTICULATION is the manipulation of the interior/exterior RELATIONSHIP for the same purposes of HIERARCHY: function, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in), etc. Once standard typology is broken, the designer is free to manipulate the design to achieve specific goals beyond adherence to a form.

Centralization - Noun: A subset of HIERARCHY. In a condition of DECENTRALIZATION, the inhabited volumes are arranged in a manner without regard to any prime location such as a dome or grand axial hallways.

Circulation - Noun: CIRCULATION is a subset or a relation to LIMINAL SPACES because circulation by its nature exists between spaces and only as a negative space. So, as buildings deviate from traditional forms, circulation transforms to oblique/diagonal path ways created by such forms.

Egalitarian -- Adj.: Asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life. Pertains to the vehicle of City Hall.

Hierarchy - Noun: Hierarchy in FUNCTION is determined by a subjective matrix of factors. Contribut- ing factors are: site, purpose, use, efficiency, expression, light, view (inside>out//outside>in). HIERARCHICAL adherence to FORM/TYPOLOGY for the sake of TYPOLOGY is what this project seeks to debunk. Hierarchy of function can shift or diminish.

Juxtaposition - Noun: An act or instance of placing close together or side by side, esp. for comparison or contrast.

Liminal - Adj./Noun: A LIMINAL SPACE is one that exists between/outside primary spaces. Such spaces are commonly perceived (sub)liminally. In some instances, by SHATTERING TYPOL OGY and SHIFTING and/or DIMINISHING HIERARCHIES, liminal spaces/thresholds often merge or overlap with primary spaces.

Reconcile - V.T.: To bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent.

Typology - Noun: Exterior architectural signifiers that we recognize as known types/uses such as “City Hall,” “Bank,” “Hospital.” They maintain a visual language so that our built environment is readily understandable. It is now common in architec ture to “shatter” TYPOLOGY both INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY.

68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1) Markus, Thomas (1994). Social Prac ce and Building Typologies. In Frank, Karen & Schneekloth, Lynda (Eds) Ordering Space, Types in Architecture and Design. (p. 151). New York, N.Y.: Van Nostrand Reinhold2) Norberg-Schulz, Chris an (1997). Inten ons in Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press3) Steadman, J.P., (1983). Architectural Morphology. London, England: Pion Ltd.4) Eisenmann, Peter (2003). Blurred Zones - Inves ga ons of the Inters al. New York, New York: Monacelli Press, Inc.5) Lewis, Paul; Tsurumaki, David; Lewis, David (2008). Opportunis c Architecture. New York, New York: Princeton Architectural Press6) h p://www.predock.com/Aus n/Aus n.html7) h p://architype.org/project/aus n-city-hall/8) h ps://www.aus ntexas.gov/government/city-hall9) Lebovich, William (1984). America’s City Halls. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press10) Clark, Roger; Pause, Michael (2004). Precedents in Architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons11) Unwin, Simon (1997). Analyzing Architecture. London, England: Routledge12) C+S Architects (2013). LCV. In Log, ed. 29, pp. 120-132). New York, New York: Anycorp Press13) http://web.cipiuesse.it/en/projects/lcv-law-court-offices-venice_5_64.htm14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snohomish,_Washington15) http://www.historicdowntownsnohomish.com/16) http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/201217) Pollock, Naomi (2010). New Architecture in Japan. New York: Merrell Publishers18) http://www.seattle.gov/html/citymap.htm19) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_City_Hall20) https://www.downtownseattle.com/resources/demographics/21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Demographics22) http://www.bcj.com/public/projects/project/7.html23) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=179112524) Lewis, William; Canby, Henry; Brown, Thomas (1943). The Winston Dictionary. New York, New York: P.F. Colliers & Son Corp.25) Eds. (2001). Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. New York, New York: Barnes & Noble

DIAGRAMS

1 - 2: Author3 : Author; images of “House O” from Pollock, Naomi (2010). New Architecture in Japan. (pgs. 202-203). New York: Merrell Publishers 4 : Author; images of “LVC” from http://web.cipiuesse.it/en/projects/lcv-law-court-offices-venice_5_64.htm5 : Author6 : Author7 : Author; except images: http://kut.org/post/new-petition-drive-single-member-districts-austin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_State_Capitol_Legislative_Building.jpg8 : Author9 : Author (except as noted on diagram)10 : http://www.ci.snohomish.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/476

IMAGES (All images by author unless numerically noted in text & below).

1 ) http://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/construction/plumbing/Plans-Specifi cationns/Example-Of- New-Method-Plumbing-Plans.html#floor_plans2 - 6 ) Pollock, Naomi (2010). New Architecture in Japan. (pgs. 202-203). New York: Merrell Publishers7 - 9 ) http://web.cipiuesse.it/en/projects/lcv-law-court-offices-venice_5_64.htm10 ) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austin_City_Hall_Front.JPG11 ) http://www.predock.com/Austin/Austin.html12 ) http://architype.org/project/austin-city-hall/

GRAPHIC CITATIONS