Workshop 2 (final)

31
WORKSHOP 2: SPATIAL CONFIGURATION 22 February 2012 I S L A N D S C H O O L R E D E V E L O P M E N T

Transcript of Workshop 2 (final)

Page 1: Workshop 2 (final)

WORKSHOP 2: SPATIAL CONFIGURATION

22 February 2012

I S L A N D S C H O O L

R E D E V E L O P M E N T

Page 2: Workshop 2 (final)

1 S P I N E

Page 3: Workshop 2 (final)

1.1 CONCEPT DIAGRAM

Linear design approach with central circulation also doubling as breakout space

Page 4: Workshop 2 (final)

1.2 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMYLondon, UK

Ground Floor Plan

Page 5: Workshop 2 (final)

“Triple-Height” Entrance Lobby for ASSEMBLY / EXHIBITION

Key Plan INTERSTITIAL BRIDGES as Breakout Space

1.2 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMYLondon, UK

Page 6: Workshop 2 (final)

1.3 EXEMPLAR SCHOOLLondon, UK

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Page 7: Workshop 2 (final)

“Lily Pad” Breakout Space

Key Plan Sectional Drawing

1.3 EXEMPLAR SCHOOLLondon, UK

Page 8: Workshop 2 (final)

1.4 OSKAR MARIA GRAF,Neufahrn, Germany

Curvilinear spine embraces a courtyard with the Music Hall as the center focal

Page 9: Workshop 2 (final)

“MAIN STREET” Concept

Key Plan View from distance (Curvilinear spine layout embraces a plaza with Music Hall as focal point)

1.4 OSKAR MARIA GRAF,Neufahrn, Germany

Page 10: Workshop 2 (final)

1.5 PROTESTANT COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL,Gelsenkirchen, Germany

Organic “main street concept” layout with a central plaza garden as focal point

Page 11: Workshop 2 (final)

Key Plan View from distance

1.5 PROTESTANT COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL,Gelsenkirchen, Germany

“MAIN STREET” with PLAZA

Page 12: Workshop 2 (final)

2 “ F I N G E R S “

Page 13: Workshop 2 (final)

2.1 CONCEPT DIAGRAM

Teachings spaces plug interfaced

Page 14: Workshop 2 (final)

First Floor Plan (Linear Teachings Spaces Tee-off from a Central Administration Spine like “fingers”)

2.2 ALPHARETTA HIGH SCHOOLGeorgia, USA

Page 15: Workshop 2 (final)

Key Plan Gardens situated in between the “Fingers”.

2.2 ALPHARETTA HIGH SCHOOLGeorgia, USA

Cafeteria

Page 16: Workshop 2 (final)

First Floor Plan (Linear Teachings Spaces Tee-off from a Central Spine which serves as a Foyer / Atrium)

2.3 TRIAS VMBO SCHOOLKrommenie, The Netherlands

Page 17: Workshop 2 (final)

Central Spine: “Village Square”

Key Plan Breakout Space within Teaching Clusters

2.3 TRIAS VMBO SCHOOLKrommenie, The Netherlands

Page 18: Workshop 2 (final)

3 C L U S T E R ( V I L L A G E )

Page 19: Workshop 2 (final)

3.1 CONCEPT DIAGRAM

Clustered teachings spaces organized around a central hub

Page 20: Workshop 2 (final)

3.2 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLKirkland, Washington, USA

Ground Floor Plan

Page 21: Workshop 2 (final)

Gymnasium / Commons as HUB

Key Plan INTERNAL COURTYARD GARDENS

3.2 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLKirkland, Washington, USA

Page 22: Workshop 2 (final)

3.3 GUNMA KOKUSAI ACADEMYGunma, Japan

Ground Floor Plan

Page 23: Workshop 2 (final)

Internal Courtyard Gardens

Key Plan INTERNAL COURTYARD STREETS

3.3 GUNMA KOKUSAI ACADEMYGunma, Japan

Page 24: Workshop 2 (final)

4 C L U S T E R ( C I T Y )

Page 25: Workshop 2 (final)

4.1 CONCEPT DIAGRAM

Multiple hubs surrounded by teachings spaces.

Page 26: Workshop 2 (final)

First Floor Plan (Multiples Hubs surrounded by Teaching Spaces and Networked like a City)

4.2 CLACKAMAS HIGH SCHOOLOregon, USA

Page 27: Workshop 2 (final)

Administration Hub and Commons

Key Plan INTERNAL COURTYARD

4.2 CLACKAMAS HIGH SCHOOLOregon, USA

Page 28: Workshop 2 (final)

First Floor Plan (Multiples Hubs surrounded by Teaching Spaces and Networked like a City)

4.3 FOSSIL RIDGE HIGH SCHOOLColorado, USA

Page 29: Workshop 2 (final)

Key Plan Main Entry COURTYARD

4.3 FOSSIL RIDGE HIGH SCHOOLColorado, USA

Breakout Space

Page 30: Workshop 2 (final)

5 SUITABILITY

Page 31: Workshop 2 (final)

SPINE CLUSTER (VILLAGE)CLUSTER (CITY)“FINGERS”

1. Efficiency of internal CIRCULATION DICTATES the OVERALL LENGTH of BUILDING

2. The SIMPLICITY of the spatial arrangement makes it a viable model for primary and secondary school application.

3. More suitable for schools of SMALL to MEDIUM size.

5.1 SUITABILITY

1. An ORGANIC LAYOUT which expands out from a central hub lends itself to cater to FUTURE GROWTH / expansion if site constraint is not an issue.

2. The SIMPLICITY the spatial arrangement makes it a viable model for primary and secondary school application.

3. More suitable for schools from MEDIUM to LARGE size.

1. The MULTIPLE HUB arrangement will allow for more SPATIAL DIVERSITY and VARIETY.

2. Relative COMPLEXITY of layout makes it more suitable for secondary school / tertiary institutions.

3. Smaller ADMINISTRATION AREAS will be required at each hub in ADDITION TO the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION are.

4. More suitable for schools of LARGE size.

1. The CENTRAL SPINE / HUB provides a “street like” FOCAL which is highly FLEXIBLE to suit different purposes / scenarios / usage.

2. The SIMPLICTY of layout makes it suitable for both primary / secondary school / tertiary institutions.

3. The LINEARITY of the design allow for FUTURE EXPANSION if site constraint is not an issue.

4. More suitable for schools from SMALL to LARGE size.