Wednesday, May 16, 2007

final_boards

below are our final competition boards (a collection of 4 20" x 20" boards):



the final spread



board 1 - concept


board 2 - morphology


board 3 - tectonics


board 4 - experience

Thursday, April 26, 2007

bridges

here is the concept for the new bridges:


img_1.1 - axon


img_1.2 - plan


img_1.3 - section


img_1.4 - elevation

Monday, March 26, 2007

Current Issues

Key Issues to Resolve:

  1. approach / entry
    • parking
    • entry from buses and cards
  2. landscape
    • diagrammatic site plan
    • car circulation
    • roof as part of ground?
  3. central circulation
    • courtyard space
    • elevators and escalators
    • pedestrian movement
  4. technical changes to plan, etc.
    • cantilever vs. view
    • soft and open flow through museum
    • auditorium location
    • location for 4 fire stairs
    • demonstration gallery
  5. skin system
    • differentiation in walls and roof
    • materiality

General notes from review:

- bridges and rivers relationship in building as well as city, tie to Pittsburgh

- interlocking piece: steel as a tile form

- our scheme: narrow is low, wide is tall- doesn’t work everywhere

- sequence: production, use, history- what is our sequence?

Issues/Concerns

Steel innovation—I thought one of the best comments we received was the fact that everyone was going to present buildings made of cool steel forms etc, but we need to find something new; for the competitions sake I feel like a sustainable source of steel is needed as well

Clearance for bus/art drop off—as we have it now, the canteliever won’t allow trucks and buses to pass underneath it

The need for more elevators/escalators—I agree with comments made about the problem with having only one elevator connecting the museum circuit with the lower level; it doesn’t seem to me that there is a good way of holding people for a slow moving elevator giving them no other option

The need for a more protected space—once visitors begin their trip through the exhibition the won’t want to be passing from indoor to outdoor repeatedly requiring them to take off and put on coats etc; perhaps the circulation bridges should be enclosed so visitors can remove their coats when purchasing their tickets and then go on in comfort

On the side of the museum towards the river, I think Craig and Silance made a good point that it may be a good idea to allow people to pass from one gallery space to another with out being forced back to the circulation bridge

I think it could be beneficial to work the auditorium more into the museum experience; though it will be used for other events I don’t see why it should be used for educational videos for visitors or something of that nature

The awkward position of the bathrooms in the galleries needs to be resolve and perhaps the larger gallery needs to be further divided

Problems to Be Solved (M&N)

  1. Courtyard:
    • Size
    • Inside or outside
  2. Plans
    • Entrance circulation
    • Parking
  3. Materials
  4. Structure
  5. Diagram:
    • Cantilever
    • Structure
    • View
  6. Parking integrated into landscape
  7. Drawings relating to concepts

Semi-Finalized Schematic Design


img_1.1


img_1.2


img_1.3


img_1.4


img_1.5


img_1.6

img_1.7

img_1.8

Monday, February 26, 2007

Thoughts_Miller's Comments

Grid Strategy
  • Consider truck loading/unloading in planning driveway
  • Consider a utilitarian approach to human circulation versus an anthropocentric approach
  • Consider the proportions of the spaces (golden rectangle) in relation to Carrie Furnace buildings
  • Replicating the ruggedness of the skyline could be kitsch
  • Consider the partnership between exhibition and architecture
  • Explore potential to redefine museum space through program
  • Beware of devaluing the original by copying
  • Think in terms of scale
  • Respect the furnaces-supporting role of museum
  • Metonymic v. Literal
Landscape Strategy
  • Modest
  • Metonymic interpretation (Gehry) v. authenticity (Serra)
  • Re-consider the apparent chaos of the Sanborn maps and recreate that through a rational process
  • "Cornucopia" over-simplifies the expression of the past--reduced
  • Consider expression or interpretation more thoroughly than just the roof line or shape of plan
  • Consider the experience of the user
    • raw confrontation
    • keeping real chaos
    • beware of over-interpretation/abstraction
  • Consider the users reaction to the weight and span of steel--confrontation
  • Deflection (?)
  • Beware of corporatization (safe and nice buildings)
  • Design parking in relation to the museum
  • Design program in relation to museum form--maintain shape and energy
  • Consider how the industrial process can influence your design
  • Allow for users to interpret space

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Tidbit_Charleston Review

A few images from our review at the CACC with Professor Miller.







Thoughts_Furthering The 3D Grid

Here are several images explaining the process behind accomplishing an architectural means through an exploration of a three dimensional grid. The axis are defined as before in the previous scheme, and a series of plots framed by the grid are selected (here based roughly on program scale and proximity, see image 1.1). The grid lines are idealized as tubes and extruded along the x-axis creating a primary structure (image 1.2), and a secondary structure is added (image 1.3) at intervals based on the planes in the z-axis which has already been established based on Carrie Furnace building heights. Lastly, program is inserted between secondary structure (image 1.4) at different levels and at different scales. This suggests, in accordance with some of our earlier studies, a circulation and building arrangement which mimics that of a working steel mill (image 1.6). Lastly, because the structure here rivals that of the Carrie Furnace (although our program does not necessitate such a large building) a tension is created between the new and old, as they both become prominent figures on the skyline (image 1.5).



1.1


1.2


1.3


1.4


1.5


1.6

Thoughts_Furthering Builiding as Landscape

in response to some the the earlier mappings that we produced, we set out create a set of parameters that would serve to define the site. we first redefined the ground plane, applying the mesh that we generated as the base landscape. we then applied the building heights mesh as the maximum building envelope. we also decided to place all the building on the original ground plane. we placed the museum as we had in our previous scheme. we also proposed two small ribbons that would undulate through the site along the building heights mesh in order to indicate the scale of the buildings that once existed on the site.


img_1.0 - plan


img_1.2 - perspective


img_1.3 - perspective


img_1.4 - front elevation


img_1.5 - section. note building heights grid ghosted in background

Monday, February 19, 2007

Thoughts_Site Mapping

following our last review, we decided to take a step back and do some site mappings to solidify some of our inclinations about siting and form. we were particularly interested in three components:
  1. building heights - the scale of the buildings that existed on the site dictated its experience
  2. historic palimpsest - the 'historic density' in various areas of the site
  3. rail lines - these lines dictate the movement of goods throughout the site
we used a vertical displacement mesh to map the building heights and historic density. we then extruded all the rail lines and used these to cut the two meshes.


img_1.1 - the residual of the rail lines. high points indicate where rail lines were closely tied to a manufacturing process.


img_1.2 - the same map as above with the building height and historic density meshes shown

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Thoughts_3D Grid

Here are some quick studies developed using a three dimensional grid; one axis corresponds to the sharp edges of the historical buildings (x-axis), another begins straight, but molds itself to the curved bank of the river (y-axis), and the last responds both to the monumental scale of the Carrie Furnace buildings and to the scale of a human body (z-axis). The x and y axis are tubular interlocking splines and z axis is a series of rectangular planes engulfing the entire historical Carrie Furnace site. The study may lead to some architectural elements as it is further refined, but for now, the scale of the grid overpowers the program intensely.



1.1_view from ground plane through grid


1.2_grid as viewed from above, looking in the direction of the Carrie Furnace