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

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

Structure_Preliminary Concepts

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

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
  

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