All posts by Caroline Wilson and Becca Newburg

Assignment Posts, Final 1500w

Adaptive Reuse is Better than New Construction

Leave a comment

Adaptive Reuse is Better than New Construction.

With so many unused, abandoned, and historically significant buildings, why do we insist on demolishing them to build new ones? Today, there is an abundance of buildings including factories, houses, incomplete construction sites, stores, and ghost towns available to be re-adapted. Adaptive reuse is better than new construction because it is better for the environment, is an answer for poor living conditions, preserves the cultural energy of the place, and is an interesting design challenge for architects.

 

Environmental Benefits

Today, it is cheaper to demolish a building and create an entirely new project than it is to reuse a building that already exists. It may be monetarily less expensive, but at what cost to our living environment?

Demolition contributes heavily to industrial waste. Currently, waste generated from the construction and demolition industry is about 1.25 million tonnes per year (1 tonne is approximately 2,204.6 pounds) (Bergsdal 27). In past years, attempts have been made to start waste treatment, but these efforts are not enough. Approximately 44% of construction and demolition waste was sent to sorting, and of that 44%, 33% was recycled, 22% was energy recovered, and 34% was sent to landfill (Bergsdal 28). Even with the waste sent for treatment, 40% of that was unspecified. Some waste was sent directly to recycling companies while some of it was disposed of illegally (Bergsdal 28).

In addition to  the waste produced through construction and demolition waste, we must also remember that when constructing an entire building, materials do not magically appear. Materials need to be transported to the site and through the transportation, greenhouse gases are released into the air, harming our planet. In fact,  greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest contributor in the United States right after electricity in 2013 (“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”).  While, renovation does not completely eliminate the need for material, it can reduce it which in turn reduces the overall need to transport those materials.

In 2014, San Francisco based DPR Construction achieved the renovation of an office building that has reached net positive energy. This office produces as much, if not more energy than it consumes while also being a renovation project. The team researched, designed, permitted, and built the highly efficient 24,000 square foot space within 5 months. The building includes sustainable technologies such as 118kw photovoltaic system to produce renewable energy and provide power throughout the office, a rooftop thermal water heating system, solar powered automatic operable skylights, and nine eight-foot Essence and four “Big Ass Fans” that efficiently flow air within the office. Along with the addition of efficient technologies, the office completed a structural renovation to support the new photovoltaic array on the roof, three living walls throughout the building and a living wine bar, and many of the materials used in the project were reclaimed wood from nearby projects that had recently been deconstructed. DPR Construction in San Francisco is one of only twelve buildings in the United States that have been certified as net zero energy.

  • General Lobby with one of three living walls.

 

Low Income Housing Solution

Because it is less profitable, developers ignore the low income housing market and focus on the high end segment. Combine this with the fact that 200,000 rental housing units are destroyed annually. This adds up to a shortage in low income rental housing.

This is unfortunate because renting remains one of the most viable options for low income residents and many are stuck in older, lower-quality apartments close to the urban core (Joint Center for Housing Studies). This puts them farther away from well-paying jobs and other opportunities for advancement. Without more production of affordable rentals in the suburbs and community development in city centers, the economic prospects of the nation’s most disadvantaged are only going to get worse.

Albeit challenging, adaptive reuse is an option for this shortage because it provides financial incentives for developers and solves some issues for the residents (Joint Center for Housing Studies). Adaptive reuse projects usually are able to receive “historic rehabilitation tax credit” which would help offset the cost of reuse projects. If geared toward low income housing, they may also qualify for  “low income housing tax credit” and could double the tax savings (Schalmo 10).

Along with the benefits for developers, adaptive reuse projects, because they are often sited in older neighborhoods or even historic districts, can situate residents much closer to centers of employment (Schalmo 9). This would shorten residents’ commute to work and allow them to walk or take public transit to work which harkens back to the sustainable benefits of adaptive reuse. A good example of low income residential adaptive reuse is Grainger Place, by the Landmark Group completed in 2000. It was an old school that was converted into housing for the elderly that won awards for historical preservation and development. Compared to other new construction of a similar scale, the cost was about the same (Schalmo 10). This goes to show that successful projects like these are economically possible.

Screen Shot 2015-12-13 at 6.47.34 PM

 

Cultural Recycling

The very nature of adaptive reuse lends itself to creating an environment that has a sense of place and history. Demolition and construction waste “injures cities images and memories” and literally changes the way we see our world, wiping history clean and starting again (Cerkez 94).“When a building of historic merit is preserved or restored for adaptive reuse, its cultural energy is also recycled. Old buildings preserve the local culture and identity and create a sense of belonging. In a way, we recycle embodied human resource energy along with material energy. We bring alive the past to be a part of the future, creating valuable connections through time.” (Cerkez 94) When designing a building, architects have to consider the cultural and historical context. The identity of the place is then affirmed through the design. Unlike new construction, reuse projects don’t have to try and fit in- they are already part of the community.

There are times where renovations would have been a better option than new construction For example, the original Pennsylvania Station in New York City (1910) was demolished in 1963 and replaced with the modern underground structure that stands today. Much backlash was felt  when the building was demolished because it had stood as a historical monument. What is frustrating now is the difference in atmosphere and experience. The old building stood tall, above ground, and grand while the new one is underground, low, and oppressive.  

  • Interior view of Pennsylvania Station

Architectural Design Challenge

Using abandoned or already existing buildings creates interesting, compelling design challenges for architects. The constraint of an already existing building allows designers to become innovative and solve problems, while also respecting the history of the site. Architects give these buildings new life, new meaning, and a new function while respecting what had occurred before their project. This recycles the “cultural energy” of what was there before. This allows design to blend into the language of its surroundings, while still doing something new. This kind of work would not merely be a renovation, but the entire purpose of the building would be redefined to become whatever our society needs most.

 

Branded Buildings:

Branded buildings, such as McDonalds or CVS Pharmacy depend heavily on the shape and design of their building to reiterate the branding. Companies such as McDonald’s will demolish and rebuild for small reasons as simple as they are trying to update the look of their brand. Why do we allow for the pointless changes that create demolition and construction waste and so much more? Branded buildings can still be created and gain from adaptive reuse and renovation. Renovating, rather than demolishing, would allow for the business to stay open while renovations are being completed. It would also take less time to construct because there would not be demolition or construction from scratch.

Located in the Palisades, Washington, D.C. there is a CVS that defies the idea that branded buildings have to demolish and rebuild for their locations. This CVS is a converted old movie theater. The design keeps the integrity of the old movie theater while also having a recognizable brand.

CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.
CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.

Another, larger, example is the Bastard Store, located in Milan. Designed by Studiometrico, the shopfront, officers, warehouse, and skate bowl are located within a 1900’s cinema. It stays true to as much of the cinema as was possible, but also reflects the brand’s gnarly attitude toward snowboarding. The juxtaposition of the prior program and the current program is an idea that can be appreciated and is much more complex than if they had torn down the cinema and built a new, sleek, snowboarding headquarters.

  • Original Milan Theater

 

In Conclusion:

As sustainability is becoming a requirement rather than an option, we as designers have to ask ourselves if it is really worth building new. With a site that already has a building on it, there is no need for a new building because we can effectively reuse the building that is already there. Even without considering the environmental side of things, adaptive reuse presents many more benefits that new construction simply cannot imitate.

 

Bibliography

Baer, William C. “Empty Housing Space: An Overlooked Resource.”Policy Studies Journal 8.2 (1979): 220-27. Web.

Bergsdal, Håvard, Rolf André Bohne, and Helge Brattebø. “Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway.”Journal of Industrial Ecology 11.3 (2007): 27-39. Web.

Bullen, Peter A. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings.” Facilities 25.1/2 (2007): 20-31. Web.

Power, A. “Housing and Sustainability: Demolition or Refurbishment?”Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and Planning163.4 (2010): 205-16. Web.

“47-2061 Construction Laborers.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Joint Center for Housing Studies. “America’s Rental Housing: Homes for a Diverse Nation.” (Publication of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University). HARVARD JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES, 8 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Kellert, S. R. 2005. Chapter 4: Biophilic design in Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection.Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 123-177.

Power, Anne. “Does Demolition or Refurbishment of Old and Inefficient Homes Help to Increase Our Environmental, Social and Economic Viability?” Energy Policy 36.12 (2008): 4487-501. Web.

SCHALMO, Barbara Elwood. “COVERING THE COST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Exploring the Adequacy of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit to Cover the Increased Development Cost of Adaptive Reuse

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation Sector Emissions. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Projects for Affordable Housing.” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Tränkler, Josef O.v., Isa Walker, and Max Dohmann. “Environmental Impact of Demolition Waste — An Overview on 10 Years of Research and Experience.” Waste Management 16.1-3 (1996): 21-26. Web.

Assignment Posts, Peer Design Review

DD Peer Design Review

Leave a comment

Designer: Suheng Li

Reviewer: Becca Newburg

From the very beginning of this project, Li was determined to design her building using circular geometry. Despite warnings of frustration and discouraging advice from reviewers, Li stayed strong with her intent of using circles. For that, I respect her; because she kept with circles, her concept has remained strong throughout the project. Of course, circles are hard but her project is coming together.

For the rest of this peer review I will use the following format:

What Li said about her work/ what was on her board.

The reviewers’ comments and their “order of worth” about what she said and showed.

My two cents and advice.

 

I decided to use circular geometry because:

  1. circles contrast with the existing city grid,
  2. circles create a fun environment for the firefighters which contrasts with the type of work they do, and
  3. the cylinders are reminiscent of the industrial tower/drums that appear elsewhere on the shoreline. 

These are not good enough reasons for using circles. Circles are a difficult problem so you need a very strong reason to use them. This comes from an “inspired” perspective because they attacked her very concept.

I think her reasons are valid but Li needs to beef them up so that her project could not use anything else but circles. For example, a fun environment can be achieved with squares or triangles. Regardless, I think ” fun” is the  wrong word in this case. Maybe inviting is better because the curves draw you in and invite you to stay.

Circulation paths might be another strong reason for using circles. How does the circulation of firefighters improve with circles? I could see a cool diagram explaining this because people don’t walk with corners in the middle of their path.

 

Each cylinder houses a different piece of the program and are connected by a balcony path.

I like this a lot! It allows firefights to get down to the apparatus bay from their bedrooms quickly and is also social connection between the other programs. As much as I enjoy this path, there is an opportunity that Li is missing with the roof of her apparatus bay which is just below her path. I can see the path floating and moving around a wonderful green place where there is stillness and hanging out. It could be a green roof space with shaded areas under the path. I believe that area has the view to Manhattan as well so having a gathering space there would take full advantage of that. This would also make the sections more interesting and make for a great rendering.

 

Li used circular geometry for almost every wall and element in her building. 

There are a few straight lines. If you’re going to do circles, there should not be one straight line in your building! 

I totally agree here; It will only strengthen her project. My suggestion, if Li can’t sacrifice the straight geometry of these walls, she should replace the straight lines with a very shallow curve/large radius. That way, it’ll be curved but it’ll take up roughly the same amount of space that a straight wall does. One of her straight lines is a path by the street that “reacts with the street”. I think what she is trying to do is make the spot where her geometry meets the city grid softer and blended. I think that if she used circles to contrast with the grid, that moment should blunt, not blended.

 

Li didn’t show furniture in her drawings.

How are you going to furnish your buildings? Furniture as it is is not designed for circular walls and if they exist, they are expensive and rare. Also, how are you going resolve the doors and windows? These comments come from an industrial and practical point of view.

This is not the first time furniture has been brought up. I think Li should come up with some quick furniture designs that are easy and cheap to make and exactly fit into the geometry of her project. I could see her coming up with furniture that you CNC and assemble. Cutting flat-packaged furniture allows her to make any kind of shape she wants and can be really cheap. The hardest thing to resolve will be the beds because mattresses are rectangles. Therefore, laying out her rooms and resolving the leftover spaces with furniture she designs will finally shut the critics up about furniture.

The door issue may be resolved by making a small section of flat wall for the door while the facade curves above it. I am not so sure about the windows but curved glass is not unheard of though probably hard to do.

With all three of these issues, Li really needs to do some research and see how her precedent dealt with them. There might be simple solutions out there that she does not know about yet.

 

As far as landscape, Li has a circular area designated as a lounge space and otherwise kept the site as it is which is covered in wild grasses. 

The reviewers did not like this but did not give her many ideas to work off of. They said the site is uninviting and very underdeveloped. They wanted the public to feel like they belonged in her park design which comes from a civic point of view. 

I’m really excited about the possibilities of Li’s site design. Keeping with the circular geometry will make for some really cool spaces. I suggest creating circles at different levels to make sunken gathering spaces or built-up, playful hills. Maybe one circle is a reconstructed wetland, or have a circular dock going out to the river, or a reflecting pool. The in between spaces could be circulation or a place for trees. The fact that trees are circular in plan is something Li must exploit. Trees are a great way to make barriers, sheltered spaces, and effects the way people interact with site.

 

Extra comments/ final thoughts

Li’s model was very well done. She used a piece of plexiglass for the roof of her first floor so that you could see in and I thought that was pretty ingenious. This way of building revealed a structural problem with one of her cylinders though; it is pretty much floating with no cantilever support or columns. Adding columns may cause problems in the floor below so she may have to play with layout or find a more creative way to achieve a column-less space.  I think her drawings were well done and her use of textures made them look elegant. I appreciate the fact that there are no hard corners and that each radius exists elsewhere in the drawing.

 

Project Statement

Becca Newburg DD Statement

Leave a comment

Located on the site in Brooklyn, NY, stands a long, low bus-washing building. It occupies the riverfront, facing the Manhattan skyline, and straddles a line between old industry and modern residences. Its scale and lack of specificity lends itself to adaptive reuse as a fire station.

The overall geometry of the building is a rectangle with a corner missing. I filled in the corner with the apparatus bay, completing the rectangle with a material that contrasts with the existing brick facade. After this move, I took put down a layer of history. By extending a road that, historically, once ran through the site, I created a throughway to the park. Also, the geometry of the landscape was informed by taking cues from the historic shoreline.

The facade of the existing building is treated a blank canvas, where the necessary openings are cut without regard for the existing condition to suit the new uses. The holes from the existing building are filled with a contrasting material like concrete and ceramic tiles. Most of the structure is existing from the old building but a new structure is introduced to support the new apparatus bay which further ties the old and new together.

The rest of the program is broken up into public and private areas. The public areas are located closer to the apparatus bay. The private areas are elevated from the ground and separated from the public by the throughway. On the far side of the building is the Monitor museum. A large, leftover space was then given back to the public to be used differently each season.

Assignment Posts, Draft 1000w

There is No Need for New Buildings.

Leave a comment

There is no real need to build new buildings

Periodical Name: BLUEPRINT

  • Introduction
    • With so many unused and abandoned buildings, why are we still building new ones? Today there is an abundance of buildings including factories, houses, incomplete construction sites, stores and ghost towns available to be readapted. Adaptive reuse is better for the environment, is an answer to poor living conditions, is an interesting design challenge for architects, and preserves the historical significance of existing structures.
  • Environmental Benefits
    • Demolition & Construction Waste
      • Injures cities images and memories (Cerkez 94)
      • “Demolition waste is a major part of industrial waste. In general, demolition waste is heterogeneous and consists to a large extent of building materials but includes even small amounts of hazardous substances.” (Trankler 21)
      • “Current waste generation from the construction and demolition industry (C&D industry) in Norway is about 1.25 million tonnes per year.” (Bergsdal 27)
      • “A 2001 study of Norwegian waste treatment facilities reported that approximately 44% of C&D waste was sent to sorting, and of this 33% was materials recycled, 22% was energy recovered, and 34% was landfilled. The numbers do not include rocks, gravel, soil and the like. Furthermore, the results revealed that the treatment method for about 40% of C&D waste in Norway was unspecified. Some waste was sent directly to recycling companies, and therefore not registered in the statistics, and some waste was also disposed of illegally (Statistics Norway 2002).” (Bergsdal 28)
    • Shipping new materials
      • Depending on what is available locally, many materials need to be transported to the site. There is really no way to avoid this in general, but renovating rather than completely demolishing and creating a new building creates less need for new material.
        • “In 2013, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 27% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions after the Electricity sector.” (“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”)
    • Renovation Construction is much more difficult than new construction.
      • Take into consideration the cost of transporting the demolition and construction waste to a recycling facility.
      • The longer period of demo and construction time creates a longer period for laborers to be in work.
      • This longer period also creates more emissions into the atmosphere due to equipment used during demolition and construction.
    • Rich Clients who don’t care about sustainability
      • Sustainability is the “new”, “cool” thing in architecture. Even though sustainable techniques have been around for almost two decades.
        • The client’s building will be judged based on how sustainable it is.
          • If it does not use sustainable techniques, the client will be ridiculed for ignoring the need for sustainable strategies in architecture and ignoring the need for taking care of our planet.
        • Sustainable technologies are considered advanced technologies in architecture.
  • Economic Benefits
    • Less time under construction.
      • When demolition and construction are needed, a project will be under construction for a longer period of time.
        • labor costs. Approximately $35,000 salary per worker (47-2061 Construction Laborers)
      • There are certain historic rehabilitation tax credits offered to those who preserve the history of their site. This helps to offset the cost of renovation.
  • Low income housing
    • About 200,000 rental housing units are destroyed annually. Renting is one of the most viable options for low income people (Joint Center for Housing Studies).
    • “Unable to afford the higher rents for newer suburban units, many lowest-income renters remain stuck in older, lower-quality apartments close to the urban core with limited access to well-paying jobs and other advancement opportunities. Without more production of affordable rentals in the suburbs and expanded community development efforts in center cities, the economic prospects of the nation’s most disadvantaged are certain to worsen.” (Joint Center for Housing Studies)
    • developers continue to focus on the high end housing market segment, ignoring the many renters who are unable to pay (Joint Center for Housing Studies)
    • Albeit challenging, adaptive reuse is an option for the shortage of low-income housing.
    • Adaptive reuse projects, because they are often sited in older neighborhoods or even historic districts, can situate residents much closer to centers of employment. (Schalmo 9)
    • Adaptive reuse projects usually are able to receive “low income housing tax credit” and/or “historic rehabilitation tax credit” to offset the cost of developing low income housing. (Schalmo 10)
  • History Preservation/Respecting site
    • “When a building of historic merit is preserved or restored for adaptive reuse, its cultural energy is also recycled. Old buildings preserve the local culture and identity and create a sense of belonging. In a way, we recycle embodied human resource energy along with material energy. We bring alive the past to be a part of the future, creating valuable connections through time.” (Cerkez 94)
    • “Effective vernacular design requires consideration of the cultural and historical character of the places where buildings and other constructions occur…The distinctive identity of a place is affirmed by designing in relation to a place’s social and historical elements.” (Kellert, 165). The very nature of adaptive reuse lends itself to creating an environment that has a sense of place and history. Unlike new design, reuse projects don’t have to try and fit in- they are already part of the community.  
  • Architectural design challenge
    • Using abandoned or existing buildings creates interesting, compelling design challenges for architects.
      • This constraint allows designers to create new innovations and solve problems while also respecting the history of the site.
      • Architects give these buildings new life, new meaning, and new function while respecting what went on before their project. Recycling the “cultural energy” of what was there before.
      • This allows design to blend into the language of its surroundings, while still doing something new.
      • This kind of work would not merely be renovation, the entire purpose of the building would be redefined to become whatever our society needs most.
    • Branded Buildings (such as CVS or McDonalds) do not have to be created completely new.
      • An example: A CVS that was a converted old movie theater. It kept the integrity of the old movie theater while also still having its brand. Located in the Palisades, Washington, D.C.

        CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.
        CVS|Pharmacy, Palisades, Washington, D.C.
      • Demolishing a branded building such as a McDonald’s
        • Renovating would allow the business to stay open while renovations are being completed.
        • Less time under construction, rather than taking the time for demolition and the construction of an entire building.
      • Branding can be created while also respecting the history of a building.
        • Take the CVS occupying an old theater as an example.
        • Or take a larger example of the Bastard Store, designed by Studiometrico in Milan. The shopfront, offices, warehouse, and skate bowl are located within a 1950’s cinema. It stays true to as much of the cinema as was possible, but also reflects the brand’s gnarly attitude towards snowboarding. The juxtaposition of the prior program and the current program is an idea that can be appreciated and is much more complex than if they had torn down the cinema and built a new, sleek snowboarding headquarters.

          Bastard Store, Studiometrico, Milan, Italy, 2011 Photo Cred: Giuliano Berarducci
          Bastard Store, Studiometrico, Milan, Italy, 2011
          Photo Cred: Giuliano Berarducci
  • Conclusion
    • Sustainability is becoming more of a requirement than an option.
    • There is no need for new buildings because we can effectively reuse the buildings that we already have.
    • Adaptive reuse projects are a better solution than new building because of… [summarize main points]
  • Architectural Examples:
    • 1. Residential
      • Grainger Place, 2000
      • The Landmark Group
      • Low income housing converted from an old school
      • won awards for historical preservation development
    • 2. Museum
      Photo: Iñigo Bujedo Aguirre Architect: Herzog & de Moren
      Photo: Iñigo Bujedo Aguirre
      Architect: Herzog & de Moren
      • Caixia Forum, Madrid, 2007
      • Herzog & de Moren
      • combined an old abandoned electrical station with new construction
    • 3. Commercial
      • Bastard Store, Studiometrico, 2011
        • 1950’s Cinema large enough for the store
        • They retained as much of the character of the old building as possible.

Bibliography:

Baer, William C. “Empty Housing Space: An Overlooked Resource.” Policy Studies Journal 8.2 (1979): 220-27. Web.

Bergsdal, Håvard, Rolf André Bohne, and Helge Brattebø. “Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 11.3 (2007): 27-39. Web.

Bullen, Peter A. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings.” Facilities 25.1/2 (2007): 20-31. Web.

Power, A. “Housing and Sustainability: Demolition or Refurbishment?”Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and Planning 163.4 (2010): 205-16. Web.

“47-2061 Construction Laborers.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Joint Center for Housing Studies. “America’s Rental Housing: Homes for a Diverse Nation.” (Publication of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University). HARVARD JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES, 8 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Kellert, S. R. 2005. Chapter 4: Biophilic design in Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection.Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 123-177.

Power, Anne. “Does Demolition or Refurbishment of Old and Inefficient Homes Help to Increase Our Environmental, Social and Economic Viability?” Energy Policy 36.12 (2008): 4487-501. Web.

SCHALMO, Barbara Elwood. “COVERING THE COST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Exploring the Adequacy of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit to Cover the Increased Development Cost of Adaptive Reuse

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation Sector Emissions. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Projects for Affordable Housing.” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Tränkler, Josef O.v., Isa Walker, and Max Dohmann. “Environmental Impact of Demolition Waste — An Overview on 10 Years of Research and Experience.” Waste Management 16.1-3 (1996): 21-26. Web.

Peer Design Review

Schematic Design Peer Review

Leave a comment

Designer: Megan Shrout

Reviewer: Becca Newburg

Megan’s project is about how the contrast between history and future, old and new, and is represented by the pushing and pulling of her building. These pushed and pulled volumes are connected by a “bridge” which is the apparatus bay. To one side, the museum is located as a tall and skinny volume that also houses public program. The other side of the bridge is a wider, shorter volume that houses the living areas that support the fire fighters.

Her pushing and pulling idea is very apparent in her concept model. The slanting volumes rise and actually slide back and forth depending on how she pushes an pulls. As a juror pointed out, this very clear parti seemed to have gotten lost in the process of making it a functional building. To help clear this up, I would suggest that her volumes cantilever to emphasize the original idea. The original model suggests that the “bridge” (apparatus bay) is underneath the two side volumes so I would also consider lifting the side volumes over the apparatus bay.

One of the biggest critiques from the jury was that the museum was too tall and narrow to be functional. The large ramp takes up a lot of floor space could be used for displays and the remaining space would be too much of a challenge for a curator to work with. An interesting point one of the jurors made was that, while its not very functional, the proportions vaguely match those of the original Monitor ship and could possibly be something that Megan plays on. I agree with the critique that the museum is not the right proportion but I also recognize that Megan wants to maintain the contrast of a tall, narrow structure with the shorter, wider structure of the living spaces. There a few things that Megan could do in order to fix this problem. One, is to get rid of the ramp completely and use stairs with the idea that the guests would start at the top and work their way down. With this, I would make the stairs a floor to floor visual connector as well as a physical one. She could even put the stairs on different sides of the building (the stairs would be on the right side every-other floor and on the left the other half of the time) so that a visitor would walk through each floor to the next staircase and never double back through a display . With this suggestion, she would be sacrificing the accessibility that the ramp offers and would have to install an elevator and a more direct way to go from floor to floor. Another suggestion would be to make the ramp stick out from the building, like an attached fire stair that could also be incased in glass. Then, it would look like a series of diagonals on then side of the building that don’t contribute to the main mass of the building thus maintaining the contrast.

The residential side of her building points towards the view of Manhattan but is not taking advantage of it. The bedrooms especially ignore the view because they completely fill the space. The walls of the rooms are parallel to the ends of the building, making them not square and causes the rooms to be awkward and hard to furnish. If Megan made the walls of the room parallel with the trusses that go across the apparatus bay, they would become perpendicular and would leave an interesting space at the end of the building which could be used to take advantage of the view as a lounge area.

The design of the landscape, besides some geometry lines from her building, remains largely undeveloped. This is understandable at this stage of the project and the jurors had some suggestions about how to start thinking about the landscape to start designing it. So far, Megan has lines coming from the geometry of her building that create different, irregularly sized levels. To start programming the space, she first needs to decide what she wants to happen in such a large space. I personally started by making a list of interesting activities and then seeing how much I could fit. For example, she could consider working in a place for performances, swimming area, wildlife, ice skating, sport fields, vegetable gardens, flower garden, a plaza, picnic areas, a boat launch, water feature, sculpture garden, or a playground, just to name a few. She could also focus on site-based needs like the fact that the water is pretty dirty and moves up with the tidal change. For this she could consider reconstructive wetlands, filtrating floating islands, a dune system, circulation etc. After she decides what she wants going on in her site, she can them start to developing a hierarchy of how people use those levels and the site in general. She can determine which levels need to more private or public, noisy or sheltered from noise, how many people fit on a level, and design accordingly. The jurors encouraged her to think about the site as a series of experiences and decide what she wanted the users to experience and when like a scene-by-scene progression. What its like moving through the sight? I would suggest breaking the levels up and incorporating an interesting circulation system.

Overall, Megan’s project works. She is sophisticated in the way she dealt with the irregular geometry of her building. The general shape creates opportunistic areas that can be developed into provocative spaces. Her drawings look good and her model, with more material contrast, will be impressive.

The advice from the jurors didn’t have a very clear influence as far as whether they were from the inspired, domestic, fame, civic, market, industrial, or project order of worth. Some of the comments sounded civic-driven because they wanted her to think about the public and how community will use the space. A couple of of comments were about the efficiency of the circulation and use of space so those were pretty industrial. There were no comments that fell under fame and market because, as a student, that shouldn’t be a concern. The comments about her landscape were inspired because the jurors were trying to inspire Megan with ideas. There weren’t many comments about her living spaces other than geometry so there were no domestic comments. However, that doesn’t mean that Megan shouldn’t think domestically when designing her living quarters and other places of habit and tradition.

 

Photo credit: Manhattan Skyline taken by myself