skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Mat-Systems, Material-Organizations: Silicon Hills Technology Park
Introduction
To regulate systems—existing and designed—is the role of the contemporary architect. Systems are governing practices, rule sets, manners of assembly, part-to-whole relationships, and networks. Increasingly, architectural design can be understood as the management of interrelations and degrees of correspondence between multiple systems—technical, structural, material, ecological, infrastructural, and sociocultural.
The influence of abstract organizational principles on corporeal/material constructs will be a central point of examination for design research. The studio will frame the horizontal spatial planning practices of mat-building typologies and the vertical material constructs of thickened wall-surfaces as distinct but reciprocally related forms of material-organization—systems that exhibit a predisposition toward continuity and a potential for differentiation. We will invent novel systems of organization at the intersection of visual and spatial fields, with the promise of eliciting new formations capable of providing diverse social ecologies and alternative performative characteristics.
Our investigation will depart from traditional modular organizations (uniform and repetitive) in favor of systems of complex repetition. Modernist architectural space sought to establish consistency between parts and wholes through modular logics made possible by the processes of industrialization; these methods relied on regulating systems and planning grids to organize space, particularly in plan organizations. While modules are stable or homogeneous systems of elements that can only be replicated or aggregated, complex repetition is an example of part-to-whole patterning that can become locally specific. While early attempts at complex patterning systems were still periodic (based on filling space with more varied yet still fixed parts), new tools allow us to explore aperiodic and non-recursive part-to-whole relationships, based on variable but specifiable parts and geometries. The studio will explore the possibility to organize flexible part-to-whole relationships that can grow and differentiate to produce complex material-organizations.
Archive
-
▼
2008
(65)
-
▼
October
(43)
- New Scheme_Plan;Zoom-in / Site+Building mass Secti...
- Interim Review_Study Models_Sanghyuk
- Interim Review_Building Design_Sanghyuk
- Interim Review_Site and Programmatic strategy_Sang...
- Interim Review_Abstract System_Sanghyuk
- Ik Joo, Lee(mid term review)
- No title
- I have discreased the area that my project takes,...
- Benjamin-oct-22
- 10-22-08 Site Strategy
- No title
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_urban strategy
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_framework + program
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_building footprint+layers
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_study model
- peter3
- peter2
- peter
- SERGIO'S SCHEMES
- Benjamin-oct.21
- Daniel digital post
- Daniel digital post
- This a schematic model of my possible structure
- Use existing building language:research facility a...
- No title
- No title
- Vili: Presentation #3
- Daniel carving ribbons
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- Seth: Presentation #3
- Section-case study_sanghyuk_14 oct, 2008
- Zoning+Circulation study_sanghyuk_14 oct, 2008
- 10/14/08 Ik Joo Lee
- No title
- hello class and welcome to our new studio
-
▼
October
(43)
Grid Focus by Derek Punsalan 5thirtyone.com. Converted by Blogger Buster. Distributed by : Blogger Blog Templates of the Fractal Blog Network
2 comments:
Benjamin,
I appreciate the level of detail you have put into your plan drawing since the last meeting. It is now much more specific in showing the structural module of the exterior canopies and how this starts to form smaller cells or pockets of space that then come into the interior office areas. The structural/space planning module is less clear in the interior areas, where you stop dotting in the diagonal mesh that controls it. Right now you are only showing this mesh where you "use" it to create outdoor spaces, skylight areas, etc.—but in fact this mesh is everywhere, either as a structural grid (operative in the ceiling above) or a space planning module (in the plan below), whether or not you materialize it in smaller building elements. It would be better to do at least one drawing where you show this geometry everywhere, so it is clear how you choose the larger diamonds of outdoor spaces, conference areas, etc. within it—and so it is clear how this mesh expands or contracts as the strips of the building change their direction and orientation.
We also need to see sections (both longitudinal and transverse), since it is not clear how the building is working sectionally. There are ramps indicated in the plan, but it is not really clear why these shifts up and down are happening in section.
I also think the distribution of diamond-shaped elements in plan (outdoor spaces, conference areas, etc.) needs to be calibrated a bit more. Right now there are virtually no areas that are truly open without interruptions; in reality there would probably be a much clearer gradient from completely open areas (for research, etc.), to areas that have a mix between open areas and smaller interruptions, to areas there the interruptions "take over" the plan and turn into entirely different program areas that need to be more cellular or divided. Right now the ratio of open (white in the plan) and specific (diamond shaped things) is exactly the same everywhere, regardless of whether it is meeting, offices, visitor's center, etc.
If you show the geometrical mesh everywhere, and you calibrate this transition from much more open-plan areas to more cellular areas, I think you can also start to vary what happens at the end of this gradient, when it reaches the outer edges of the building. Particularly in the structural canopies, where the outer edges can become much more "frayed" or broken. While it makes send for some areas of the building to have a very simple perimeter, the canopies could have a much more jagged perimeter in places, where you can continue the transition out into the landscape. (Though you might also want to break the straight edge of the building in areas where more cellular programs, like private offices, come in contact with the ecterior perimeter.)
Also: you now have enough information to produce interior renderings from different floor levels, and exterior renderings on the site (not the aerial views you uploaded). How is this structural grid articulated in 3D? What are the interiors like where you have small outdoor spaces or conference areas? What do the transitional zones look like? These renderings are also a form of testing of your system.
Post a Comment