Useful terms

I'm back at the DS looking for inspiration. I read too fast to absorb properly, so usually when I'm looking through something I write down key quotes to think about. Since this is where I'm taking any thesis notes, in this post I'm quoting... myself. Weird.

Flexible space can encourage possibilities that the architect may not necessarily be aware or in control of (abstract)

Microarchitectural articulations are a mechanism to combine flexible and programmed space (abstract)

NB: For my next presentation, it's probably a good idea to start with the abstract to my DS. Some useful terms...

Ambiguity: When a form can be read in many different ways

Articulated space: designed space that uses small-scale details or variations to indicate possible programmatic use

Articulation: a detail added to a building that shows how a building can be used

Flexible Space: space that is able to perform in different ways depending on what is required

and who will be using it. Has an indifferent relationship to the spatial sequence.

Inflection: how the parts of an object relate and the relationship of the whole to its setting.

Interpretable: when something can be read in many different ways.

Microarchitectural Articulation: A human scaled and ambiguous mechanism that allows users to inhabit spaces in a variety of ways that appropriate to a program momentalso the relationship between two surfaces

Neutrality: the result of too much flexibility: tolerable for all but not right for any single user.

Specificity: when programs are so ingrained in space design the space cannot be used for another program.

Key Quotes

Design with microarchitectural articulations can take various forms. Simple repetitions of the iteration create a field that can form space in different ways. The microarchitectural articulations can also be arranged with regards to overlapping programs.... This combination of surfaces affects how adjacent spaces are used and this will in turn drive the development of the entire building.

My DS, in the architectural articulations appendix, provides a kit of articulations that can be assembled to produce architecture. I'm clear on how to create the sectional moments. I look in the ergonomic section of Architectural Graphic Standards for similar distances in dissimilar situations (for example, the height of a seat can be equal to the height of three stairs) and use the numbers in common to juxtapose two different uses/needs together. Then I try to imagine some different ways that people could occupy this juxtaposition. In some cases I also include the envelope and look at ways people can interact with envelope openings and how open or closed windows can affect the use of a surface.

Microarchitectural articulations can be used as devices to determine the building form or designed space. By combining surfaces in specific ways designers can create elements that drive the design of a building as a whole and meet the requirements of users.

The current issue is while I have this kit of really interesting and great parts, I don't have any guidelines about how to put them together. My DS is heavily process based, and the process is that I start with a small scale object and work larger until I finally create something that can have a program and/or site assigned to it. Because of this, even kids with piles of Lego are ahead of me: they know what they want to make. I can't know what I want to make because of this. Instead, I need to assemble iterations and look at what they could be used for.

If the driver of a building form is a small scale move that is applied coherently throughout the project and that addresses the problems inherent to that type, the final form of the designed space evolves naturally from this combination of parts.

Naturally? Good grief. The small scale move in questions, is (of course) the variation of surfaces that I have designed, so the quote could read as "the driver of this building for is variations of surfaces based on relationships to the human body that are applied coherently throughout the project and addresses problems inherent to transit loops". In that case, I need to look at problems inherent in transit loops.

Because there is no clear way to inhabit (the mechanism), users feel free to assign their own meaning and to use them in ways that fit their requirements.

Heh. So I have to practice being obscure. It's SUCH a shame that NLMLN wouldn't join my committee. He's great at that. Anyways, the idea is that the surfaces need to be scaled to suggest some kind of occupation but the users don't know exactly what so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. My DS outlines three ways for this to happen: one is the repetition of a single shape, another is by overlapping programs, and the third is by creating nodes or hubs of use with programs that spill out into generic space around them.

The theory behind microarchitectural articulations is that surfaces that are arranged to encourage contact with users and perform in different ways will begin to define space ambiguously. Inhabitants can supply their own possibilities for the use of surfaces which can act as seats, tables, desks and stairs. Use varies depending not only on the preference of the inhabitant, but also on surrounding activities in the space.

This is starting to talk about overlapping programs. And that is fine: I think this could be one of the keys to this project. While I'm not ready to stick some thing on part of a site, I can identify different programs that could occur in the SUB Plaza/transit hub/retail area and look at which ones could be usefully overlapped. There is also the possibility of looking at different use patterns throughout the day. There will always be some people sitting around the SUB, but in the morning most students rush through the space to class and don't need to sit down, at lunch they want to eat, read, study and hang out with friends, in the afternoon there will be people moving into the underground bus loop and reading/studying/meeting friends, and in the evening people will want to use the space either for eating, gathering or just to pass through. This is why I picked this site: because so many different things happen there throughout the day.

Surfaces arranged to encourage inhabitation but maintain ambiguity can manifest in many different ways and so be applied to a wide vareity of problems. These variations are schematic ideas of how surfaces can relate to promote different kinds of inhabitation by users. The surfaces have multiple uses and proportions to encourage invention by users. Combining two or more moments of articulation begins to create space.

This makes it more clear what I need to do. Just like I have the kit of parts of MA's, I need to assemble a kit of parts of MA assemblies that I can plug into certain situations. This is where I start to disagree with my previous stuff. I talk about how you can get combinations of MA's through thinking about what programs need to go together and assembling MA's to suit. What I should do is look at the MA's the same way as I looked at the ergonomic drawings in Architectural Graphic Standards. What surfaces are the same distance apart? What can they create? Obviously the possibilities are endless. It also means that instead of designing for program I am programming for design. But it isn't irresponsible form making (a la F Gehry) because the initial idea is linked to the human body.

Wow. That's a pretty exciting idea. I've got it written down here and in my sketchbook, so I can move on. So let's say I assemble these combinations. Each one has one or two ancestors in the previously designed MA's and is documented through this. I eventally assemble enough to produce hubs of use.

Hubs provide ambiguous program suggestions and define adjacent open spaces.... They create opportunities for use of spaces because users can apply their own meaning not just to one surface but also to the room as a whole.

At what point to MA combinations begin to respond to program? I think that I need to assemble a full toolkit -- everything from the simple sections, to hubs that are 3 or 4 generations removed from the sections -- and then I can start to think about how they are assembled. Is that where program comes into play? The spaces do need to begin to consider program, but I don't want to do it too soon.

(Hubs can) provide prgrammatic generators for space. It can act as a stage, a seat and a central point... Because it is unexpected users apply their own ideas to it. If (it) were unarticulated many of these different activites would not be possible. ...It is best if the articulation that limits possibilitieis is ambiguous and so can support a number of different uses.

Articulations become a mechanism for designs that allow the architect to investigate ways users can inhabit space to enliven a building. At the same time, because the microarticulations are iterations of a single idea they solve different problems in different ways. It makes it possible for variations of a single idea to solve many different spatial problems and so create fine-grained spaces that fit the evolving needs of a building. By using assemblies of iterations... and applying the concept of hubs, designers can use micrarchitectural articulations to design buildings with many different kinds of programs.

Stall

My meeting yesterday with my Thesis Committee pointed out that I've been a little off track in the past few weeks. Instead of getting into site, they suggested, I should really be looking at how microarchitectural articulations (MA's) can be formed. Big D made it clear that if I want to do bottom up design I need to start and stay small for a little while, which means no site for a while. She had some really great comments: she suggested I think about the Eames 'Powers of Ten' movie.

I had a postmortem lunch with E (who, having edited my DS is au fait with my arguments) and we discussed what my next move should be. We both think it's a good idea to go back to the small stuff and to think about what kinds of parameters are appropriate for the MA's. If I am going to argue that MA's can serve multiple purposes, I need to nail down my definition of ambiguity. D also suggested that I reread my DS to think about how I can apply it, so I'm going to spend some time today doing that and maybe I'll have a brainwave.

Committee Prep III: The Prepening (Four of Three)

Design Considerations

(this is where the slides and images stop because I haven't put this part of the PPT presentation together yet. Sorry!)
There are certain issues that concern UBC Properties regarding the Underground bus loop and the new University Boulevard Plaza.

• Limited space in the underground waiting area: While more students use the UBC Bus Loop in the morning peak hours than in the afternoon, afternoon use causes a significant problem because students will be waiting in the underground space instead of merely moving through it. While there is adequate space for most buses, there is not enough room for the afternoon B-Line peak (roughly 700 passengers for about 10 minutes)
• UBC Properties Trust has suggested that a good way to mitigate this problem is to use the SUB plaza as a buffer to slow down the movement of students to the 99 B-Line queue.Commercial Impression of Campus: the Campus Community Poll Results (Appendix B) show that many students, faculty and staff are concerned about the impact of a commercial space being the first contact point of visitors with the university of British Columbia.
• Un-public space: By creating a retail plaza as compared to an open space, the commercial space undermines the public nature of the plaza and therefore the University. There should be no question that the university and this space are welcome to all, even if they are unable to support these businesses. In the same vein, students should feel free to act in ways that retailers may feel is not helpful to their businesses.
• Little Green Space: Appendix B also shows that many students/faculty/staff are concerned about losing the Grassy Knoll: one of the few open green spaces left in the centre of campus. They also register concern about a lack of connection to the current use and history of the site.

Proposed action: Redesign the interface between the underground bus loop and the SUB plaza using microarchitectural articulations to address concerns about:

• Limited space in the bus loop
• Limited daylighting in bus loop
• Commercial impressions of campus
• Un-public space
• Lack of green space

Committee Prep III: The Prepening (Three of Three)

I want to apply MA's to the interface between the new UBC underground transit loop and the university proper.

UBC held the UBC Boulevard competition in 2005. Firms were invited to submit designs for the University Boulevard Area, which is surrounded by the green line as shown. This space includes the Bosque, the Grassy Knoll, the lower SUB plaza, the old Bus Loop and parts of University Boulevard. While the competition included these areas, it did not include the underground transit hub then being designed by VIA Architecture.

While much of this space is currently parking and/or driving space, the Grassy Knoll and the lower SUB Plaza are frequently used by students in many different ways. The Grassy Knoll provides a place for students to sit in warmer weather, and the SUB plaza is used for all kinds of demonstrations as well as Storm the Wall.

Due to proximity to the old Bus Loop and the Student Union Building, these two spaces can be identified as some of the most diversely used areas of campus. In addition they are not adjacent to any faculty or department buildings: they are in a neutral part of campus and so 'belong' to all students equally.

The new design for the Unversity boulevard Project was initiated by Moore Yudell Ruble (sp?) and Hughes Condon Marler. MYR has recently dropped the project, which has been picked up by Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg. The two firms have also taken over the work of VIA Architects for the underground station design.

The area includes 100 student residents, a 5 storey office tower and a sizeable amount of retail space. Access to the underground transit loop is limited to one large stairway and two elevators accessed through the adjacent buildings. Paths across the stair stitch together the plaza.

The terminal is divided into three portions: a parking area for buses not in use, a loading area, and a waiting area. The loading and parking areas are separated from the waiting area by a glass wall, with doors that open electronically when buses approach. The parking area is not visible from the waiting area. The parking and loading areas are mechanically vented with most fresh air coming from the entry tunnel, and the waiting area is ventilated through the main stairway. There is no room for commercial space in the underground loop and it will be lit by a mixture of natural and artificial light.

Committee Prep III: The Prepening (Two of Three)

These precedents lead to Microarchitectural Articulations.

Microarchitectural Articulations are drawings that begin to investigate how the relationship between different surfaces can produce ambiguities and encourage different kinds of occupation. Using user requirements from Architectural Graphic Standards, the MA's blend different functions into a single space, allowing different uses at different times.

For example, this Seat/Envelope combination can be used in different ways depending on whether the envelope is closed. Because the surfaces are separated by specific distances derived from relationships to the human body, they imply certain uses. Because they can be used in more than one way, the uses they imply remain somewhat ambiguous.

This ambiguity becomes even more visible when the sectional moments of microarchitectural articulations are combined in three dimensions. Seats, tables, bleachers and counters combine to create different kinds of use opportunities.

Committee Prep III: The Prepening (One of Three)

I've assembled a series of slides that should adequately describe both the microarchitectural articulations (MA's) and the site for the presentation this evening. They're all fancy with a nice font, title pages and citations.



Welcome to this committee meeting. I'm really glad to have everyone here together.

I wrote my Directed Studies about the dichotomy between articulated and flexible space. For a space to be really flexible, it should be able to support a lot of different functions, but in many cases this diminishes the potential for uses not imagined by the designers. I spent some time last semester looking at articulations that can support many different kinds of use.





Vernor Panton's Living Environments from the 1970's are one example how spaces can be articulated and scaled to the human body without regulating how the space is used. Because the shapes all use the same vocabulary the group of different elements work as a single unit composed of many small parts. The result of these articulations is an environment that is ambiguous. Use of the projections is unclear: while they are scaled to the body the lack of definition between floor, ceiling and walls allow users to invent new uses for the landscape. People can lean, sit and lie down: they can sit far apart or close together.

This kind of ambiguity is important for creating a space that is articulated and unprogrammed.

The Weitere Projecktbeteilgte is another example of how ambiguity can create many use possibilities. These pink blocks are made of foam rubber and can be assembled in different ways. They activate a large plaza between two galleries by creating inhabitation spaces in an otherwise empty space. Because of their material they are both comfortable to occupy, and because they are not shaped as benches or chairs users feel free to use them in many different ways.

Joel Sanders' 24/7 Hotel Room Prototype uses ambiguous surfaces in a different way. Because hotel rooms need to be compact, but much of the room is not used for a significant portion of the day, the 24/7 Hotel allows spaces to change from private to public with the deployment of a wall. The articulated surfaces are designed to meet more than one need and so their use can shift as user requirements vary during the day.

Committee Prep II: Presentation Boogaloo

Well, it's definately useful to write down everything that I know. Unfortunately, that doesn't always translate into a good presentation. What will make a good presentation is a concise & succinct presentation of what I know.

Since that may not come through, here is a list of what I need to do for tomorrow at 5:45.

1. Outline DS project. Pick a couple of precedents and a couple of microarchitectural articulations (MA's) and describe how they work.
2. Outline site. Show current site and proposed site, including new renders of SUB plaza and transit hub. Describe Properties Trust's ideas for SUB plaza mall.
3. Outline program. Explain the need for a space that slows the flow of students to the bus loop.
4. Look at design obstacles/opportunities. This should include: rents required to pay for part of hub, grade change over site, daylighting, comfort and keeping students dry, requirement for 'liveliness'.

I need to do this whole presentation in 20 slides or less and keep it to required information. I know more about this site than anyone on my committee, and I want to make sure that I don't overwhelm them because I know so much.

I'm not yet clear on the best way to organize this information. Is it better to start with the MA's and then talk about site/program and design obstacles? Or should I start out with the site and design problem and suggest that MA's are a good solution for it? I guess I'll start out trying to describe MA's and then I can stick that portion of the presentation wherever it seems to fit best.

Metric ton of new info.

I had a meeting with UBC Properties Trust today. It was a great meeting: I spent an hour and a half talking about the new transit loop and SUB plaza. The only problem is that now I have a ton of new information that I need to sort out in my head, then work into my presentation. The presentation that is in less than 24 hours. Uh, yay?

Okay, so here is what's going on:

The new transit hub has been passed from VIA to Hughes Condon Marler. VIA did the original work, bu it has since been significantly tweaked by HCM. The current plan is roughly rhomboid and the trolley buses and community shuttles have been moved to the surface. The loop itself has been divided into two parts, which are the passenger loading area and the bus waiting area (where the buses are left when the drivers are taking their breaks). The passenger loading area is divided from the passenger waiting area by sliding glass doors that electronically open when the bus arrives so passengers can load. Passengers with bicycles will use the front entry to go around the bus to pick up their bicycles. The two portions are divided to reduce exhaust fumes in the passenger waiting area.

The size of the bus loop is determined by various factors. To the south is a large steam tunnel, to the north is the student union building and the bosque and to the east is the Aquatic Centre. Columns have been placed so that the buses can get through the space most effectively and the size of the waiting area is dictated by the amount of space required by the buses and the space required by cyclists to retrieve their bicycles.

The underground bus loop is accessed either by the two elevators (in the buildings on the SUB plaza) or by a large staircase that leads to the centre of the loop. While I was initially concerned about the amount of students attempting to get out of the loop on a single stair, studies show that if 95% of users are on the stairs it will be sufficient.

What is much more of a concern is the waiting area for the buses. While in the morning students can be expected to leave the transit loop as quickly as possible, in the afternoons they will be loitering around the loop to catch their buses. This can lead to as many as 800 people standing around (about 5:10 in the afternoon, if you are wondering when not to catch a bus).

UBC Properties trust felt that a way to mitigate this bunching would be to create loitering space on the plaza above the loop. If students are aware that a lag of 30min to 1 hr would cut their waiting time significantly they would likely be amenable to waiting outside the bus loop with coffee. The SUB plaza is intended to house a variety of different amenities, including two coffee shops, a bank, drycleaners and a range of food outlets from hot dog stands to mid-range dining. These services will be in the two buildings on the plaza.

Unfortunately it takes more than restaurants to create a space where students want to hang out. A large plaza would be equally ineffective: most UBC residents/students are aware that Library Plaza (between Main and Koerner Libraries) is virtually unused other than a passage between one side of the campus to the other. Modern students do not demonstrate as they used to, nor is our university conducive to large groups of people.

My thesis talks a lot about how to make spaces lively and how body-scale articulations can help to activate a space by suggesting possible uses without denying others. It sounds like the SUB plaza/transit exchange could benefit from a few microarchitectural articulations (MA's) to create spaces where students could pass anywhere from 10 minutes to a few hours while they wait for the buses to calm down. This slowing of load would make an enormous difference to anyone waiting for the bus and may prevent line-ups for the B-Line from winding all the way up the stairs out onto the new plaza.

There are a few other things worth noting. There will be housing on this plaza: probably about 120 units of 2-4 bedroom suites that are administered by UBC Properties trust and can be rented by students. This is not market housing. This will be three stories above the retail floor and there will also be an office 'tower' that rises five floors above the retail. The plaza will be surrounded by retail outlets. There is no space for retail in the underground loop.

Getting in and getting out

One of the things I really noticed with the new bus loop is that it significantly changes the flow of traffic around the student union building.

This map shows movement patterns for transit users. Red are users going to the north-east part of campus (mostly Arts), blue is going to the south-west (mostly science) and purple is going to the Student Union Building. This is a simplification because there other directions, but the majority of users go in these two directions.

Last week I gave some user statistics from the Transportation Status Report. One of the numbers that I didn't include were estimations of how many people pass through the bus loop in the busiest hours on campus. In the hours ending at 9:00 and 10:00, nearly 4,500 people get off buses on campus. That's almost 9,000 students, staff and faculty in two hours, or a new person every 0.8 seconds. That's a lot of people.

I remember from my time on campus how crowded it could get around the bus loop in peak times. That's why I was a little surprised when I assembled the same kind of map for the University Boulevard project, from the slide on conceptual design issues .

The only access to the underground transit station is two escalators.

I started to try to calculate how long it would take to get out of the transit loop if there were only two escalators, but realised that this is against fire codes. There must be more exits that for some reason have not been included in the diagram.

Vancouver is not cold enough to require fully enclosed transit hub. Considering our bus shelters and Skytrain stations (note the architects) it seems enough to protect passengers from wind and rain. Even during especially cold periods, it rarely gets below -10 degrees celcius.

I'm very anxious to see the plans for the tranist hub from VIA architects and/or UBC Properties Trust. I hope they have information to fill in these blanks.

Presentation Preparation

Since two of the four members of my thesis committee can't meet on Wednesday, Thesis Advisor M and I decided to change the date to next Tuesday. I've started to prepare a powerpoint presentation to describe what I want my project to be about, but I'm still having trouble arranging my thoughts coherently. I need to clearly show:

• What is currently on the site of the proposed bus loop
• How the SUB plazas and Grassy Knoll interacted with the old bus loop
• How it currently functions and what use opportunities it provides for students
• What the University Boulevard Competition proposes
• How the proposal does not offer adequate use opportunities to replace what is currently on the site
• That the interface between the aboveground University Boulevard Competition entry and the belowground transit loop is not optimal
• That for my thesis I want to design a interface between the competition entry and the belowground transit loop that offers the same use opportunities as the SUB plazas and the grassy knoll.
• Some of the information I want to take into account when I design it

In addition to this, I also need to adequately describe the microarchitectural articulations. I'll be going back to some earlier posts to find that information.

Off topic...

No new posts yesterday: I took the day off to recover from the most fabulous LArch Wig out. Even with the extra rest, the Flying Squirrels lost another game today, but a bunch of desk jockeys didn't have too much chance against HKin. At least I got a chance to a) wear my fancy new shin guards and b) head the ball.

Layers of Desire: University (cake)

The Board of Directors want a different kind of bus loop than students -- again, both above and below ground. (In this case, Board of Directors should be taken as people that work towards development of the University and are interested in cash flow as well as experience)

Directors want:

• to provide gateways to the campus which identify a sense of arrival, establish pedestrian/bike priority to the campus and slow traffic.
• to retain a transit exchange in the vicinity of East Mall and University Boulevard
• to encourage mixed use: retail, office, housing and other institutional uses
• a busy urban plaza
• a maximum average FSR of 1.6 FSR
• a retail and commercial space along University Boulevard with uses directed towards the daytime and evening population of the University
• to allow for the possibility of expansion to allow for new rapid buses
• to accomodate dwelling units for faculty/staff/students on upper floors and commercial use on lower floors
• provide weather protection for pedestrians

What's already there: SUB plazas

The most famous event that happens in the SUB plazas is Storm the Wall. The Plaza is filled with mulch (which is later spread around the campus) and 12 foot walls are erected that students have to haul each other over, after swimming, biking and sprinting their way through a relay race.
The plaza works as a natural collector. It is used for protests, displays and different kinds of events. In September, fraternities and sororities use the space during rush week, the Genocide Awareness Project uses the plaza for display, and protestors demonstrate around the Goddess of Democracy.

Many of these things were possible because of the placement of the plaza. Any student moving from the south side of campus to the Student Union Building will likely cross the plaza, and proximity to the old bus loop ment that almost every student who came into UBC on public transit would move through this space during the day.

Layers of desire: Student (creamy filling)

People want different things from the site of the new bus loop (both above and below ground)

Students want:

• a place to hold Storm the Wall
• green space where people can interact
• a bus loop where they feel safe/has natural light/has retail spaces
• Student services such as lounges and study rooms
• Year round exterior seating spaces
• Public space instead of commercial space
• Pedestrian only space

What's already there: The Grassy Knoll

The University Boulevard Competition proposes to replace the Grassy Knoll and the Lower SUB Plaza with a covered area and retail buildings. These two areas, however, serve various purposes that may not be adequately served by the new spaces.

The Grassy Knoll serves as:

• A metaphorical rallying point


• A movie theater (see Friday September 8th)


• A place to eat outdoors


• A place to meet people


• A demonstration space


• ski/toboggan hill


• A place to watch Storm the Wall

It is referred to as "a site for and symbol of student activism... a cherished spot on campus."

The Lower SUB Plaza is used as:

• A space for discourse


• Sport area

Comments about designs for the are new bus loop say

• that students are "very concerned about the underground bus loop. In all the designs, having more entrances and somehow opening it up a little would make (them) feel a lot more comfortable about going there, especially at night. Also, there (is) lots of paving and almost no natural surfaces..."


• that “The grassy knoll is one of the few places students can gather on campus to meet each
  other, to socialize and to build real community. All the proposals replace this with places for students to buy things and consume. We want real social, green space, not the limited amounts each proposal has to offer.”


• That “What UBC campus lacks is green spaces which act as communal meeting grounds for its students and staff. Boulevards do not count, as no-one actually hangs out on boulevards. The grassy knoll currently is one of the only such features of this campus.”


• That students are “VERY concerned with the destruction of the "grassy knoll." It has long been the center of student political activity on campus, and is well used as such. There seems to be an emphasis in these presentations on cozy pathways and places to lounge in the sun. This is blatantly impractical, as there is rain at UBC for most of the school year. UBC is a large school, and this should be celebrated; it feels good, as a student, to be part of a crowd in an open space, all rushing to class in the same direction. The division of this open space into smaller pathways actually diminishes this sense of community, in addition to creating a potential safety hazard for students walking at night. "
  
  

Bonus Link

The SALA (School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture) Sustainability Guru just stopped by my desk while waiting for a meeting to start. He suggested that I look at the Kennedy Expressway Greenway by Perkins + Will. The project covers portions of the expressway while leaving openings for exhaust and views to the road. Adjacent buildings direct air movements to clear air at both park and road level.

It's an amazing project (although unlikely to be built) and certainly a great precedent to cite. Thanks, Sustainability Guru!

Clerical Work

I've got a full committee! I heard back today from another professor saying no, and stomped downstairs to complain to the professor running the thesis projects. He wasn't in his office, so I spent a few minutes yelling at Thesis Advisor M. After I had cooled down a little bit, she realized we hadn't spoken to a professor that taught here last year, who has worked with small-scale architecture (and incidentally is interested in my favorite modelling program, Maya). Thesis Advisor M called her right then and there, she accepted, and now Big D is part of the team! I'm so pleased: she's very outspoken and creative, and will be a great addition.

The committee is as follows: Thesis Advisor M, Big D, The Flame and R the Engineer. I'm really happy to have all of them. I sent them an e-mail with the following dates for meetings, but may have to move it around a bit to accommodate everyone.

• January 31
• February 21 (During reading week)
• March 14
• April 4

That leaves a week between the second meeting and my midterm review, and four weeks between the final meeting and my presentation. Somehow booking meetings makes this thesis thing feel a lot more real.

Link-fest II: Electric Link-a-loo

Since I'm going to have to wait for information to come in, I thought I would spend some time today trolling the web for interesting architecture sites. I find that the blogosphere is a very useful place to find inspiration not just for design strategies, but also for representational techniques. How are architects showing what is important? What kind of people do they use? What is happening between rendering/handrawing/illustrating/photshopping? The way projects are shown is inextriably linked to what they are about so it is extremely useful to look at how architects represent their projects, and what kind of art is happening and can be co-opted for my purposes.

The best way for me to do this is to look around on the web. The information here may not be completely up to date, but it is often more recent than anything printed. So here is a list of websites that I found today and thought could be interesting. I'm going to see how often they have new content and if I still like them in a few weeks, will add them to the links sidebar.

Eikongraphia
anArchitecture
BLDBLG
A Daily Dose
Tropolism
The Wooster Collective
Gravestmor
Mark Magazine
ArchRecord2

In touch/out of touch

My meeting with Thesis Advisor M generated a fair amount of momentum. Last night I e-mailed a bunch of people and read a bunch of different stuff. Now I'm waiting to hear back.

Richard Drdul has agreed to join my thesis committee: Hooray! It will be great to have a transportation engineer on the project. I'm so pleased I found his weblog. I think maybe I'll ask him to come in before the first meeting to stress that the project will never be built and therefore cost is not an issue. He also put me in touch with a fellow from UBC Properties Trust who I'm meeting on Monday to discuss the current plans for the transit exchange.

Apart from this there isn't really very much going on. Maybe I'll go home and make trouble there for a while as I wait for information to start coming in

Loopy Figures

While I'm waiting to hear back from some of the people I emailed for information today, I'm also looking into user statistics for the bus loop. Richard Drdul includes a Transportation Status Report with most of these numbers on his blog and the rest are from the Comprehensive Community Plan and Campus Transit Plan.

• Ridership increase since 1997: 140%
• Total weekday transit trips to and from UBC: 45,600
• Percentage of trips made to and from UBC on transit: 42%
• Weekday transit trips per prson: 0.86
• Peak transit time: 9:00-15:00 (18,270 trips or 40%)
• Student population at UBC in 2005: 43,550
• Staff population at UBC in 2005: 7,650
• Faculty population at UBC in 2005: 2,100
• Total UBC population in 2005: 53,300
• Estimated transit ridership for 2011: 56,300
• Estimated number of incoming buses (morning) in 2011: 141
• Estimated number of incoming buses (morning) in 2022: 165
• Estimated time elapsed between arriving buses (morning, 8-9 am, 2003): 50 seconds
• Optimum capacity for bus loop until 2028: 40 buses
• Increase in trips per person between 1997 and 2005: 91%

The UBC Campus Transit Plan also identified several concerns regarding a below-grade transit station:

• Fear that the station and bus tunnel would be ugly
• Location of bus entrance to station may avoid traffic better south of University Boulevard
• It may be difficult to ventilated the station and there may be impact on the surrounding air quality
• It may be difficult to make station secure

It lists the following as advantages of a below-grade station:

• Faster transit service/fewer delays because station would be fare-paid zone
• avoidance of traffic congestion and delays at pedestrian crosswalks
• Could be designed to allow for the implementation of rapid transit at a future date (the Comprehensive Community Plan says that one of the principles for transit is to
  provide flexibility for changing transit configurations over time such as planning the transportation system to accommodate a potential future LRT route and stations.)

The CCP has "Placemaking Principles " for both open space and urban form, and lists Planning objectives for the University Commercial and UBC Academic Core.

New Bus Loop Approved!

I had my second meeting with Thesis Advisor M today. She's approved the bus loop concept, and we made a list of people I should contact to be on my committee and a list of things that I should get/find out for my first meeting. Apparently another professor might have access to some plans and things for the site which could cut down on a lot of work.

The bus loop is part of a larger University Boulevard Competition that was held in 2005. Moore Rubel Yudell of Santa Monica teamed with Hughes Condon Marler and won the conceptual design competition (announced April 28, 2005). In 2006 Moore Rubel Yudell pulled out of the project and were replaced by Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects out of Toronto. (from the Ubyssey)

The University Boulevard Competition excluded the design of the underground bus loop, which was designed by engineers. This design can be seen online and seems to focus on weaving. I'm not crazy about the design because I think the residential blocks completely mask the War Memorial Gym and will cast unpleasant shadows. The project includes:

• construction of realigned University Blvd including revised intersections at Webrook Mall and East Mall
• Transit station and ramp with the trolley station at grade including associated reconfiguration of underground utilities
• Two buildings adjacent to the student union building and Aquatic Centre
• Extensive Landscaping renovation
• Vehicle access and parking adjacent to Bookstore

Construction is slated to commence in June 2007, be completed in April 2009 and be occupied in September 2009.

The bus loop itself was designed by VIA Architects, who were also the urban design consulting firm for the 2010 Olympic Village. They have done a ton of transit work, including three of the new Millenium Line stations, the furniture design for the Millenium Line stations and the Burrard and Granville Stations for the Expo Line. I've sent them an e-mail, so hopefully they will get back to me with some interesting information.

Loopy precedents

I'm still waiting for the thumbs up from Thesis Advisor M, but I've got fingers and toes crossed. Until I get approval, I'm going to scout around for useful stuff (I'm sure this is clear from my previous posts)

Right now, I'm interested in precedents. What kind of architecture exists for transit hubs? For underground transportation? What's out there in Vancouver and otherwise?

• Calatrava's WTC transit hub. The scale of this is quite different from what would be need at UBC. There is a Power point video online.

I'm going to find some more, but I've spent a few hours drinking thesis committee wine and chatting with some other students, so I'll get it tomorrow.

Further loopiness

John Maeda at Simplicity says that statistically speaking, most of the time you try something, you will mess up. You don't know how things work, you aren't sure what to do, you make mistakes. The secret is that if you try a lot of different things, you will end up with a few ideas that work: if 1 out of every 100 tries produces something useful, it's obvious that the more tries you have under your belt, the more useful stuff you will produce.

This is one of the reasons I post so many times a day. It can't hurt, I figure, to keep adding ideas and links to this blog, and there is an off chance it will produce something useful.

This is a link to a map of the new UBC bus loop that shows where each bus picks up and drops off. The B-line buses are to the south-west and north-east of the loop because they need to straighten out so people can board.

The community shuttles are not shown as part of the bus loop. These buses board to the north of the Student Recreation centre, and their route is shown here. They currently only cover the North end of campus, but we can expect services to expand to the South campus with increasing construction. In fact, residential construction all over campus increases the importance of the campus shuttles.

This map shows the proposed location of the new bus loop.

I'm not sure if I've linked to the Strategic Transportation Plan yet. It gives some user statistics concerning students and others making bus trips onto campus. It also talks about how there are noise issues with diesel buses, and mentions that Translink has plans for a rapid transit connection to UBC. This must be the Skytrain station. I found the link to the Strategic Transportation plan through the campus plan access and movement blog. This blog talks about all the different ways people get around campus: one suggestion is that UBC have attended bicycle parking. (Post is here). Even more interesting is the post that says funding is the biggest reason we don't have rail to UBC and that it's slated to be completed some time after 2021 unless money comes from an unexpected source. If thesis advisor M does agree that the bus loop is a good project, I think I'll send Mr. Richard Drdul a note...

The campus plan blogs are pretty interesting: I see that a lot of students seem intersested in a dry space to meet friends and study. It would be interesting to see if this could be blended with a new bus loop.

In the loop

The UBC bus loop has recently moved. When I started studying architecture at UBC it was south-west of the student union building. This was a very convenient place because it sat between the arts and science sides of the campus and was adjacent to the Student Union Building.

The loop functioned moderately well, but the introduction of B-Line buses caused problems with both the waiting areas and available space. It was not designed for the articulated buses or the line-ups of 100+ students waiting to get on the buses. When the 44 B-Line was introduced the stop was on the street across from the loop (if you look carefully you can see it on the map).

After 2003, the bus loop moved to just east of McInnis field, in a space that used to be tennis courts. They decided not to repave, and around Christmas the road turned into oreo cookie crumbs because it couldn't handle the weight of the buses.

The map shows a couple of useful things. The turning radius for the articulated buses and the trolley buses are significantly different. As well, much of the plaza adjoining the Student Union Building could be co-opted for a new bus loop. It may be possible to preserve some of the grassy knoll or to recreate part of it's utility. The grassy knoll serves as a social condensor in the same way as the microarchitectural articulations: because it has no set use it can be used as seating in the summer, a ski/snowboard hill in the winter and serves many other functions.

Because UBC has B-lines, trolley buses, gas-powered buses and community shuttles, I think it would be a good idea to separate the community shuttles from the rest of the buses and put them above ground. This would mean that the only buses using the loop would be from off campus which could then affect how the loop is laid out.

Most of the vehicles that leave campus go down University Boulevard to 10th Avenue, but the 25 and some other buses travel past the hospital. Any bus loop would have to take into consideration the different directions of buses leaving and organise the loop to minimize confusion on the part of drivers and users.

Completely off topic

I play on the school Futsbal league (indoor soccer, as far as I can tell) and even though we lost, our team totally rocks! Go Falling Squirrels!

Bus service on campus

I've been reading the Campus Transit Plan and thinking about what kind of buses would use the new bus loop

• The articulated B-Line buses
• Gasoline and/or natural gas powered buses
• Trolley buses
• Small community shuttle buses (short bus)

The campus transit plan also talks about why a below grade bus loop is better than one on-grade, and some of the requirements of the loop.

Better because:

• Faster transit service/fewer delays to buses
• Entire station would be 'fare paid zone'
• Avoid traffic congestion and delays at pedestrian crosswalks
• Weather protected, heated and climate controlled

Requirements:

• Entry/exit at University Boulevard at Wesbrook Mall
• Capacity of 40 or more buses
• Station would have to be well lit and feel safe
• Full accessibility
• Seating, telephones and other amenities
• Plan suggests glass doors separate passengers from buses to ensure air quality

I think it might also be useful to think of an underground bus loop as a chance to connect buildings underground. If the grassy knoll is removed to put in the new loop, it's reasonable to connect the loop to the SUB. There may also be a chance to connect it to the new library, although it is possible that is too far.

The idea of glass doors separating passengers from the bus exaust does not seem optimal. I think it would be better to have some kind of physical barrier. There is also the chance to line up the curb with the height of buses so they do not need to deploy the wheelchair ramp at this station.

Bus stuff

Although I haven't got the go ahead from thesis advisor M, I hav been doing some reading about how the UBC bus loop works and what need to be considered for the future. So, here are some issues in no particular order:

• The 10 year transit plan by Translink says that "the potential final link of the rapid transit network on the Burrard Peninsula is a western extension, connecting the existing system with the Central Broadway Business District and potentially to UBC. Studies to review alignments and technologies, community integration, cost, financing and phasing will be completed within the next five years; although it is unlikely that construction could begin until after 2013. The priority and requirement for a link as far as UBC should be addressed in the forthcoming longer-term growth management and long-range transportation plan processes." Basically, it says that it is likely that there will eventually be a Skytrain line to UBC, but it won't happen until after 2013. Since that's only 6 years away, so it may be one of the reasons bus loop design/construction has been delayed. It may be possible for me to incorporate space for an underground station: it's certainly something to discuss with thesis advisor M. The planning for this should occur in 2007.
• There has been a lot of construction on South Campus and it is likely this will continue: this should be addressed in any proposed transit plans for the region.
• Design and construction of the UBC underground transit exchange is slated for planning or implementation in 2007. The 2007 Transportation Plan also says that the UBC underground transit exchange will require Intelligent Transportation Systems functional studies to operate the facility.
• Tranlink is trying to implement a Community Pass for non-students that live at UBC.
• UBC Transit Exchange – A Memorandum of Understanding is being negotiated between TransLink and UBC for a new transit exchange at UBC." If approved, work is expected to begin in 2007 on the ITS functional requirements study and preliminary design for the underground transit exchange. Perhaps one of the most technologically sophisticated facilities of its kind, this underground exchange will be similar in function to an airport terminal with arrivals and departures information available to passengers via a large electronic message board in the upper plaza, before they proceed to board in the lower level. To provide this function, this project will require real time tracking of exact locations of transit vehicles as they enter and navigate through the arrival, holding and departures areas of the exchange. The system will assign buses to arrival and departure bays, alert passengers on gate location and maintain traffic flow". ( from the 2007 Transit Plan)
• Translink is planning on making buses a 'fare paid zone' (essentially putting the responsibility for paying fare onto the user) so B-Lines can board at all doors at all stops
• Trolley buses and articulated buses have very specific turning radii which significantly affect any transit hub.

Where some things change while others stay the same.

So I've been thinking about yesterday's discussion of rates of change, and wondering if a good program would be one that has a couple of different rates of change. One example of this is a shopping centre: the retail spaces are frequently remodeled while the corridors remain basically the same. I'm not sure if a shopping centre would be a good program for microarchitectural articulations, but the idea of a building that supports different rates of change seems interesting.

I also missed a couple of programs that have high rates of change:

1. Schools and/or daycare centres: very busy from 9-5, unused the rest of the time
2. Train stations/ferry terminals: very busy when people are waiting.

I was going to make that list a little longer, but I think that train stations/ferry terminals seem like an interesting place to start. In Vancouver there are a number of different places passengers wait for transportation.

• Ferry terminal at Duke Point
• Ferry terminal on North Shore
• Greyhound Bus Terminal on Terminal Avenue and Main Street
• Seabus/Skytrain/WestCoast Express station at Waterfront Station
• Seabus at Lonsdale Quay
• Skytrain/bus at various Skytrain stations (the most famous is Brentwood Station)
• Skytrain/Skytrain at Broadway Station
• UBC Bus Loop

I think most of these designed spaces have pretty much the same requirements.

Since we have been asked to do programs/sites on UBC campus, I think that the most useful site/program to investigate is the UBC bus loop. What are the pros and cons of this?

Pros:

1. A bus loop/station needs seating that is extremely durable and resistant to wear
2. There are significant variations in use during the day
3. The proposed bus loop is underground, which will provide lots of opportunity for sectional variations that support MA's
4. The programmatic use of a bus loop is unlikely to change frequently. Partitions won't go in as user requirements change.
5. A large bus loop will need small scale articulations to give a human scale
6. There are many opportunities to add other programs to the site, like small shops and other things that might need a large covered space
7. The very specific requirements of a bus loop might make it easier to generate architecture
8. Vancouver already has a history of allowing architects to design transit stations (like the Millenium Line Skytrain stations)

What are the cons?

1. The program does not change significantly in the life of the structure. A bus loop is unlikely to be used for anything else and I would be reluctant to design for that.
2. A bus loop would have to deal with issues of homelessness and skateboarders. I like skateboarders and I think they can be very useful in activating a space, but they can make other users of areas very uncomfortable because it is possible they could hit other users.
3. Lighting and structure would be very important and I'm not sure how to tie this in with the MA's.

All in all, a new bus loop at UBC sounds like it could actually be a feasible option for program/site. Hooray! All I need now is a third member of my thesis committee, some site research, a list of dates for committee meetings, some help with structures..... well, an awful lot of stuff. But still, hooray!

More Change

Buildings may have 5 rates of change, but there are other kinds of projects that change at other rates. Some of them include:

• Tents and temporary structures for special events. These can be used for a couple of seasons, but the amount of time they can be used is affected by weather conditions. Most temporary structures trade air quality for insulation and are not designed to be used for extended periods of time.
• Tech buildings/floors: this isn't quite the right name, but many buildings have raised floors and/or lowered ceilings to hide the wires, etc. that come with technology. These spaces are accessible because tech needs change a lot and so they need to be accessible.
• Special event buildings. One great example of this is buildings for the Olympics. Stuff put up for the 2010 Olympics is supposed to look nice, but will only be used for a few weeks. To get around this, the stadiums and housing is actually designed for future use and is adapted for the Olympics. For example, the Athletes Village is going to be market housing after the Olympics. Although athletes don't have kitchen appliances in their spaces, the apartments will have room for them so they can be put in afterwards.

I think that microarchitectural articulations (MA's) should be tied to structure and movement through the building (that is, stairs & hallways) because they should not be changed through the life of the building. The whole point is they are designed so they don't need to be changed and so that any changes that do occur in the building in the future are directly affected by the placement of the MA's. If they are carefully and thoughtfully deployed, they can direct design alteration and additions to the building after the architect is no longer involved.

When architects design refits and additions to buildings, they always leave certain things as they are. In most cases the structure and some of the exterior walls stay the same. I think that if I use MA's in a design. they should be considered stable elements in a building in the same way as the structure is. They can't just be artistic frills or extras that are part of an architectural language: they need to be the meat of what the designer is saying. MA's underscore the primacy of inhabitants in a building.

Rates of change

So, yesterday I determined that I need to find the right program and site to showcase the MA's, and one of the ways to do this is to find a site that has a lot of programmatic variation. I thought about programs that vary from day to day, hour to hour, and seasonally. Unfortunately, while I am interested in buildings that vary from year to year it is not possible for me to forecast what program will exist in a building in the future, so I can't use it as a design criteria.

The speed of variation seems to be an important factor, and it ties into my argument. Adam Greenfield has an interesting article that talks about different rates of change in designed objects. Buildings have a number of layers that change at different rates from furniture that can be frequently changed with little expense, to foundations and structure that change infrequently because they are so complex and expensive. Fashion is one of the designed objects that changes the fastest because it is a badge that displays how how close the wearer is to the cutting edge: when the majority of people are wearing something, the trendsetter has moved on to prove that they have financial and stylistic access to the very newest.

My interest in this article is because I think I need to locate where microarchitectural articulations fit into this rate of change to get a better idea of what kind of program would best showcase what MA's are good at doing.
What is the rate of MA's? What is the rate of change in the building around them? How do the different parts interact?

Buildings can break down into the following rates of change:

1. Fastest: moveable furniture. Folding chairs/tables or chairs/tables on wheels can be moved several times in an hour. Their placement can change significantly during the day and the can be moved around to suite many kinds of programmatic needs. To respond to this constant movement, folding (or stacking) chairs/tables are cheaply made of lightweight material so they can be easily moved and replaced if they become damaged.
2. Fast: furniture. Most furniture can be moved with a certain amount of effort. The amount of effort, of course, is related to the scale of furniture. Desks, bookshelves, sofas, tables and chairs can be made of moderately heavy materials (wood is a favorite) and may be upholstered. Uphosltery is not a very durable material and will eventually show wear, but this is a trade for the increased comfort in a padded chair. Another example is the rubber chair used by Rem Koolhaas in the SPL: durability is increased by materials, but any material that is comfortable to sit in will not be as durable as one that is very hard.
3. Moderate: Partition walls. Partition walls are intentionally constructed to not be very durable. Often they are no more than 2x4's (or steel stud) with GSB and paint. This occurs because while they are very important in the programmatic breakdown of a building, partition walls need to change when the use of a building changes. A building partitioned with brick or concrete will not be able to adapt to new uses.
4. Slow: external cladding. The only reason that external cladding ever needs to be replaced is the reduced preformance caused by aging of materials. Roof shingles need to be replaced because they rot, caulking because the volitile gasses that keep it soft evaporate, wood because or rot and/or insects, tiles because of moisture ingress... The intent of an architect should be to minimize replacement of external cladding/envelope unless there is a very strong reason to do otherwise.
5. Slowest: Structure and vertical movement. These two parts of a building are often connected and I think it is because they are the two parts that, if they must be replaced, there is a need for a new building. While it is possible to replace structural elements in a building, it only happens if there has been an unexpected failure or if the building is significantly older than its projected lifespan.

Of these 5 rates of change, I think that MA's should be 4 or 5 -- slow or slowest. They are supposed to be flexible enough to respond to unanticipated needs.

Sticking and/or stuck

I set today aside as a day to work late. I was going to sit at my computer and sort out this program/site thing so everything was a little clearer. Yesterday I didn't spend very long at school, I figured, so I would really settle in today, do some work and sort some stuff out properly.

Sure.

So far I've caught on all the websites I visit, eaten lunch, read a whole archive's worth of comics and done nothing.

uh, yay?

Control freak seeks same

My friend AL is kind of a control freak -- I'm sure everyone in architecture is, since we try to design everything in the buildings our users inhabit. She argues that she wants to control every experience users have in her buildings, every moment, every action. Her buildings are great and she does this well, but I don't feel the same way. This causes problems. I don't feel comfortable masterminding every action of users in the buildings I design because I feel that when people can adapt and change the buildings they use they are more satisfied with their environments and develop affection for their spaces. I'm not a good enough designer to guess what might need to be changed in the life of a building, so I want to design for change, design in a way that lets users adapt the building to their needs so the building doesn't need to be torn down because it can't be changed. I don't think anyone is a good enough designer to guess what use a building might have in 50 years -- not even the great ones. The best we can do is design in a way that allows buildings to adapt.

This is part of where the microarchitectural articulations (MA's) come from. It seems like a contradiction: putting furniture scaled elements into a building that I want to last a long time. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the space as open and unworked as possible? Some natural light and good ventilation might make this a good building. But buildings have people in them, and I don't think it's reasonable to pass the design buck to furniture when the building needs to accomodate users. No one wants to work in a giant warehouse: someone has to make decisions about dividing walls and ceiling heights.

These surfaces are an attempt for the architect to do that. They aren't walls and ceilings. Instead, they are elements that limit where walls and ceilings can go. In the same way as a fireplace in a room will affect where all the furniture goes, MA's suggest different types of use in spaces.

I'm not suggesting that a building be made up of MA's. They are most useful as hubs. Strategically placed combinations of MA's act as social condensors. They create the kitchen party. You know how when you go to a party, especially in a large space, people always cluster together at the least convenient place? It could be the kitchen or the bar, or maybe by the stereo (depending of course on the type of party). This is especially visible at parties in rooms that are basically big open spaces. The reason for this is the kitchen, or bar, or stereo area is often the only part of the room that is scaled to the person. It happens in big plazas too: the whole thing is just so damn big that people cluster at the edges.

So MA's can provide the kitchen at the kitchen party: the human-scaled part of a space. If it is done carefully, it should be possible for them to work in a wide variety of situations. A large courtyard, for example, could be activated by these dohickeys. This is why choosing the program and project for my thesis is so important.

I could stick MA's into a preexisting building -- something warehouse-y and souless, and argue that they give human scale and make the place more liveable. This could work because I would have to use them to mediate current programmatic needs of the building and there would be some constraints because the building already exists. There aren't a lot of really large buildings that work poorly in this way in Vancouver that I can think of, so I'm not sure what building I could pick.

I could design them into an otherwise warehouse-y and souless building and argue that they make it less of both of those things, but I would still need to pick a program and site, and there aren't enough parameters to make the project rigorous. I've proved that I can stick articulated surfaces together to create interesting spaces. What I haven't done is found a mechanism that will help me determine how they should go together. The warehouse-with-MA does not provide this. My thesis advisor, M, has suggested that I do a meta-building that will work with many different programs and can be deployed in different situations.

I could identify two physically demanding programs and merge them by using MA's that address both at once. This sounds great in theory, but I'm having a tough time working out what programs they could be. Some possibilities include:

• Something that varies seasonally: A building that is used for festivals, or where the use changes significantly with the weather. An ice rink?
• A swing space - varies unpredictably: there's one on campus at UBC already... and the thing about swing space at the school is that offices and classrooms are all the same, even if they are needed for different faculties.
• Something that varies by day; something that is used for different programs during the week than over the weekend. Some possibilities could be office space/farmer's market or something like that. What kinds of activities only happen on weekends? Grocery shopping? it's been so long since I've had a real weekend, I don't know.
• Something that varies by hour: I gues this could be a school that is used for something different in the evenings (what, I don't know), or office space that turns into something different at night... It's a tough call, because any place where people spend a significant amount of time is a place where they will want to leave things all over their desk/office/bedroom.

Of these, the seasonal variation sounds the most interesting. Maybe there is a way to create a rental space in one of the parks in Vancouver that can act as a bunch of things: a gallery, a party room, a place for festivals... but these programs still aren't physically demanding enough.

Again, something that bears further thought...

Muy Fantastico!

One of the things my advisor M suggested I do to get ideas for my thesis project was to make a list of things that are totally awesome and fantastic about these miroarchitectural articulations (or MA's). I'm much more critical than positive and tend to have problems arguing in favour of my ideas, but I thought I would give it a shot. So, in no particular order, here are some reasons MA's are the best thing evah.

• They provide a mechanism for architects to investigate the composition of solids and voids (a good exercise for architects, but it's unlikely that laymen would care)
• They encourage users to interact with the designed space (almost always a good thing, unless you have a problem with homeless people lying around your building)
• They add human scale to buildings (I think this is one of the best reasons to use them because the zoom capabilities of AutoCAD make it easy for architects to remember what size a person is in their building and so make spaces far larger than they need to be)
• They mediate between specificity and flexibility, allowing designers to create one space that encourages lots of different uses (this is the main argument in my Directed Studies)
• They encourage architects to use a new design strategy and work from small details up to a building (I like this one a lot because being an architect is all about having lots of different design strategies that you can deploy in different situations. They're the tools in our toolbox, and are far more useful than knowing how to use AutoCAD)
• They encourage playful interaction in buildings (this is similar to encouraging interaction, but the key word here is play. Because the surfaces are ambiguous, people need to think about how they might want to sit or work on them, and I hope that increased awareness of bodies in space will lead users to test their own physical boundaries and consider what is comfortable for them.
• They can be combined/assembled to fit any program and any site (not a great argument, because this is true of most design things)

I think of these, the idea of a different design strategy is the most interesting, then the idea of human scale, and finally the interaction argument. Of course, the point of MA's is that they allow architects to combine physically demanding programs in new ways. It's taken me a while to realize this, but I am comfortable arguing that surface articulations of this kind are most useful when programs that need permanent fixtures such as benches, tables, stairs, podiums, counters, chairs and risers are combined. An example of this could be the combination of a movie theater and a lunch counter (the second program still needs a little work, I think).

A movie theater has very specific physical needs. There must be seats, a screen, and some mechanism that allows everyone to see the screen (be that a raised screen or raked seating). A lunch counter has very different needs: a counter that is close to a kitchen and some kind of seating. Microarchitectural articulations are designed to mediate between these two programs and create possibilities for other, unrelated kinds of use.

Microarchitectural Articulations: Hubs

Microarchitectural articulations are most effective when they are placed together. This particular example combines a counter, some seating and a desk space (not visible) in a highly articulated area that can be occupied in various ways. The point is that because use is not immediately clear, users are able to project their own uses on the surfaces so that they fit in with changing programmatic requirements. This particular example is also playing with ideas of materiality: these surfaces have no depth and use rounded edges to investigate continuous surfaces.

Microarchitectural Articulations: Surfaces

I thought I would take a minute to post an image of exactly what I mean by a microarchitectural articulation. This example shows two ways of using a combination of solids and voids. When these are intersected with the envelope of a building, opportunities are created for users to inhabit the surfaces in a variety of ways that may not neccessarily be controlled by the designer.

The idea is that if enough variations of this kind are assembled, spaces can be inhabited in unexpected ways by users, but also support many different kinds of programs. MA's can be grouped to create hubs, and I think that the combination of different surfaces also provides opportunities for users to occupy them in new ways.

At the moment, the problem is that while I can assemble MA's in many different combinations there is no measuring device to say if it is correct or incorrect: there are no rules for them to follow or break. Hence the problem, hence the thesis, hence the blog.

Meeting 1: The preliminaries

So far I haven't been that busy at school: I moved my stuff into my desk, I reformatted the music I have in iTunes, helped my friend AL with the presentation work for her thesis ( she was a semester ahead of me and has now graduated), and built a few Sketch-up models that make it very clear that I don't know what's going on.

This morning I had my first meeting with my thesis advisor, M, and we discussed exactly what I need to do for my project. First thing is to nail down a third advisor. I have M, of course, and an architect from outside the school is helping as well (and we shall call him... Flame). I need one more, and I have my fingers crossed that NLMLN will have the time to join us. He always has killer comments at thesis presentations, and I would much rather hear them at my mid-term review when I can do something about it. He's fun, too, and it would be great if he'll spare the time.

The next thing to do is look at exactly what kind of project I want to do. Before Christmas, M and I had discussed the possibility of my designing a new School for the faculty of Architecture, as we just merged with the School of Landscape Architecture and the university will need to put both faculties into a larger building. One of the thesis presentations last weeked was suggesting a new school, and while I think her project was interesting, I don't really want to look into the theories behind the study of architecture and what kind of spatial requirements that has.

Since this is the case, M suggested I consider designing a prototype building that could serve many different kinds of programs. It could be placed on campus and serves as a School of Design, but it could also be on the beach and work as a community center, dcowntown and be a restaurant or shopping space, or in the country and serve some other program function.

Maybe some background information is needed here. I spent all of last semester working on my Directed Studies. Basically, the DS is a paper to investigate the theories behind your design interests to jump start the project. My DS looked at the dichotomy between flexible and articulated space, and suggested that one of the ways to preserve the potential of open space while introducing the scale of the body would be to insert articulations that are ambiguous enough to serve as seats, tables, desks, stairs and other furniture-sized pieces. While I call them 'Microarchitectural Articulations' in the paper, they are more a combination of surfaces that allow different kinds of occupation.

So for my DS I argued that these articulations could serve to enliven space and through their ambiguity encourage different kinds of use based on what activities were happening alongside them. It was divided into three parts: the argument that small-scale articulations could introduce the scale of the body into a project and that they could articulate a flexible space, a collection of precedents that describe how microarchitectural articulations (MA's) could be deployed (as a field, by creating overlapping programs, and by producing hubs of use) and an appendix that illustrates some examples (including the very-popular-with-other students 'assgrabbing and foot massage station') that show little Graphic Standards people using them in suggested ways.

Because the MA's articulate space without defining it, M was saying today that it should be possible for me to design one building that incorporates them that serves many different functions. One design could be used for many different kinds of programs, and identical copies of the building could be deployed on many different sites.

While in theory this seems like a good idea, I am concerned about a couple of issues. First is that while I argue that using MA's can make a flexible and articulate space, I think they have limitations. I don't think that permanent surfaces would be viable in a hospital or a domestic space. The argument is more that they can be used to support different programs that may overlap in different ways depending on the time of day. Instead of designing a proto-building, it seems like they need a building that has large programmatic variations during the day. Our School of Architecture has variation between morning, afternoon, evenings and weekends, but the variation is not that great: we spend mornings in classes, afternoons in studio, evenings and weekends at our desks (in studio again!) or in the social space. So the programmatic needs don't vary that much.

One of the other problems with doing a school of Architecture is that the program is not really that demanding. We would probably be just as happy in a large warehouse with some sound separation if there was natural light and a big beer refrigerator. Our classrooms and studio space have moveable furniture, and a crit space is basically a lot of white walls that we stick stuff to so we can talk about it. The microarchitectural articulations I designed can be used as desks or seats, but they are a little more temporary than studio spaces. Frankly, if I'm designing a studio, I will put in ergonomic chairs and desks instead of surface variations because to do otherwise seems cruel.

The best options to explore the possibilities of MA's happens in spaces that have strict program requirements, like bathrooms, kitchens and offices. A lecture hall might also offer some scope, but it doesn't seem like enough.

Now, on the other hand, if I was designing a school that acted as something completely different half of the time it might showcase the MA's a bit better. If it was a school during the day and something entirely different at night it might work, but if I'm going to do that I can't use the example of a School of Architecture, because it would be tatamount to saying that students at the school of architecture need the influence of this other program on their studies.

This certainly bears further thought.