Compromising vs. giving up

What is the difference between compromising and giving up? I swore to myself when I was at school that I would hold out for a great job: I was a good student and I'm personable and friendly, which are good qualities in firms, and I know I deserve to work at the kind of place I want. I swore I wouldn't take a joe job: I'd been at school for too long to take a job that I wasn't crazy about.

Well, I still don't have a job yet. Not only that, I haven't even had an interview or an expression of interest from a firm that I really want to work for. What happens now? I need a job to pay my rent, but I can't take something and leave a few months later: if I don't stay at least a year I'll get labelled a flake and have trouble finding something. I only sent my stuff out about three weeks ago, but I thought I would have heard more by now.

So if I take the job that I've been offered, at a firm close to where I live, that pays well and seems like a bunch of people who might be nice, is it a compromise, or am I giving up? In some ways, it feels like capitulation. I'm abandoning my fine notions of high design just for the money. In some ways though, it feels like a compromise. Work for a year in a firm that is not so great so I can learn something, and in a year, take that knowlege and try again.

I have another interview this afternoon, but this firm is notoriously tough on employees with a high turnover, and I really don't think I want to work there. They aren't going to pay very well (which, as an aside doesn't matter very much because of the money, but more because chronically underpaying employees is disrespectful and indicates other issues there may be in the firm) and while I have friends that work there, they are summer students and will leave in the fall. It would suck if I took the job to hang out with them and they took all the fun with them in September.

I hate the thought of giving up, and even the word compromise reeks of failure: I am who and where I am because I don't give up, for good or bad, and I live alone because I didn't want to compromise any more. And it seems like more and more, the things I swore I would never do again when I left for Montreal are happening. My personal and professional life feel messy and out of control, and I wonder if accepting a job that doesn't excite me would exacerbate this, or make it feel better.

One of the great things about architecture is that I'm not too smart or too good for it: I have to work my very hardest just to get by and I think that makes me a better person. I like to work hard, and I wanted to find a job that would keep me on my toes for a while. I don't get this feeling from what I've been offered... but if I don't accept it by the end of this week, I won't even have the option of taking it.

I guess what I really want is to give myself permission to wait for that great job. My financial backers have given me until the beginning of July to find something, and although I don't much like being unemployed, if I knew the offered job would be waiting for me Jul 2 if I wanted it, I would be a lot more comfortable. But that isn't the case, and I don't know if I should wait for my ship to come in, or take the money and run.

Bedtime stories

Once upon a time, Archigeek decided to go to grad school...

Thesis Advisor M has suggested I put together a narrative of my project to keep track of what is and isn't important to show for the presentation. I think it will be a good way to focus my efforts on what is really important and cut down on my distraction (I'd like to point out that I stopped writing in the middle of that sentence to go check out some web sites )
So how does my project start?

This thesis began with an interest in details and ambiguity. I wondered if there was some kind of mechanism with which designers could indicate possible uses of a space without being specific so there were lots of possibilities. After looking at the work of Vernor Panton and some others, I decided that the best way to do this was by using small-scale interventions. That way the whole space wouldn't be affected, just portions of it.

Since I decided I wanted to start with the small scale and was interested in Panton, I went to Architectural Graphic Standards to look at how small small-scale is. When I was there, I noticed that there is some overlap in the measurements for certain things, and since a surface that is a table can also act as a seat is ambiguous, I started to overlay different examples of humans using furniture to produce a surface or section that could do a couple of things at once.

I found this productive, so chose 13 Graphic Standards that I felt addressed a variety of conditions and crossed them with each other to produce a huge number of ambiguous spatial conditions. Some of these were more successful than others, so I picked a representation of the best ones to work with further.

While the sections were interesting, they weren't yet spatial, so I decided I wanted to see what would happen if I combined them in a different way. While the ambiguous spatial conditions were interesting, their use was still limited to what I could imagine. But part of my idea of articulated space is that the architect needs to provide for uses that she can't imagine: the sections didn't address this.

I decided to go into Maya and created 3-D versions of combinations of sections. Each example took two sections and lofted between them. This meant that there were spaces that weren't one thing or another, and the use wasn't regulated by me because the shape was a byproduct of this process. I pursued this with all the sections and created a matrix of 45+ different chunks of habitable space.

When I started to assemble these, I realized that I had to apply some outside influences to arrange them. I had already picked a site that I thought would be productive because the use fluctuates significantly during the day and would vary according to measurable influences, so I began to diagram all the things that influence the site and might influence the placement of the ambiguous spatial conditions.

I spent a week diagramming everything I could think of that varied according to time: daylight access to site, program requirements, pedestrian movement, pedestrian speed. I laid them all out on a single map and realised that it would be possible to insert specific programmatic uses at certain points with the remainder of the site either ambiguous spatial condition that was not linked to program (the midpoint between two sections), or flat space that could be used as a pathway or have a relationship to the sections.

I looked at the solar access to the site and decided to place all the program in the north west corner to minimize shade cast into the site. I looked at the average speeds for paths across the site and decided that the less travelled areas were the best place to add the sections. I decided that the entry to the underground bus loop should have a habitable roof that could also function as a stage, and decided that the rest of the ambiguous spatial articulations should be arranged with the same form.

The end result of this is a ground plane that, at certain moments, undulates to create folds that can be used in ways defined by the original Architectural Graphic Standards.

The end.

Final Committee Meeting: Today Only!

I have my last meeting today before the big presentation May-5th-or-6th. I've been awake for too long and haven't exercised properly since Saturday night, so am both sleepy and jittery. Hooray!

I'm pretty happy with most of what I've put together since the last meeting, but there are a couple of holes that concern me. The massing for most of the site should be fine because I'm not going to get too detailed and have some parameters that take care of most of the decisions. The same is true for the structure: there are only so many options, so I just need to pick one and see it through. The issue that concerns me most, however, is weather protection.

The Flame has been concerned about weather protection from the get-go. While I agree that in Vancouver it makes sense to have covered seating areas, I'm not sure if the auditorium (the only area that I plan to really resolve) is the best place for it. The reason? Sightlines. I've been trying to organize the whole site so that you can see the stage part from pretty much anywhere so that it can act as a small stage, an auditorium, or as a huge demonstration/gathering space. I want people looking from their windows able to participate in the stage: I want the whole plaza able to focus on this space.

How do you fit shelter into this? Any roof-ish structure is going to ruin the sightlines from somewhere. There are two walls, it's true, but they are only 3' above grade, and so won't be suitable for hanging any shelter from. I also want to make it possible for people to hang over the edge of them to listen/watch, and any shelter would really detract from that.

Something moveable might be the answer, but it seems so late to be introducing a new element. If I leave it the way it is, I can argue that in this instance there is no shelter because the way the auditorium functions precludes it, but there are lots of other opportunities for shelter in other collections of ambiguous spatial conditions around the square that I have not resolved. If I do add something I run the risk of it becoming the focus of my presentation because it doesn't fit or evolve naturally from these ideas. Yes, there should be shelter. But is it right in this case?

It's funny: I'm usually the most pragmatic of designers. I focus on stairs, shelter, envelope: all the boring stuff we are taught not to care about. But for this project I've thrown the existing program out the window, created a hugely dangerous site, spec'ed some suspicious details.... all in the name of design. If this were to be built, would the design be worth the hassles? That's my working theory, but I don't know.

I'm at T minus one month, one day. I'm going to take it easy this weekend (woo hoo! LONG weekend) and try to keep it down to 20 hours total at school. I'm going to talk about some of my presentation stuff with my committee this afternoon so I can get a better idea of what I should be getting done.... and Tuesday I'm going to send out an e-mail to all the people I've discussed thesis work with so I can figure out who is doing what and when. There are a couple of major players...

Mr. Clean: lightening fast with ACAD, Mr. Clean is best known for his work with physical models, but is now banned from the shop due to his advanced age. Mr. Clean will be tapped to draw and tidy sections.

The Vegan: The Vegan owes me one (1) flash movie, as a direct swap for work done on his thesis. He's going to be producing something very much like what I did for him: an animation that shows how use of the site varies throughout the day/week. He's going to be including shadow patterns as well, so I think it could be a great movie. His mayan expertise will also be required to help with renders.

Team: Team is going home for a week between April 21st and May5/6, but his tofu-powered precision should be put to good use on a mid-sized model of the auditorium with some structural details. I'm not sure how big it will be, but the intent is to show the structure and the relationship between the auditorium and the underground bus loop.

The DBA: I've been in talks with the DBA to build a full size model of some furniture for my reviewers to sit on. This needs to be approved by my committee, as Thesis Advisor M has suggested it may not be a good use of my resources (AKA, money and DBA) so he may end up working on a site model.

Short Bus: The only girl on the A team, Short Bus will be photoshopping and illustrating renders. I would prefer to only have people I know in my images, but we'll see if that happens.

I'm hoping to force sArs, AL, Orphan Annie and possibly some others to give a hand, but too many people is more of an issue at this point than not enough. Orphan Annie has said she might be able to cater, which is great for The Vegan and Team.

I'm stoked about the reformation of Team Fun as a kick off to summer. Go Team Fun!

Still aboot

I haven't fallen off the 3rd floor of Lasserre: I've just entered production/design phase, so I don't have as much to think about.

I've been trying to design the auditorium/staircase from the bus loop as a prototype so that I can do basic massing for the rest of the buildings and mark it as similar. While assembling ambiguous spatial conditions for the auditorium is interesting, I found I was making too many spot decisions.

I went to yoga this morning to think about it and decided (during breathing, giving support to the theory that more blood in your brain helps you think) that what I need to do is design ambiguous spatial articulations to deal with the specific needs of the auditorium. Although I love the look of the lofted Maya 3-D models, they don't actually deal with the realities of the space.

When I was designing, I found myself slapping together solutions for edges where people might fall and desk seats where people need to get in and out. So, today I'm going to try to carefully design two or three units that can deal with this: that are a combination of the Graphic Standards sections but work in both long and short section so people can sit easily.

I'm also going to rethink the ramp access to the site. I placed wheelchair access on the north/east side of the auditorium, but I found the ramp really guided where the ambiguous spatial articulations should go. To this end I'm going to try to stretch the ramp throughout the auditorium so that the whole thing is articulated. The landings work well as rest spaces and are suitable for circles of seating for conversations (using the desk/seat ASC that I assembled in DS)

I hate that I only came to these conclusions the day before I meet with Thesis Advisor M, but I'm glad I was able to look at what I produced yesterday and understand why it doesn't work so I could formulate ideas as to what might work. My way of designing is so SLOW.

Pre-meeting crunch

I got a sneak preview of a new-ish plan for the transit plaza today. Hughes Condon Marler is preparing a presentation for tommorrow between 2 and 6 at the SUB. It overlaps a little with my committee meeting, but I'm sure I won't need 4 hours to look at the plans, so I'm going to stop by.

I was lucky enough to get a jpeg of the new plan, and have been converting it to 3-D to get a better idea of what the changes are and what's going to happen to the plaza. The architects are still working with an idea of using intended traffic patterns to carve out the shapes of the building.

I've spent the past week looking at the old plans, and I noticed two things. The first is that the new plan does not show the carving away as clearly as the old one, and the second is that the current site preforms in the inverse way: that is to say, the entire space is defined by the parts that you cannot move through.

This may be an exaggeration. You can climb over the grassy knoll on your way from the Pit Pub to the Bookstore, but nobody does. The knoll serves the same function in the space as the raised stage in Herman Hertzberger's Apollo schools.

"At first sight it would seem that the potential of the space would be greater if the block could be moved out of the way from time to time and, as was to be expected this was indeed a point of lengthy discussions. It is the permanence, the immobility, and the 'being in the way' that is the central issue, because it is indeed that inescapable presence as a focal point that contains the suggestions and incentives for response in each situation as it arises. The lock becomes a 'touchstone' and contributes to the articulation of the space in such a way that the range of possibilities of usage increases" (Herman Hertzberger, Lessons for Students in Architecture, p. 153)

If the Grassy Knoll is to be removed, it should be replaced with something can address some of the same needs. I'm going to argue that the link between the at-grade plaza and the below-grade hub can have the same qualities of permanence, immobility and 'being in the way'.

I'm going to propose a diagrammatic plan for tommorrow (which I of course have not yet started work on) that organizes the plaza around an expanded stairway. I'm going to arrange elements to encourage use as an outdoor stage/theater and to create sunlit social spaces. I think the retail space and buildings in general need to be secondary to the stair, and I think it can be a great focal space.

What does the stair need to function as an auditorium?

• A focal point to act as a stage: This should probably be fairly large so there can be a variety of different kinds of presentations that occur. Maybe also the possibility of projecting behind it? Some kind of wall or corner? Frosted glass to present on?
• An escape route for people leaving the transit hub: No matter how many people there are in the 'auditorium', it will always be neccessary for people to use the bus loop even when there are presentations. It should be possible to get to the base of the stairs without stepping on anyone even when there are lots of people or walking across the 'stage' area.
• A slope: Obviously the stair will have some kind of slope, as it is a stair. But what slope? I think it's a good idea for it to be fairly shallow so that there is more stair to be an auditorium
• A comfortable place to stop: It can be hard to stand on stairs because they are designed for movement and not for resting. The stairs are going to have to be a bit deeper than the norm, and I would also like to incorporate some seating in a way that sitters do not have their views blocked by standers.
• Other programs built-in: The space needs to work even when there isn't a crowd using the auditorium. Most of the time it will be used by small groups or single people (alone, as compared to not in a relationship. hee.)

I'm going to try too put together a plan/section/something that addresses these issues.

Monday.

It's time to move on to the next step of design for my project, and while I'm nervous that I haven't been following the inverted design process, I have made a number of decisions based on information I currently have about the site. I sent an e-mail to UBC Properties Trust Friday afternoon to ask them to release the most current version of the plans that they have for the site (although I'll have to get the real plans from the architect), but until then I'll be working with a mixture of what I got last time I visited and what I pulled off the U-Boul website. It isn't perfect, but as long as I use the site to produce decision making rationale, any variations between what I have for the site and the actual site shouldn't be hard to fix.

I produced a rough Sketchup model of the site to look at lighting conditions throughout the year, and took examples of shaded areas at specific times throughout the year, layered them on each other in illustrator, and created the following jpegs:





In these images the blue rectangle is the opening to the underground bus loop and the lines show anticpated traffic patterns accross the square. The architect chose to use traffic patterns to carve away from adjacent buildings: this is neccessarily repeated by the ambiguous spatial conditions, but I'm not sure if I'm happy about it or not. The ASC's have to be in low-traffic areas because they impede walking, but I wish it wasn't so similar to the guiding principles of the square.

The traffic patterns delineate certain areas where it would be interesting to apply ASC's:

This is based on a combination of paths and building shapes, with a little bit of the solar studies thrown in. Basically, the daytime use (on sunny days) will break down like this:
I realize that it isn't always sunny in Vancouver in the winter (and in fact is not even the prevailing condition), but I think designing to maximize sun exposure is a good idea if I am trying to include some of the programmatic uses of the grassy knoll. I also want to add some big chunks of concrete on the right side (it's north-east-ish) of the diagram (the solid black line) to take advantage of the solar gain along that wall.

Some other thoughts:

• I want to design the whole thing out of wood and concrete: wood to sit on, concrete for durability and to capture heat. The wood slats would be spaced so that the gaps are not perceptible when you are sitting but would serve to drain water off the surfaces. The slats should probably run parallel to the ASC sections to highlight their importance.
• There needs to be roofs of some kind over a significant portion of the site. I think they should be used extensively on the left (south-west-ish) portion of the site since this portion of the site gets the least direct sunlight in the high traffic portions of the day (3-5). The plaza is equal under overcast conditions (as the sky vault transmits light equally throughout the plaza) and it would be preferable to minimize cover of the sunlit areas (the right, or north-east-ish portion of the site)
• Materials of the roof are important. I'm toying with the idea of frosted glass for portions that have sunlight and clear glass in the shady areas. The frosted glass should diffuse direct sunlight.
• Currently the stairs run from the top to the bottom of the site, but I'd like to tweak them to the left to create a stage-ish area to the right. I'd also like to preserve as many of the paths accross the stair as possible and am thinking about slopes and movement accross the inevitable bridges.
• The shaded areas are keyed to time, and possibly should be keyed to programs of retail spaces adjacent. It makes a lot of sense to have a 'fast' coffee shop in the left building for morning commuters, and a 'slow' coffee shop in the right building for sitting around and waiting for your bus in the sun. It also makes sense to privilege the plaza re: sunlight, as retailers will probably be happy to exclude sunlight from their stores as long as patrons have direct access.

Environmental stats

So, following the Flame's comments about environment and my project, I do think that it's important to include some environmental factors in this scale jump. I also want to include program stuff in scale. I might need to have two scale shifts: one for environment and one for program. See, I don't think that I can assemble multiple ambiguous spatial conditions for program yet because I don't want to limit the program by specifying stuff. I realize I'll have to do it eventually, but I think that if I leave it later I'll be able to retain more possible programs. Another reason is that it is too much of a jump between the sectional conditions and program. So introducing environmental factors could be a way to bridge that gap.

Environmental factors (all stats from Environment Canada):

Sun.
In winter, we want sun, in summer we don't. The most popular way to get both is to make an overhang that is deep enough to exclude summer sun but not so deep it keeps out low angle winter sun. In Vancouver, the sun is at around 67.5 degrees on June 21. To keep it off the floor of a 8' room, you need an overhang of 3'-4" at 8 feet. The higher you get, the larger the overhang needs to be, at a rate of about 5" per foot. This keeps out sun only June 21st, the summer solstice. Vancouver is hottest about August, so its a good idea to keep the sun out until then.

Rain.
We have more rain in the winter than in the summer, and frankly it's much less pleasant to be wet in the winter than it is in the summer. And while you might expect the overhang to keep off the rain, most of the time in Vancouver rain comes with wind. Which means it rains at an angle so roof cover doesn't always help.

Environment Canada says that in winter, the wind usually comes from the east and blows around 7-7.4 km/hr from the east (or 2 m/s). Small drops of rain fall around 6.5 m/s (or 23.4 km/hr) and large ones about 9 m/s (or 32.4 km/hr). So for our mythical 8' room, we would need an overhang of 1'-10" for small raindrops and 2'-5" for large ones, or between 2.5" and 3.6" for each foot of room on the east side of the building.

The problem is that while that is the average, the maximum hourly is 32 km/hr (which is around 9 m/s) from the north. This means that our 8' room will need an overhang of 8' on the north to keep off all potential rain.

Wind
It sucks when it's cold and windy, but sometimes when it is sunny if you can find a space out of the wind it can be lovely. The fortunate thing about wind is that if you are protected on a couple of sides, you are usually fine. These two sides would likely be those of prevailing breezes: the north and east. Micropatterns exist around buildings, but it doesn't take a lot of shelter to get you out of the wind.

The problem with environmental stuff is it is so directional. I don't want to decide what direction a seat will be facing if I don't know where it is going to go. Stupid catch 22.

ETA: some other stuff: any grassy area need to be extremely well drained. If it gets sun during the day it will be extremely popular with students. IF there is a roof on whatever thing gets produced, it should be accessible.

The first one's a doozy...

So, next steps:

Look at sorted ambiguous spatial conditions. Cull: determine which should be kept and which need to go. 15-20 is probably the max to start with, although others could be gradually reintroduced as required.

Produce Maya combinations for all ambiguous spatial conditions: remember, project is most creative when not taken too seriously. Have fun!

Move up scale: look at mechanism for combining conditions. Begin to consider general site: rain, sun, ground plane, envelope, doors, etc. Possibility of a matrix to consider options?

Produced 24 hr. use diagram for site. Look at FOA for precedent.

Assemble midterm presentation. Identify key points. Remember to begin meeting with the intent and idea of project. Clarity is key.

Project intent

In my thesis I would like to investigate the effects of small scale articulations on underprogrammed and empty space. Warehouses and open plazas often do not meet the needs of users because they do not incorporate a human scale. By beginning with human dimensions, ambiguous spatial conditions can begin to indicate use without dictating program. In addition they provide possibilities for users to occupy spaces as they see fit.

In order to test the robustness of ambiguous spatial conditions they will be applied to the programmatically diverse transit plaza intended for the UBC Student Union Building area. The open exterior plaza and food court are both possible sites for design, as each is required to support many different programs simultaneously.

Note: This project and my vocabulary no longer include the terms 'kit of parts', 'tool', 'deploy' or 'useful assembly'.

Post committee meeting update

I've spent a significant part of this week working on a paper for another course and trying to make up for the big work push from last weekend. But I'm back on thesis duty full time until the midterm review, which happens Feb 28th.

I was extremely happy with the last meeting. On Monday night I was finally able to spatialize the MA's (which will hereafter be known as ambiguous spatial conditions) by using Maya to loft between three conditions, producing this:

The consensus among my committee members was this is a productive direction and it's time for me to change scale and move up to what I think of as car size: find rules for assembling these guys.

I was shocked to find out that Thesis Advisor M, Big D and the Flame are unable to read my mind. They pointed out to me that the final intent of the project is still unclear to them and that I should really state that at the beginning of my presentation. I think one of the biggest things for the midterm is not so much that I need to move forward with my project as I need to find a way to clearly show what I've been working on, particularly with my DS, so that everyone watching the presentation is clear about where I am going. I'm totally going to rope Team into critiquing what I show so everything is clear. This is the first time I'll be presenting to people who haven't read my DS so it's a great experience, but I never know what's important about my own project.

The idea of a 24 hour diagram of use for the site came up again, so I'll try to produce one for the next meeting, and Thesis Advisor M suggested I be more specific about what I'm looking to critique in my site. I really enjoyed the conversation about how my project subverts all these givens in Vancouver architecture: it isn't anything I was thinking about at all, but I can see how it would apply. It's strange to have people ascribing motives to you that you haven't considered, but I'd like to play with some of the ideas and see what comes up.

Next post: intent!

Proxemics II

I've been reading up on proxemics: not just Edward Hall, but people who cite him, so that I can squeeze more use out what I've been looking at.

Before I start thinking, some definitions.

Proxemics: The study of how man structures microspace, how he relates physically to other persons with whom he is interacting and what is communicated by these physical relationships.

Fixed Feature: A permanent piece of a building. Always ceiling, walls and doors. In my project, seating, etc.

Semi-Fixed Features: Portions of a building that are always there, but that move around. Chairs, tables, etc. My project wants to make semi-fixed features completely fixed.

Informal Space: At least in this definition, the space that users leave stuff in to mark their territories.

Situational Behaviour: Behaviour that occurs when people enter 'personal space' bubbles that surround the body(distances appropriate to lovers, friends, and strangers are identified).

Territory: The area around themselves that a user wishes to remain free that is 'marked' can be done with a bag or jacket: size is related to relationships with adjacent people.

Sociofugal: A space that is designed to keep others away from the users personal space. Discourages interaction, but is gravitated towards by users who do not wish to interact.

Sociopetal: A space that is designed to encourage interaction with others. Allows groups to interact.

Mental Congruence: When a person feels that his or her personal characteristics, values and life stules are accommodated by particular spactial patterns.

Experiential congruence: How well the environment actually supports the functions, characteristics and behaviours of pepole using it.

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.

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.

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.