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.

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.