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!

Post midterm festivities!

I've made it through midterm! I was very happy with how my presentation went, and only have two complaints. The first is that I'm not sure if the group I presented to were particularly hard hitting -- it's reassuring when you have a decent crit from a tough critic because you know they're asking the hard questions. My second problem is entirely my fault: I wish I had more to show them so they could have given me more design advice.

ARN was nice enough to take pretty comprehensive notes of the presentation so that I wouldn't have to worry about getting it all down, so I have three pages to flip through when I wonder exactly what was said. Olang, S, and JB seemed to understand what I was trying to do, which is a great sign, and they said some nice stuff: that the work I have already done is SOLID (caps courtesy of ARN) and that I've created a nice problem that's well mapped out.

I'm having a little trouble concentrating today and had intended to take the day off, but realized that I have no life outside of school and hence nothing to do except schoolwork. So here I am.

Getting around

I'm currently attending a First Nations Technology summit because of some course work completed last fall. It is unrelated to my thesis, but instead of listening to any of the presentations this morning, I spent the time thinking about what my next steps need to be and trying to work out some of the bugs.

I've been trying to reconcile my working methods with time constraints, and I've realized that while I want to be efficient, time spent working on things that I do not present is not neccessarily a waste of time. While I don't have a lot to show for the work I have done since my last committee meeting, I do think that I'm now at a place where I can go into production mode and start to get drawings, diagrams and models that describe what I've been working on this semester.

So, this is what I currently intend to produce for next week:

1. 3-D models that combine each of the culls, in a matrix
2. Section cuts from the centre of each of the cuts
3. A diagram that compares this section cut to the original Architectural Graphic Standards and shows how the 3-D model can be altered to match the AGS section
4. Diagrams that show the four sides of each of the 3-D models of combined culls and compares them for combinations

This is a ton of work, but I think it's going to be useful. I think that removing the envelope information from the Ambiguous Sectional Conditions (once called MA's) was a good use of time because I can reintroduce it after I assemble groups of 3-D models. Hopefully I won't have to cull again: I don't think that there will be many AGS' that can be applied to the 3-D models, so hopefully that won't produce too many options, and I'll focus on one hub that combines different sides.

When I have done this I'm going to need to produce a full lineage diagram that tracks exactly how I got each hub: the 'parents' of each level. I think I'll do this last!

I need to get the 3-D models done ASAP, so I'm going to find a quiet corner at this conference where I can get down and spend some time working in Maya.

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 III

As much as I have enjoyed reading about proxemics, the time I've spent looking into it is wasted if I can't identify and clearly explain why I think it's related to my thesis. Why should I care how close people like to be to each other?

Well, what have I done since my last committee meeting?

What I have done since my last committee meeting

By Archigeek

The last time we saw Archigeek's thesis committee, they commented that her site research seemed premature, and that she think about her definition of ambiguity. Her notes suggest she create a 24hr flow diagram of the site and look at scales of occupations, linear propogation and exponential growth.

Well, since my last committee meeting, I have been thinking about definitions of ambiguity. I realized that the microarchitectural articulations (MA's) were not covering enough potential uses, and the way they were derived was unsystematic. I decided that if I was going to seriously consider MA's as a process, I should investigate all the different surface possibilities inherent in the 16 MA's I had created.

Part of the reason I did this was that the MA's were still program driven. Because they came from Architectural Graphic Standards (AGS), they still appeared to be very linked to the uses keyed to different positions of the body. I was also very aware that when I had been putting the MA's together I had been thinking of different programs that they could be applied to.

I then created a matrix that could explore some other possible MA's. I took each of the initial drawings from AGS: ramp, stair, sitting reach, standing reach, reclining angles, facing table, high work counter, and stage and added envelope as it had appeared numerous times in the MA's. I 'bred' each of these 9 sections together: this significantly increased the MA's. As some of the original MA's had three antecedents, I did this a second time to derive second generation MA's.

I now have a full tool kit of sectional moments. Because I bred together all possibilities, some uses work better than others and in some cases the original uses are impossible (or as Team pointed out, extremely dangerous). This is not a problem: in fact, it may even be desireable because it removes program from the sections and reduces them to an investigation of coincidences in surface variation keyed to the human body.

The matrix opens up my definition of ambiguity by allowing each moment to do more than the 2 or 3 AGS that spawned it. They are no longer designed to be ambiguous because the user needs to choose from 2 or 3 possible uses, but because they appear so strange there is no clear use and so the user need to choose from an infinite amount of habitations.

While the matrix has been tremendously useful, the MA's are still stuck as sectional moments. This is where the study of proxemics starts to come into play. While all the AGS have mimum widths (for example, a seat must be 16" or wider to be used as a seat) most do not have maximums. Those that do are linked to material -- they need to be narrow enough for users to slide their legs into the leg space. This is the case for the facing table and the desk.

So what criteria should be used for giving the MA's depth? I don't think that they can be given depth without beginning to program them. Instead, I looked at human spatial bubbles to find what kind of options I have for width. I'm still looking small, so I decided that a group of two people would be appropriate (something that I should also note is that in a study of 7,405 informal groups and 1,458 people working, 71% of all groups were two people). I took three MA's as examples and applied human bubble distances to them to see what happens. It becomes clear that planning for two people who want to be in each others' intimate or personal space is fine, when they wish to remain at a social or public space, density is too low to design for a public space.

This is when I began to look at the strategies people use to withdraw when people are in the wrong zone of their space. Most people are familiar with the phenomenon of the elevator: users look at the moving light panel because they do not wish to make eye contact with people who are standing closer than they would prefer. On buses, riders tense muscles that come into contact with others, don't make eye contact and do not speak when they might otherswise apologize in order to dehumanize (and aid others to dehumanize) other riders. Shutting out people in your bubble of personal space is a lot of effort and quite tiring.

Because the UBC bus loop will accomodate fluctuations in the number of people that will be using the plaza and adjacent spaces, it is inevitable that at some point people will be crowded closer to each other than they would prefer. In order to accomodate this, the space should be designed both sociofugally and sociopetally. In this way, people who wish to exclude others from their personal space could do so using less room than might otherwise be possible, but there would also be opportunities for groups to meet there comfortably. While sociofugal and sociopetal design is often seen as a matter of style, small moves can have an enormous effect.

People will chose adjacencies related to the different ways they are interacting. This can be broken down into three groups: people confront, consort, or coexist. When people are confronting each other, dominancy is unclear. These people will sit accross from each other to better judge facial expressions and body language. When people consort, it happens in two ways. When people collaborate by working on the same project, they will sit next to each other or around the corner of a table so they see the world from the same perspective. When people converse, they wish to see each other's facial expressions and so will face each other.

Most important is when people are coexisting. Most often people who are coexsting will seat themselves in a reciprocal arrangement that is diagonally separated to minimize eye contact. When trains or buses fill up, people who are coexisting will distribute themselves evenly throughout to minimize contact. In the case of a train, territories can be marked by a coat or briefcase.

This information is particularly useful to me because it begins to suggest ways in which MA's could be assembled to permit different kinds of interaction. The UBC bus loop should have space for confrontation, consorting and coexisting. Since there is not enough space for people to avoid entering each other's personal space, MA's should be arranged to allow people to coexist comfortably. One of the ways this can happen is by designing in sociopetal and sociopetal ways. This will allow spaces to remain ambiguous because the ways that people interact are not prescribed, but will be articulated by the combinations of MA's.

Thesis Advisor M remarked that while she liked the MA matrix, it was time to start thinking about making design decisions for specific reasons, instead of trying to find a program that would solve the problem itself (that's program in the computer sense, not the architectural sense). Arranging the MA's sociopetally and sociofugally would be a step towards doing this.

There are pros and cons to this. I'm arguing that the matrix increases ambiguity by combining surfaces while disregarding program and so creates infinite use opportunities rather than two or three use opportunities derived from the AGS. They are so weird it is not a choice of two or three, but a question of if it should be inhabited at all. If this is the case, I don't want to make assumptions about how people will be sitting because it starts to imply that I'm designing for the one or two programs. How can I mediate this problem?

I might just have to bite the bullet and say I'm designing for two or three uses.

Archigeek leaves for a short time for a consult

Team was out getting coffee, but Short Bus thinks that I should use both definitions of ambiguity. While I'm going to design for the uses specified in AGS, it's with the understanding that there are probably many other uses produced by the conjunction of surfaces that I can't control and don't want to. So, ambiguous is defined as 2+ or 3+ forms of occupation.

Also, there are some AGS's I combined that can't have sociopetal or sociofugal design applied to them. The envelope, ramp and stair do not allow inhabitation. In fact, I'm pretty sure the envelope shouldn't even be included, but it's too late now. The ramp and stair are about movement. You can sit on a stair, but you can't sit on the stair portion of a stair/seat, because the seat is defined as the part you sit on. As soon as you sit, the stair becomes a seat.

There are some AGS that already have relationships built in. The stage is designed for public space (near or far). The high work counter and the facing table allow for competing or consorting: while the distance is considered far-personal, I think the table/counter mitigates that relationship and changes it to close-social.

I think I'm going to take a look at the different relationships inherent in the AGS and see if that gets me anywhere.

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.