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.

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.

Diagrams

I spent today working on diagrams.

This is actually three diagrams layered on top of each other. I'm hoping to come up with more, but I'm a little stuck at the moment. The coloured dots show premium inhabitation areas re: sunlight, the black dots show speed of movement, and way in the back is a map of the underground bus loop.

I love the way this looks now, but I wanted to get more than three diagrams to layer: the more information I can pull from the site, the better my decisions will be. I like this way of showing information, and I find that layering the different ones on top of each shows very clearly what parts of the site are appropriate for interventions.

There's something about crowds vs. individuals that needs to be part of this diagram as well. I want an area that can transform from being auditorium-like to a social area where people can chat. It could be a simple as a raised stage in one area, but I would prefer raked seating because I think it would be used more.

I spoke to UBC properties trust yesterday, and they said they would get in touch with Karen Marler at Hughes Condon Marler so I can get the real plans for what they are working on. They have to be ready for Tuesday because there is a public presentation, but I'm hoping to get them before that because my committee meeting is next Tuesday. If I don't hear from HCM tommorrow, I'll have to call them. I hate doing that.

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.

Materials

Olang made the point in my midterm presentation that while hybridization of form may create ambiguity in the short term, in the long term users become accustomed to the new forms and use them in prescribed ways: they become the new norm. He suggested I think about how to make the surfaces preform in unexpected ways to maintain ambiguity. One way to do this is through material use.

While I think that materials are really important, I'm not sure if this ambiguity is something the project wants or needs. I'm wondering if it's a good thing that users become accustomed to the new forms. What advantage is there in a second layer of ambiguity? I don't want the project to get bogged down in material studies.

Right now I see the project as part landscape/part furniture in concrete and wood, possibly with some grass areas. I want most of the seating to be wood because it dries quickly and is not cold to sit on, but I'm interested in the thermal effect of masses of concrete adjacent to seating. It's definately going to be inside/outside and I'm going to start with the stair that connects the transit hub to the main plaza area.

Since it's an inside/outside space, all the materials should be able to weather. I'm concerned about different materials because every material carries associations, and if I choose to make a seat out of wood instead of concrete it begins to direct use. I think I'm going to check out some books on materials and look at what I could use.

UBC Statistics

Here are some things that may affect the spatial requirements of Microarchitectural Articulations:

Statistics Canada says that in Regional District Electoral Area A, 83.4 % of the populations is over 18. This means that I can stick to adult size articulations for design.

The report I got from Properties Trust says that at some times over 800 students are waiting for the B-Line. 4,500 people get off the bus between 9:00 and 10:00. The total UBC population in 2005 was 53,300.

This University Town brochure forecasts 10,700 University Town and Hampton Place residents in 2021, and 10,200 other campus residents in student residences and graduate housing. The projected future population is 20,900.

With this in mind, I think I'm going to design a space for certain ranges of people: 0-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-200, and 200-500 (I may not design for all of them, but instead pick a couple to investigate options)

It looks like the variations in size of people are negligeable, so I'm not going to worry about size fluctuations affecting use. The articulations are supposed to be ambiguous anyways, so while short people might have to find a different way to use them it should still be possible.

Research...

I've spent the last few days completing my matrix of Microarchitectural articulations (MA's). I'm now the architect of my own Matrix! Hooray!

I now have 115 iterations. The first generation is made up of Architectural Graphic Standards crossed with Architectural Graphic Standards and second generation is Architectural Graphic Standards crossed with the first iteration. I love the way the graph looks and I'm happy about finishing it.

The next step is applying some depth to these moments. Right now they are cool, but still very diagrammatic. The problem is that I don't have any guiding principles for what kind of depth should be used: I have a couple of plan views from Architectural Graphic Standards that show the right depth for a single person sitting, working at a desk and walking, and I also have information for more than one persone. The issue is that I have not yet assigned program to each of the moments. Since I don't know what each one of them is going to do I can't assign depth based on that. Instead, I'm going to put together a list of all the variable factors that could influence the depth of each section and create an equivalent of a quadratic equation for a couple of key articulations.

I have my toolbox of sections, and it's time to think about applying them to a site. While I'm not ready to look at the physical requirements of space, I think it's reasonable to think about site issues that affect design.

So, what are the variables that affect the three-dimensionalisation of these sectional moments?

1. Amount of people in the space: The UBC bus loop has busy times and quiet times. How many people are in this space at maximum occupancy? How do their physical needs vary from the needs of people at minimum occupancy?
2. Demographics of people using space: While the UBC bus loop is used primarily by students, there are some exceptions to this and I need to know what they are. Since the moments are based on human dimensions, variations in people should equate to variations in design.

There must be more than these two, but I'll start with them and see if anythin interesting comes up.

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 II: Presentation Boogaloo

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

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

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

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

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

Metric ton of new info.

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

Okay, so here is what's going on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Layers of Desire: University (cake)

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

Directors want:

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

Layers of desire: Student (creamy filling)

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

Students want:

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

What's already there: The Grassy Knoll

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

The Grassy Knoll serves as:

• A metaphorical rallying point


• A movie theater (see Friday September 8th)


• A place to eat outdoors


• A place to meet people


• A demonstration space


• ski/toboggan hill


• A place to watch Storm the Wall

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

The Lower SUB Plaza is used as:

• A space for discourse


• Sport area

Comments about designs for the are new bus loop say

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


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


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


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

Loopy Figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Bus Loop Approved!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further loopiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the loop

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

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

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

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

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

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