Control freak seeks same

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, something that bears further thought...

Muy Fantastico!

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

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

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

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

Microarchitectural Articulations: Hubs

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

Microarchitectural Articulations: Surfaces

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

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

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

Meeting 1: The preliminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This certainly bears further thought.

Moving in

I'm setting up a weblog to help get me through my final semester of architecture grad school. This thesis thing feels a little beyond me right now, so I thought I would make an effort to document what I'm working on. Hopefully it will make things a little clearer. It isn't just the work that gets to me either, as there are a whole host of other things that affect how my work goes.

This whole thesis thing is tough.

I moved into studio early to get a desk: the Sunday before classes started I was here plugging in my printer and sticking a lock on a desk. Thesis student's aren't assigned desks in the campus studio. Instead, they are expected to work in the downtown studio. The downtown studio is pretty big, but the only people working there are thesis students. Not only would I get lonely, I would also get scared, as the area is commonly referred to as 'cracktown'. My school has chosen to place the students in one of the worst neighbourhoods in North America. I'm all for taking back the downtown, but I refuse to work in a place where I have to worry about my personal safety.

Since I moved in, most of the Thesis and Directed Studies students who wish to work on campus (for various reasons) have clusted in the south-east corner of the school so we can all work together. Yesterday we got an e-mail saying we had to move out of these spaces because they have been assigned to MASA (that's our advanced students).

They need desks too, I guess. They don't tend to work very late, but I suppose they have just as much crap to leave around as I do. The problem is that I'm supposed to move downtown to provide this space for them and it really pisses me off. I'm not moving, of course, and neither is my friend K (who is also doing her thesis) but the DBA and Veg are both moving to another part of the studio. Our little ghetto is breaking up and now I'll be sitting in a sea of empty desks every night after 6. MASA students don't tend to hang around very much.

This all came to a head a few hours ago. I was completely prepared to fight the administration and stick to my desk and I am still doing that, but it's a little different when there is a person in front of you asking why she can't have a desk as well. But this sucks! I don't want to work downtown. I feel unsafe in the studio even when it's full of people: I'm just not interested in being there alone. I know it's unlikely anything will happen to me, but I don't really care. I don't want to spend an an hour and a half on the bus every day and I don't want to be away from the studio.
The worst part is there is plenty of room for all the thesis and MASA students in the school the way things are. There are even enough desks. The problem is the administration did not put any space aside for us so we have to sqeeze into all the leftover spots. There are studios with tons of room -- they even have large open spaces in the middle of their desks to meet, and cutting tables. This, when I'm in my final semester and have to fight for a place to sit! All the expletives in the world can't begin to describe how annoyed I am by this.

Anyways, it looks like I'm okay in my seat for now, but I'm sad I don't get to sit with the people I'm friends with this semester. I didn't have a desk at all last semester, so this is better, but it was fun before and now it is not. I'll just have to make do.

ETA: I just got an e-mail from the school saying that there is a lecture happening in the downtown studio so any thesis meetings or anything will have to happen on one side. Good grief!