Proxemics

Who says time spent socializing doesn't pay? I was talking with Team last night at the school Good Times about my project, and he suggested that one of the problems I may be having with the active axos is that I don't have enough people in them. I thought that was a very interesting suggestion, and came in early today to do a little research.

I came across a field called proxemics. Basically, proxemics studies how close people like to be to each other. So I've spent the day so far figuring out what the boundaries are and photoshopping/Cadding to explain some of my ideas. I'll post something as soon as it is coherent.

Prepping the TCM II

TCM being, of course, Thesis Committee Meeting.

I've been working on what I've been calling 'active axos'. I've taken the sectional moment drafted in AutoCAD and applied depth to it. Because the microarchitectural articulations (MA's) are still unrelated to program, the active axos illustrate the different depths associated with different levels of use.

So what I've done is chosen three (so far) MA's, and recreated them in Maya. They start with a thickness of 1", to show that they are derived from the sections. Right now, they are all the same colour, but it might be useful to show the different Graphic Standards sources in different colours. After 1", they change over 10 frames to the minimum spatial requirements for each Graphic Standard to be used by one person. In the next 10 frames they change to comfortable spatial requirements for one person. Frames 20-30 make the GS wide enough to be used by more than one person. Frames 40-50 show other: in some circumstances (like stairs and seats) it gets wider, the facing table gets access because it's limited to how far people will slide into the benches, etc. etc.

I've been thinking about the active axonometrics as the equivalent to a quadratic equation, and while I think they start out like that, they aren't showing as much information as I want them to. I'm not going to do that many, certainly: I thought 5 would be sufficient to show what I'm thinking. But while they start out great, there is something that just isn't working.

I need to sort this out before the end of the weekend because I need to put a presentation together for Tuesday. What's missing? What have I taken for granted that can be pulled apart to show something interesting?

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.

February!

The past couple of days have been short on posts because I've gone back to the CAD work. I've put together a matrix that allows me to track which Architectural Graphic Standards I've crossed and what the result is. I've also put together some images that show this lineage a little more graphically. Unfortunately, I can't get them to post properly.

I've devoted a fair amount of time to 'breeding' microarchitectural articulations (MA's) and now have 31 first generation (that is, two Architectural Graphic Standards (AGS) images combined) and 13 second generation (from a 1st generation MA and AGS combined) for a total of 44. Considering I started with 12, I'm pleased.

I'm creating these to get a 'kit of parts': the next step will be applying 'thickness' to the sections with the plan information from AGS. I would like to get this done before I speak to Mari on Tuesday, but I should be fine if I have enough work to show the general idea.

Useful terms

I'm back at the DS looking for inspiration. I read too fast to absorb properly, so usually when I'm looking through something I write down key quotes to think about. Since this is where I'm taking any thesis notes, in this post I'm quoting... myself. Weird.

Flexible space can encourage possibilities that the architect may not necessarily be aware or in control of (abstract)

Microarchitectural articulations are a mechanism to combine flexible and programmed space (abstract)

NB: For my next presentation, it's probably a good idea to start with the abstract to my DS. Some useful terms...

Ambiguity: When a form can be read in many different ways

Articulated space: designed space that uses small-scale details or variations to indicate possible programmatic use

Articulation: a detail added to a building that shows how a building can be used

Flexible Space: space that is able to perform in different ways depending on what is required

and who will be using it. Has an indifferent relationship to the spatial sequence.

Inflection: how the parts of an object relate and the relationship of the whole to its setting.

Interpretable: when something can be read in many different ways.

Microarchitectural Articulation: A human scaled and ambiguous mechanism that allows users to inhabit spaces in a variety of ways that appropriate to a program momentalso the relationship between two surfaces

Neutrality: the result of too much flexibility: tolerable for all but not right for any single user.

Specificity: when programs are so ingrained in space design the space cannot be used for another program.

Key Quotes

Design with microarchitectural articulations can take various forms. Simple repetitions of the iteration create a field that can form space in different ways. The microarchitectural articulations can also be arranged with regards to overlapping programs.... This combination of surfaces affects how adjacent spaces are used and this will in turn drive the development of the entire building.

My DS, in the architectural articulations appendix, provides a kit of articulations that can be assembled to produce architecture. I'm clear on how to create the sectional moments. I look in the ergonomic section of Architectural Graphic Standards for similar distances in dissimilar situations (for example, the height of a seat can be equal to the height of three stairs) and use the numbers in common to juxtapose two different uses/needs together. Then I try to imagine some different ways that people could occupy this juxtaposition. In some cases I also include the envelope and look at ways people can interact with envelope openings and how open or closed windows can affect the use of a surface.

Microarchitectural articulations can be used as devices to determine the building form or designed space. By combining surfaces in specific ways designers can create elements that drive the design of a building as a whole and meet the requirements of users.

The current issue is while I have this kit of really interesting and great parts, I don't have any guidelines about how to put them together. My DS is heavily process based, and the process is that I start with a small scale object and work larger until I finally create something that can have a program and/or site assigned to it. Because of this, even kids with piles of Lego are ahead of me: they know what they want to make. I can't know what I want to make because of this. Instead, I need to assemble iterations and look at what they could be used for.

If the driver of a building form is a small scale move that is applied coherently throughout the project and that addresses the problems inherent to that type, the final form of the designed space evolves naturally from this combination of parts.

Naturally? Good grief. The small scale move in questions, is (of course) the variation of surfaces that I have designed, so the quote could read as "the driver of this building for is variations of surfaces based on relationships to the human body that are applied coherently throughout the project and addresses problems inherent to transit loops". In that case, I need to look at problems inherent in transit loops.

Because there is no clear way to inhabit (the mechanism), users feel free to assign their own meaning and to use them in ways that fit their requirements.

Heh. So I have to practice being obscure. It's SUCH a shame that NLMLN wouldn't join my committee. He's great at that. Anyways, the idea is that the surfaces need to be scaled to suggest some kind of occupation but the users don't know exactly what so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. My DS outlines three ways for this to happen: one is the repetition of a single shape, another is by overlapping programs, and the third is by creating nodes or hubs of use with programs that spill out into generic space around them.

The theory behind microarchitectural articulations is that surfaces that are arranged to encourage contact with users and perform in different ways will begin to define space ambiguously. Inhabitants can supply their own possibilities for the use of surfaces which can act as seats, tables, desks and stairs. Use varies depending not only on the preference of the inhabitant, but also on surrounding activities in the space.

This is starting to talk about overlapping programs. And that is fine: I think this could be one of the keys to this project. While I'm not ready to stick some thing on part of a site, I can identify different programs that could occur in the SUB Plaza/transit hub/retail area and look at which ones could be usefully overlapped. There is also the possibility of looking at different use patterns throughout the day. There will always be some people sitting around the SUB, but in the morning most students rush through the space to class and don't need to sit down, at lunch they want to eat, read, study and hang out with friends, in the afternoon there will be people moving into the underground bus loop and reading/studying/meeting friends, and in the evening people will want to use the space either for eating, gathering or just to pass through. This is why I picked this site: because so many different things happen there throughout the day.

Surfaces arranged to encourage inhabitation but maintain ambiguity can manifest in many different ways and so be applied to a wide vareity of problems. These variations are schematic ideas of how surfaces can relate to promote different kinds of inhabitation by users. The surfaces have multiple uses and proportions to encourage invention by users. Combining two or more moments of articulation begins to create space.

This makes it more clear what I need to do. Just like I have the kit of parts of MA's, I need to assemble a kit of parts of MA assemblies that I can plug into certain situations. This is where I start to disagree with my previous stuff. I talk about how you can get combinations of MA's through thinking about what programs need to go together and assembling MA's to suit. What I should do is look at the MA's the same way as I looked at the ergonomic drawings in Architectural Graphic Standards. What surfaces are the same distance apart? What can they create? Obviously the possibilities are endless. It also means that instead of designing for program I am programming for design. But it isn't irresponsible form making (a la F Gehry) because the initial idea is linked to the human body.

Wow. That's a pretty exciting idea. I've got it written down here and in my sketchbook, so I can move on. So let's say I assemble these combinations. Each one has one or two ancestors in the previously designed MA's and is documented through this. I eventally assemble enough to produce hubs of use.

Hubs provide ambiguous program suggestions and define adjacent open spaces.... They create opportunities for use of spaces because users can apply their own meaning not just to one surface but also to the room as a whole.

At what point to MA combinations begin to respond to program? I think that I need to assemble a full toolkit -- everything from the simple sections, to hubs that are 3 or 4 generations removed from the sections -- and then I can start to think about how they are assembled. Is that where program comes into play? The spaces do need to begin to consider program, but I don't want to do it too soon.

(Hubs can) provide prgrammatic generators for space. It can act as a stage, a seat and a central point... Because it is unexpected users apply their own ideas to it. If (it) were unarticulated many of these different activites would not be possible. ...It is best if the articulation that limits possibilitieis is ambiguous and so can support a number of different uses.

Articulations become a mechanism for designs that allow the architect to investigate ways users can inhabit space to enliven a building. At the same time, because the microarticulations are iterations of a single idea they solve different problems in different ways. It makes it possible for variations of a single idea to solve many different spatial problems and so create fine-grained spaces that fit the evolving needs of a building. By using assemblies of iterations... and applying the concept of hubs, designers can use micrarchitectural articulations to design buildings with many different kinds of programs.