Push Pull-Compulsory Interactions in Architecture

Push Pull - Compulsory Interactions in Architecture

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Architecture

in the Architecture

of the College of Arts and Sciences

Clayton Mandly

B.F..A. University of Cincinnati June 2011

Committee Chair: Michael McInturf, M.Arch.

Committee Member: Aarati Kanekar, Ph.D. Abstract:

As cities grow in population and density there are major crises happening that revolve around how architecture is thought of and more importantly how it is used. One key factor to the functionality and viability of a city is the interaction of its occupants. These interactions, such as the sharing of resources, certain social contracts and diffusion/ sharing of intellect all contribute to the health of communities within cities.

The population in the San Francisco has increased dramatically do to the Silicon Valley tech boom. This had lead to the need for new types of work spaces as well as major housing shortages in the region. This need has paved the road for new thought processes when it comes to designing and occupying these types of spaces. A city historically resistant to architectural change and zoning variants is now learning to adapt and evolve to suite need for a higher urban density. The city is in need of an innovative approach to achieve this goal. This is a city/ large community that prides itself on the value of the individual and uniquely creative people yet is still churning out “cookie cutter” offices and housing development with a distinct lack of flexibility. This statement is of course a generality and does not define all development within the city. Larger tech companies that are located in the city are embracing new ideas about work spaces. Part of the problem is that

Secondary to this goal, is exploring how these concepts can benefit not just this designated slice of the industry but how they can be applied to the rest of the pie as well. A natural antonym to the place in which you conduct your business or work is a place in which you dwell. Exploring how the concepts of transformation and interaction can also be applied to a housing portion of the project with hopefully help to maintain balance.

This is about defining a culture and transforming the expectations of young creative urban professional of what work spaces and Push Pull: housing should be in the next era. Compulsory Interactions in Architecture

Table of Contents

Abstract

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

1. Site

2. Precedents

3. Moving Wall

4. Elevating Platform - One

5. Elevating Platform - Two

Bibliography Table of Figures

Figure 1.01 - http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146576-san-francisco-bay-bridge-25000-algorithmically- Figure 2.21 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ controlled-leds-the-largest-light-show-on-earth Figure 2.22 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 1.0 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.23 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 1.2 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.24 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 1.3 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.25 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 1.4 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.26 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 1.6 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.27 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.28 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.29 - http://www.baltimorearts.org/reading-list-public-art-2/ Figure 2.0 - http://www.busyboo.com/wp-content/uploads/modern-house-schroder-6.jpg Figure 2.30 - http://www.scb.com/apartments/55-ninth-street Figure 2.1 - https://histarq.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/21b-rietveld-schroder-house-plan2.jpg Figure 2.31 - http://www.scb.com/apartments/55-ninth-street Figure 2.2 - http://metropolism.com/reviews/ruth-buchnan-rietveld-sidesteppe/resources/the-view-from- Figure 2.32 - http://www.scb.com/apartments/55-ninth-street below.jpg?version=0537fb40a68c18da59a35c2bfe1ca554 Figure 2.33 - http://www.scb.com/apartments/55-ninth-street Figure 2.3 - http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01562/p_schroder-open-pl_1562834c.jpg Figure 2.34 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.4 - http://www.domusweb.it/content/dam/domusweb/en/news/2011/04/27/riet- Figure 2.35 - http://www.saitowitz.com veld-s-universe/big_340728_1179_RIETVELD_CasaSchroeder_interni013.jpg Figure 2.36 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.5 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.37 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.6 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.38 - http://www.saitowitz.com - With Overlay by Author Figure 2.7 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.39 - http://www.saitowitz.com - With Overlay by Author Figure 2.8 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.40 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.9 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.41 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.10 - Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.42 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.11 - Photographer: Jason Schmidt - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.43 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.12 - Photographer: Jason Schmidt - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.44 - http://www.saitowitz.com Figure 2.13 - Photographer: Jason Schmidt - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.14 - Photographer: Jason Schmidt - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 2.15 - Photographer: Jason Schmidt - http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com Figure 3.0 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.16 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ Figure 3.1 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.17 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ Figure 3.2 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.18 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ Figure 3.3 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.19 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ Figure 3.4 - Graphic By Author Figure 2.20 - http://www.oma.eu/projects/2008/prada-transformer/ Figure 3.5 - Graphic By Author Table of Figures Continued

Figure 3.6 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.17 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.7 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.18 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.8 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.9 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.10 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.0 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.11 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.1 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.12 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.2 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.13 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.3 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.14 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.4 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.15 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.5 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.16 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.6 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.17 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.7 - Graphic By Author Figure 3.18 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.8 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.9 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.10 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.0 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.11 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.1 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.12 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.2 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.13 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.3 - Graphic By Author Figure 5.14 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.4 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.5 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.6 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.7 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.8 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.9 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.10 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.11 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.12 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.13 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.14 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.15 - Graphic By Author Figure 4.16 - Graphic By Author The Site

Push Pull: Compulsory Interactions in Architecture Fig. 1.01 AVA 55 9th

San Francisco Bay Area

California, USA

Population of San Francisco Proper: 837,442 (2013 Census)

Land Area: 46.87 square miles San Francisco, CA Neighborhood: Mid Market Persons per square mile: 17,179.1 (2010 Census) Architect: Solomon Cordwell Buenz Date of Completion: 2014 Home to Tech Giants

http://www.sfaqonline.com/2014/04/san-franciscos-mid-market-tango/ www.placeofmine.com www.placeofmine.com Convergence of Housing, Business and Industry

www.google.com/maps http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/13/ava_rental_tower_in_midmarket_releases_pricing_floor_plans.php

1029 Natoma Street

Fig. 1.0

San Francisco, CA

Neighborhood: SOMA

Architect: Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects Inc.

Date of Completion: 2007

http://www.saitowitz.com

1532 Harrison Street.

San Francisco, CA

Neighborhood: SOMA

Architect: Macy Architecture

Developer: Build Inc.

Date of Completion: NA

www.google.com/maps

Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/big_plans_for_hightech_group_housing_on_harrison_have_b.html http://www.dbarchitect.com/ Primarily Housing

CM AVA 55 9th

San Francisco, CA

Neighborhood: Mid Market

Architect: Solomon Cordwell Buenz

Date of Completion: 2014 http://www.sfaqonline.com/2014/04/san-franciscos-mid-market-tango/ www.placeofmine.com www.placeofmine.com

www.google.com/maps http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/13/ava_rental_tower_in_midmarket_releases_pricing_floor_plans.php

1029 Natoma Street

Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing

San Francisco, CA

Neighborhood: SOMA CM Architect: Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects Inc.

Date of Completion: 2007 http://www.saitowitz.com

Neighborhood Study

http://www.saitowitz.com

Primarily Business or Industry Primarily Business or Industry 1532 Harrison Street. Mix of Housing and Business Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing Primarily Housing

CM CM CM

San Francisco, CA

Neighborhood: SOMA

Architect: Macy Architecture

Developer: Build Inc.

Date of Completion: NA www.google.com/maps

Primarily Business or Industry Primarily Business or Industry Primarily Business or Industry Primarily Business or Industry Mix of Housing and Business http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/big_plans_for_hightech_group_housing_on_harrison_have_b.html http://www.dbarchitect.com/ Mix of Housing and Business Mix of Housing and Business Mix of Housing and Business Primarily Housing Primarily Housing Primarily Housing Primarily Housing

San Francisco Neighborhoods Fig. 1.1 Neighborhoods that are predominantly Industry Fig. 1.2 Neighborhoods that are predominantly Residential Fig. 1.3 Neighborhoods that are both Housing and Industry Fig. 1.4

CM CM CM CM

We can start to look at San Francisco with a critical eye with the intent of finding a specific site for the project.

San Francisco is a city that is strongly defined by its neighborhoods. Each of these neighborhoods have a very distinct character. We can make a very broad analysis of the city proper and begin by classifying them as primarily residential, primarily business or a relatively even mix.

The neighborhoods that can be defined by both their residence and their industry seem to fit the needs outlined in the abstract very well.

Primarily Business or Industry Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing Primarily Housing

CM CM

Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing

CM Dogpatch, San Francisco

Population of Dogpatch: 63,074

Land Area: .221 square miles

Percent Change Since 2000: 882.0 % Primarily Business or Industry Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing Percent Change Since 2010: 0.9 %

White Collar Residents: 10,672 CM

Blue Collar Residents: 6,164

Convergence of Housing, Business and Industry

Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing

Fig. 1.6

Primarily Business or Industry

Mix of Housing and Business

Primarily Housing

CM Precedents

With the site selected we now look to a select number of exemplary precedents.

Qualities that we will be looking for in these precedents are:

- Movable Architecture

- Interaction between users and their Architectural Surroundings

- Materiality

- Movable Elements that define their space

- Architectural Mechanics

- Frequency of Architectural Transformation

Push Pull: Compulsory Interactions in Architecture Schroder House

Gerrit Rietveld

Utrecht, Netherlands

1924-1925

Residence

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.0

“The Rietveld Schröder House (Dutch: Rietveld Schröderhuis) (also known as the Schröder House) in Utrecht was built in 1924 by Dutch architect Gerrit Rietveld for Mrs. Truus Schröder-Schräder and her three children.

She commissioned the house to be designed preferably without walls. Rietveld worked side by side with Schröder-Schräder to create the house. He sketched the first possible design for the building; Schroder-Schrader was not pleased. She envisioned a house that was free from association and could create a connection between the inside and outside. The house is one of the best known examples of De Stijl- architecture and arguably the only true De Stijl building. Mrs. Schröder lived in the house until her death in 1985. The house was restored by Bertus Mulder and now is a museum open for visits. It is a listed monument since 1976 and UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2000. (Wiki)”

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Chicken Point Cabin

Olson Kundig Architects

Tom Kundig, Design Principal

Steven Rainville, Project Manager

Northern Idaho, 2002 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8

Residence

Fig. 2.5

“The idea for the cabin is that of a lakeside shelter in the woods—a little box with a big window that opens to the surrounding landscape. The cabin’s big window-wall (30 feet by 20 feet) opens the entire living space to the forest and lake. Materials are low maintenance—concrete block, steel, concrete floors and plywood—in keeping with the notion of a cabin, and left unfinished to naturally age and acquire a patina that fits in with the natural setting. The cabin sleeps ten. (Olson Kundig Architects)”

Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10 Shadowboxx

Olson Kundig Architects

Tom Kundig, Design Principal

San Juan Islands, WA, 2010

Residence

Viekman, Interior Design

A motor-driven, 24-inch diameter spur gear drives two pairs of counter-rotating lifting arms which lift and control the roof. Fig. 2.13

Fig. 2.11 Bathhouse fully open. Fig. 2.12

“Shadowboxx responds to a desire to facilitate an intimate understanding of this special place and explores the tradition of gathering around a fire. Tucked between a thicket of trees and a rising bank, the house sits in a natural clearing created by the strong winds that force back the trees from the rocky bank. The building purposely confuses the traditional boundaries between a built structure and its surroundings. Its masses are modeled by winds off the water, exterior cladding is allowed to weather and rust, and shifting doors, shutters, walls and roofs constantly modulate the threshold between inside and outside.

Inside the home, a gallery runs the length of the house with rooms spilling off of it. Two 15’ by 10’ steel clad doors slide open to reveal the main living space, named the cloud room for its ever-changing atmospherics. A glass-walled bunkroom, it contains six custom-designed rolling platforms that serve both as sofas and beds and enable the room to morph and accommodate different functions. Exterior awning shutters facing the water can be closed for protection from the elements or for security when the owner is away.

A guest room sits at one end of the house, and the bathhouse at the other. The bathhouse is topped by a 16×20’ roof that opens the room like a cigar box at the push of a button. Materials with a strong tactility are used throughout the house, including rammed earth floors, reclaimed oak floorplanks, unpainted gypsum board and steel walls, corrugated steel siding and roofing, and reclaimed scaffolding planks for the ceiling. (Olson Kundig Architects)” The bathhouse is topped by a 16x20’ roof that opens the room like a cigar box The roof is engineered with a 5,500 pound steel counterweight, and two steel at the push of a button. Fig. 2.14 pivot hinges. Fig. 2.15 Prada Transformer

OMA

Partners: Rem Koolhaas, Ellen van Loon

Associates: Kunle Adeyemi, Kees van Cast- eren, Chris van Duijn Fig. 2.17 Interiors: Ippolito Pestellini, Andreas Kofler, Robert Daurio, Shabman Hosseini

Seoul, South Korea

Pavilion

Fig. 2.18

Fig. 2.16

Fig. 2.19

“Prada Transformer is a temporary structure picked up by cranes and rotated to accommodate a variety of cultural events. The 20-metre high Prada Transformer is located adjacent to the 16th Century Gyeonghui Palace in the center of Seoul. The pavilion consists of four basic geometric shapes - a circle, a cross, a hexagon, a rectangle - leaning together and wrapped in a translucent membrane.

Each shape is a potential floor plan designed to be ideal for three months of cultural programming: a fashion exhibition (Waist Down, featuring skirts designed by Miuccia Prada), a film festival (co-curated by Alejandro González Iñárritu), an art exhibition (by Swedish video artist and sculptor Nathalie Djurberg), and a Prada fashion show. Walls become floors and floors become walls as the pavilion is flipped over by three cranes after each event to accommodate the next. (OMA)”

Fig. 2.20 Fig. 2.21 Art Stable Fig. 2.22

Olson Kundig Architects

Tom Kundig, Design Principal

Kirsten R. Murray, Principal

Hand crank operates large operable art doors. First floor retail, parking and 5 units of Project Manager: Kevin Kudo-King, Fig. 2.23 Fig. 2.24 adaptable live-work space. Fig. 2.25 Fig. 2.26 Jim Friesz

Seattle, WA, 2010

Mixed Use

“Art Stable is an urban infill project in the rapidly developing South Lake Union neighborhood of Seattle. Built on the site of a former horse stable, the seven-story mixed-use building carries its working history into the future with highly adaptable live/work units.

Both front and back elevations of the building are active. The alley-facing façade features an 80-foot 5-inch tall hinge topped by a davit crane and five steel-clad, hand-cranked doors that cover nearly a third of the façade. The system references a warehousing tradition in how it moves oversize objects into the building. On the street side, large hinged windows open to provide natural ventilation throughout the units. The building draws upon the architectural concepts of prospect and refuge, transposed to an urban setting.

Units are designed to accommodate flexibility in use and changes over time, and are zoned for both residential and commercial use. The shell and core of the building are built to last over 100 years. Geothermal loops were inserted into the building’s structural piles, resulting in an innovative and highly energy-efficient radiant heating and cooling system. This is one of the first times this type of geothermal system has been used in this country. Sustainable Features

• A geothermal heat pump system runs in loops through the augercast structural pilings of the building’s foundation. • In-floor radiant heating and cooling • Natural ventilation • Can accommodate future use of solar/photovoltaic technology • Flexibility of space anticipates the possibility of non-residential use. Art Stable received a 2011 AIA Housing Award and was named residential architect magazine’s 2011 Project of the Year through their design awards program. (Olson Kundig Architects)” Large operable art doors on the alley side of the building can be manually On the street side of the building, oversized hinged windows allow for opened with a hand wheel and hinge. Fig. 2.27 cross-ventilation. Fig. 2.28 55 Ninth Street

Solomon Cordwell Buenz Architects

San Francisco, CA, 2014

Residence

Fig. 2.30 Fig. 2.31

Fig. 2.29

17 Floors

273 Apartments

115 Parking Spaces

352,000 GSF

“One of the first major components of the Mid-Market Street revitalization in San Francisco’s Civic Center district and immediately adjacent to the new Twitter Headquarters, the project places fifteen floors of rental units over a two-story podium housing retail space, a bike repair and storage shop, tenant fitness and amenity functions, and a major exterior landscaped terrace. The architectural language for both interior and exterior is intended to appeal to a younger, technically-savvy clientele. Vibrant patterns in glass and color are used to act as a visual bridge between the two scales of the older masonry buildings of the Civic Center to the north and the newer glass and metal structures to the south. (SCB)”

Fig. 2.32 Fig. 2.33 1029 Natoma Street

Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects

Stanley Saitowitz, Design Principal

San Francisco, CA 2007

Residence Fig. 2.35 Fig. 2.36 Fig. 2.37

Fig. 2.34

“This is the third building on this residential enclave of Natoma Street, directly across from two earlier buildings 1022 and 1028. The site is a 25 foot x 80 foot lot. The project continues the investigation of San Francisco infill buildings with parking and four units above. Its structuring continues and refines the exploration of its predecessors.

One thickened party wall has vertical access for the four units, and a light court. The other thickened party wall is a service zone, condensing the kitchens, bathrooms, laundry, and storage behind the sliding glass doors, and leaves a free space the length of the building, with light at both ends. Floating walls and sliding etched glass doors divide and connect this space. (Saitowitz)”

Fig. 2.38 Fig. 2.39 20th Street

Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects

Stanley Saitowitz, Design Principal

San Francisco, CA 2013

Residence Fig. 2.41 Fig. 2.42

Fig. 2.40

“The site, on the south side of Twentieth Street, has two poles, on the east views down the street to the bay, on the west the bustle of Third Street. A variation on the bay window at a comprehensive scale, oriented away from Third Street and towards the bay, is the result. From Third Street, the facets of the fae appear completely solid, from the bay entirely glass. This pleated skin is the front of the building.

Within, sixteen 750sf units are arranged four per floor with a central pod of kitchen on the one side and closets and bathroom on the other. Sliding etch glass pocket doors allow the space to be left as an open loft pivoting around the service pod, or closed down into a two bedroom apartment. (Saitowitz)”

Fig. 2.43 Fig. 2.44 Moving Wall

At this stage we begin to start thinking about the dimensions of this site and how they can inform our design choices. The goal at this point is to have a workspace on the ground level that is a product of the research into precedents that utilize movable architecture.

One way that we can foster a highly customizable space is to maintain a very regular column grid in two dimensions. This will potentially allow movable architectural elements to “fit” in many different arrangements. This idea of high flexibility is very important so as not to architecturally limit the user’s options.

Push Pull: Compulsory Interactions in Architecture Building Organization

Illustration of the column grid within the Building.

We can start to make decisions on how the architecture will be organized within the project. The occupiable portion of the building is divided up into ten 20’ x 20’ squares. These squares are defined by the structural column grid. The workspace on the ground level utilize eight of these bays.

Fig. 3.0 Column Grid with Walls

An illustration of the column grid in perspective with transformable walls.

Once the column grid is established we can then start to explore different options for ways to divide the space. It is important to keep with the ideas of flexibility and transformation during this step. This drawing is showing a design for a wall system in which each wall can be altered. When fully extended one of the wall components will merge the gap between columns. A select number of wall components will be Fig. 3.1 available to alter the workspace and create different spaces within the whole first level. Fig. 3.2 In this iteration the wall components can be turned as well as the length changed. Notice how when fully open the wall creates an eight foot opening to allow the movement of large objects. In other instances the wall is open three feet to act as an appropriately human doorway. The wall can simply be fully closed as well. Articulating Model - Moving Wall System

Moving Wall - Model Fig. 3.3 Moving Wall - Model - Rail, Rack and Pinion Detail Fig. 3.4 Moving Wall - Model - Open 3’ to allow human passage Fig. 3.5 Moving Wall - Model - Open 3’ to allow human passage Fig. 3.6 Building Assembly Diagrams

Assembly Diagram - Site Fig. 3.7 Assembly Diagram - Basement/ Parking Fig. 3.8 Assembly Diagram - First Floor Work Space Fig. 3.9 Assembly Diagram - Column Grid Fig. 3.10 Building Assembly Diagrams - Continued

Assembly Diagram - Movement & Service Core Fig. 3.11 Assembly Diagram - Residential Floor Plates Fig. 3.12 Assembly Diagram - Residential Unit Division Fig. 3.13 Assembly Diagram - Residential Facade Fig. 3.14 Building Assembly Diagrams - Continued

Assembly Diagram - Workspace Facade Fig. 3.15 Assembly Diagram - Southern Facade Fig. 3.16 Assembly Diagram - Amenity Railings Fig. 3.17 Assembly Diagram - Full Building Fig. 3.18 Elevating Platform - One

In the next section we will be discussing some of the shortcomings of the Moving Wall Scheme. The design will begin to build onto the ideas that were generated with the previous scheme.

A precedent will be presented that is a catalyst for the exploration of how we can begin to think about transforming a space in section as well as in plan. The moving wall limited the space to being planar centric. This precedent will also help to inform some of the material choices as well as bolster our argument for the creation of a such a space.

These next explorations are the beginning of a conversation about the detailing of the workspace. This conversation will also help inform us as to the realities of the end users.

Push Pull: Compulsory Interactions in Architecture Invention Hub

2225 3rd Street, San Francisco

Less than a block away from our Site

Also the site of Dignita Coffee

Fig. 4.0 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2

While exploring Dogpatch I wandered in here by accident looking for a coffee shop. Not only did I find great coffee but I also discovered this interesting flexible workspace.

Small businesses can rent space in this open plan space that is shared with the coffee shop Dignita. This space caters to both non-profit and for profit ventures.

What I find most interesting in this space is the multilevel space and how this is shared among its occupants. In most cases these occupant groups have little or not relation to each other. I have also used the materiality of the space as a example in my design.

Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7

These early renderings highlight an evolution of the Moving Wall scheme, the Elevating Platform scheme one. With the Moving Wall scheme occupants were limited in there freedom to transform the workspace. They were limited to altering the space in plan. With the Elevating Platform schemes occupants are now free to alter this space in both plan and now section as well. Fig. 4.8 Fig. 4.9

Additional views of the Elevating Platform scheme One. Note how raising just one of the 20’ x 20’ bays just 48” above the main level a smaller more defined space is created. The Moving Wall had the ability to create zones within the workspace. The platforms do this as well but the difference is that they begin to create different “levels” of hierarchy as well. This drawing illustrates how the Elevating Platform scheme changes the workspace in Section as well as in plan. If you imaging this as a plan it is very similar to the Moving Wall scheme. Notice the different option for how the platforms interact with each other. Also notice the highest platform. The railing components are designed to be stowed lying down on top of the platform when it is raised to its maximum height. The occupant’s view of the lower level is not obstructed by the stowed platform.

Fig. 4.10 Detail Views

One 20’ x 20’ Platform

Platofrm Design from Scheme One

Platform Component Designs from Scheme One

Fig. 4.11 Fig. 4.12 Fig. 4.13

Figure 4.11 shows the relationship between the railing component and the platform floor. Notice the nubs near the base that are used in railing storage.

Figure 4.14 shows a railing component in the stowed position. Notice the use of the storage nubs.

Figures 4.12 & 4.15 illustrate the panelization of the top and bottom of the platform. This is useful in fabrication and assembly. The bottom has built in stretched fabric light boxes for workspace illumination.

Figures 4.13 & 4.16 show how the corners of the platform are handled and how these corners meet the columns. The suspension system that raises and lowers the platform is also shown. Theses cables are attached at the top to motors housed within the floor slab above.

Fig. 4.14 Fig. 4.15 Fig. 4.16 Exploded Axonometric

One 20’ x 20’ Platform a.

Two 4 span rail components

Platofrm Design from Scheme One

Here we can see a digram of the different layers and the assemble of one of the platforms. From top to bottom we have: e. a. -Suspension system b. -Railing Components c. -Railing Attachment Collars f. d. -Top Panels and Trim e. -Structure f. -Bottom Panels and Trim g. g. -Light Boxes

Fig. 4.17 Elevating Platform - Two

Now that we have a viable scheme for allowing manipulation of this workspace in two dimensions (both plan and section) we can now begin to articulate the detailing of the associated components.

Some stylistic and functional changes have been made to the components (Stair, Three Span Rail and Four Span Rail). More important than this however is a refinement of the sub components mainly that cast pieces that allow for interchangeability between the major components.

We will also explore a variety of layout options in regards to the platform system. This will allow us to better understand the differences between and implications of highly varied and more uniform layout schemes.

Illustrations of the current state of facade design and residential unit layout will also be provided.

Push Pull: Compulsory Interactions in Architecture Assembled Axonometric a.

Components illustrated in this drawing: a. - 1X 20’ x 20’ Column Bay b. - 1X 20’ x 20’ Elevating Platform c. - 2X 48” Stair Component d. - 2X Three Span Railing e. - 1X Four Span Railing

Assembly: Defined d. e. b. The first definition of the word assembly found on the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows, “a group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose. (OED online)” Reading this simple line had more of an impact on me than I had imagined it would have, mainly because I d. was thinking about the word more in terms of its third definition, “the action of fitting together the component parts of a machine or other object. (OED online)” The latter is more aligned with my thesis path pertaining to the relationship between detailing and digital design. However, the former seems, at least to me to be just as prudent.

As an architecture student I am part of an assembly of like-minded scholars who have come together with the common goal of understanding and executing architecture. As Master of Architecture candidate I am part of an assembly of intellectuals who have common goal of mastery of a certain sect of architecture. I find it somewhat ironic that no architect wants to be pigeonholed as a designer who can only do one thing but that all are striving for an expertise in any given area. The expertise in turn allows them an advantage over their competition. I guess the conclusion that can c. be made from this analysis is that you must have mastery yet retain your flexibility. I admit this is probably easier said than done. Fig. 5.0 Detail View - Corner Condition

Components highlighted in this detail view:

- 2X Four Span Rail

- Suspension System

Assembly: Defined Continued

I think that this notion of strength yet flexible is an important one. On my intended path of mastery I need to truly understand the theory of fitting together components of like and dislike elements. At the same time I need to be open and actively researching the new and current ways of joining components. In addition I feel that the atmosphere in the digital world of today dictates that not only am I current with other’s techniques I must be developing new ideas and practice.

Now, returning to the definition of assembly that is more closely associated with design and architecture.

“the action of fitting together the component parts of a machine or other (OED online)”

In this application of the word assembly I will be making the assertion that we can refer to a building as a machine because after all the definition of machine is, “an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.”

Fig. 5.1 Detail View - Stair + Rail Joint

Components highlighted in this detail view:

- 1X Four Span Rail

- 1X Three Span Rail

- 1X 48” Stair

Assembly: Defined Continued

Assembly has been and always will be an integral part to the design, construction and performance of architecture. As an intellectual an architect must consider joinery and detail with conceiving of built design. As a constructor a builder must consider the timeline and order of construction to properly assemble anything. Also the assembly of different elements dictates the performance of built design. This can be but not limited to; will the building stand; will it be dangerous to its users; will it perform its intended purpose…?

Assembly is a derivative of the root word “assemble.” The word assemble is of the Old French word a(s)semblee, a noun and feminine past participle of assembler. I found this interesting because in the contemporary French language “assemblé,” phonetically pronounced (ah-sahm-BLAY) has roughly the same definition to the English “assemble,” however, the is a common term in the world of ballet. The French language is a common denominator between classically trained ballet dancers all over the world. Whether you train in France, Russia, the United States or anywhere in between you are taught a common vocabulary of French terms and expressions. All of these terms have literal meanings but also have accepted or implied meanings.

Fig. 5.2 Interior Perspective

This interior rendering of the second level of the workspace depicts a scenario like option 9 from figure 5.11.

View looking soutwest.

Assembly: Defined Continued

In my thirteen year as a ballet dancer before my transition to architecture I came to understand the importance of the emotion behind certain words. Assemblé literally translates to assemble. However, the next level of understanding this movement is to understand that as a classical ballet dancer when you are asked to “assemblé” you are really being asked to perform a movement in which your legs are brought together in the air and then land on both feet. An assemblé can be done in many directions, while turning, or with a beat. A dancer perform this by brushing one leg into the air, jumping off of the other leg, bringing both straight legs together in the air and then landing with both feet together on the ground.

Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4

Interior Perspective

This interior rendering on a platform raised to 48” above the ground floor of the workspace depicts a scenario like option 9 from figure 5.11.

View looking northwest.

Assembly: Defined Continued

This is of course the literal definition of the movement. All of those steps are crucial to the proper execution of the process. However, there is a hidden meaning or connotation like with any word to the step of assemblé. I find it difficult to describe in words, mainly because this affect is often not taught with words. This idea dictates the tambre or color of your movement. When used in a ballet setting assemblé has a particular accent associated with the last syllable of its pronunciation. This denotes a spark or fiery movement. This type of understanding is difficult and takes serious students year upon year to learn and understand; some technically perfect dancers never fully grasp this. It’s the difference between simple completing a task and performing it. Fig. 5.5

Interior Perspective

This interior rendering of the first level at the entrance of the building and the workspace depicts a scenario like option 9 from figure 5.11.

View looking northeast

Assembly: Defined Continued

I bring this up not to boast of my past life as a ballet dancer but to highlight the difference between an academic definition of a word and its true meaning. In architecture, design and fabrication assembly literally means “the action of fitting together the component parts of a machine or other.” Basically putting parts together to form a whole, 1+1=2. As this is correct there is also a felt underlying meaning to this word, a connotation if you will. This felt importance of the words implies that because of the importance of assembling something special care should be taken in intellectualizing this process. The assembly because an art all of its own. I find this fascinating and inspiring, the idea that a utilitarian process can be transformed to something creative and that this can now be another tool in the designer proverbial tool belt. Exploded Axonometric 48” Stair

In this and the next two drawings notice that there are building blocks of each on these components that are repeated. In these instances the parts are interchangeable between each of the larger components. This decision serves three purposes. The first is for ease of manufacturing. The second is that less of these parts need to be purchased while still maintaining a variety of assemble options. The third is that in an arrangement scheme that does not require many components to be functional the components can be disassembled and stored. The smaller number of building blocks will require less volume for storage. Fig. 5.6 Exploded Axonometric Three Span Railing

Notice that there are building blocks of each on these components that are repeated. In these instances the parts are interchangeable between each of the larger components. This decision serves three purposes. The first is for ease of manufacturing. The second is that less of these parts need to be purchased while still maintaining a variety of assemble options. The third is that in an arrangement scheme that does not require many components to be functional the components can be disassembled and stored. The smaller number of building blocks will require less volume for storage. Fig. 5.7 Exploded Axonometric Four Span Railing

Arrangement Diagrams

48” Stair 3 Span Rail 4 Span Rail

- Option 1 - 4 8 6

- Option 2 - 0 0 5

- Option 3 - 2 4 5

- Option 4 - 0 0 5

- Option 5 - 2 2 7 Option 2 Option 5 Option 8

- Option 6 - 2 4 4

- Option 7 - 0 0 0

- Option 8 - 2 4 5

- Option 9 - 5 10 5

In these diagrams we begin to look at the viability of some of the different options presented to future occupants of the workspace. They are faced with the eventuality that a highly articulated space will require the use of more components (stairs and railings). The opposite is also true; a simple space will require the use of fewer components. They each have their drawbacks however. Option 3 Option 6 Option 9 The options with higher variants will require more components and these will have to be purchased and manufactured. This will allow for a more variable space and accommodate more types of potential occupants. A space such as in option 9 embodies this.

The options with less variance in the heights of the platforms will utilize less components but will require more storage for unutilized pieces. An example of this is option 3.

A moderate amount of storage is available on site. Options such as 5 or 8 are a reasonable middle ground falling somewhere between high utilization and high storage.

Fig. 5.9 Building Perspective

View looking northeast of the building facade.

The Saitowitz Building “20th Street” is also visible to the directly to the west.

This iteration of facade schemes corresponds with the elevated platform scheme.

This rendering shows the early stages of development of a shared sliding panel system located on the facade of the residential units. With the exception of the southeast corner units each panel is shared by two residential units. Both units will have control of the panels and when one move adjusts the position the adjacent unit is affected.

Fig. 5.10 Building Perspective

View looking northwest of the building facade.

The Saitowitz Building “20th Street” is also visible to the directly to the west.

This iteration of facade schemes corresponds with the elevated platform scheme.

This rendering also shows the shared sliding panel system located on the facade of the residential units. These panels have the potential to completely shade the kitchen and living area of any given unit. Each unit will have a limitation as to the distance they can adjust the panels into the adjacent unit’s space.

Fig. 5.11 Plan Section Perspective

View looking northwest.

Focused on the platforms of the the ground level workspace.

The Saitowitz Building “20th Street” is also visible to the directly to the west.

This iteration of facade schemes corresponds with the elevated platform scheme.

This illustration shows just one possible configuration with the Elevating Platform Scheme Two. The development of the stair unit allows for mobility between the platforms. In scheme Two the platforms are designed to move in 48” increments. This shouldn’t take anything away from the ability to customize the space. In fact this allows for the unconditional use of the 48” Stair component. In any instance when two platforms are only separated by one increment (48”) one 48” Stair and two Three Span Railings can be used to created a passage between the two spaces.

Notice how the number of platforms has been reduced from eight to seven. This is a product of the need for a stationary platform to accommodate the one of two elevators as well as one of two stairways. Both of the elevators and both of the stairwells are located within the movement and service core on the western edge of the building.

Fig. 5.12 Plan Section Perspective

View looking northwest.

Focused on the layout of the residential units. All three residential floors are have the same layout.

There are slight differences between the 15 residential units.

The Saitowitz Building “20th Street” is also visible to the directly to the west.

This iteration of facade schemes corresponds with the elevated platform scheme.

The basic organization of the building is that the service elements of the building are, for the most part grouped together and reside within the west party wall adjacent to the neighboring building. This is most evident when the building is viewed with a skewed perception and the curtain wall system modules are removed. The stereotomic element that is the “core” comes to the forefront. This view also allows for a better distinction between this “core,” the “slabs” and the column grid that is of course the defining element and organization of the building.

The initial development of this parti is a result of multiple case studies. Residential projects by Stanley Saitowitz have had the most influence on this development. An adaptation of the ideas that drove the development of Saitowitz’ designs has been implemented in this design. This adaptation manifests itself in the form of scale changes between these precedents and this project.

Fig. 5.13

Bibliography

Pye, David. 1978. The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. “United States Census Bureau.” San Francisco County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

“Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects, Inc.” Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects, Inc. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. “assembly, n.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 28 March 2015.

“Shadowboxx.” Olson Kundig Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Beorkrem, Christopher. 2013. Material strategies in digital fabrication. New York: Routledge

“Art Stable.” Olson Kundig Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Corser, Robert. 2010. Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing. New York: Princeton Architectural Press

“Chicken Point Cabin.” Olson Kundig Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Brookes, Alan, and Dominique Poole. Innovation in Architecture. London: Spon, 2004. Print.

“55 9th.” Solomon Cordwell Buenz Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. Saitowitz, Stanley, Richard Barnes, and Tim Griffith. Stanley Saitowitz/Natoma Architects, Inc.: Buildings and Projects. New York: Monacelli, 2005. Print.

“Prada Transformer.” OMA Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.

Saitowitz, Stanley, and Michael Bell. Stanley Saitowitz. Houston, TX: Rice U School of Architecture, 1996. Print.

“Rietveld Schröder House.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Saitowitz, Stanley, and George Wagner. Stanley Saitowitz: A House in the Transvaal. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1995. Print. “Central Waterfront - Dogpatch.” Sfrealtors.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.