OMA, Parc de la Villette competition entry, 1982, original image cropped, http://oma.eu/projects/parc­de­la­villette

ARC 201: Design Studio 3:

Process, Process, Process

SYLLABUS ­ FALL 2018

CREDITS 6 CLASS HOURS MWF 1:00 pm – 4:20 pm

1 2018 ARC201 Syllabus INSTRUCTORS Mustafa Faruki mustafa@thelab­lab.com Crosby 120 Julia Jamrozik (coordinator) [email protected] Crosby 101 Virginia Melnyk [email protected] Crosby 110 Nellie Niespodzinski [email protected] Crosby 160 Sasson Rafailov [email protected] Crosby 130 Jon Spielman [email protected] Crosby 150

ELIGIBILITY ARC102: Architectural Design Studio. Architecture majors only.

PREREQUISITES/COREQUISITES ARC311: Architectural Media 3 ­ required. ARC 241: Environmental Systems – recommended. These courses will be linked in content and schedule.

COURSE DESCRIPTION How do we design? What drives ideas and what generates concepts? How do we productively and critically engage with the vast history and contemporary practice of architecture in the process? How do we design places that are rooted in their location but reflective of the past and aspiring to a better future? How do we meld idealism with practicality?

This studio will not offer answers to all of these questions but it will introduce one methodology and prompt a self­conscious and introspective approach to the design process.

The studio is guided by ideas of morphology and context. Morphology is understood as form­finding or the deliberate, logical and well­argumented development of a formal strategy. Context is understood as the relation to site at different scales and through different lenses (physical, social, cultural) and includes the history of the discipline of architecture.

These themes will be explored primarily through the study of precedents, through the process of abstraction, through interpretation and finally through iterative application onto an assigned site and program. Through this approach the class will offer students a link between analytical, experiential and strategic forms of design.

The studio is divided into several parts, all of which are linked and relevant to oneanother. The process matters as much as the final product of the studio.

2 2018 ARC201 Syllabus

Emphasizing the value of curiosity , risk­taking and independent critical thinking , the concepts developed in the studio will be augmented through an emphasis on skill­building and experimentation.

Part 1­3 In the first weeks of the semester we will be looking at examples of built houses with three different objectives/lenses of focus: those of organization, relationship to the ground and spatial device. We will harvest internal and external concepts from the precedents and in the process we will build representation skills. We will study and emphasize the intent and circumstances that produced each of the conditions and will diagram these through two­ and three­dimensional means.

The concepts extracted will be interpreted, combined and applied to the design of a public building in the second half of the semester.

Part 4 Having derived clear concepts from three precedent houses we will attempt to combine and recombine these in an attempt to use collage methodology as a generative tool. Trying to understand what it means to juxtapose one set of priorities with another, the spatial explorations in this part of the studio will be of an abstract nature and will be both synthetic and analytical. Thus through digital and physical models students will work in an iterative ways to study spatial conditions.

Part 5 Introducing the program of the final design project, this part of the course will look at precedents that are specific to the program. Students will gain an understanding of the size and occupation of the assigned spaces as it relates to the chosen typology and will explore relationships between them.

Part 6 Here we will begin the process of synthesis by bringing Parts 1­5 together and developing an architectural strategy that is linked to the early abstract spatial explorations but clearly responds to program and site.

Part 7 We will continue to develop the project with a special emphasis on the experience and occupation, interrogating the design from the perspective of specific users and building empathy in the process.

Part 8 In preparation for the final review, the final part of the studio will focus on synthesis and will offer an opportunity for reflection on the process undertaken and the products achieved.

(...but first a scavenger hunt!)

3 2018 ARC201 Syllabus

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

PART 1 ­ Organization Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, September 10.

The first three exercises of the semester use precedents to explore conceptual driving ideas in the design of buildings. By looking at three different houses, students will extract an idea about organization (Part 1), ground condition (Part 2) and architectural spatial devices (Part 3). The three ideas collected through these analysis exercises will be used in the design process later in the semester. It is therefore imperative that the analysis is insightful and the representation both careful and conceptually driven.

In Part 1 we will focus on the organization of the precedent house to understand the logic and sequence of spaces as they relate to program (type of use), site, to experiential qualities or other specific conditions. Through analysis and re­presentation students will understand the organizational strategy and will speculate on its motivating factors. Students will produce two­ and three­ dimensional diagrams clearly communicating the ideas derived from research, close­reading and observation.

READING Van Berkel, Ben, and Caroline Bos. “Diagrams: Interactive Instruments in Operation.” ANY: Architecture New York, no. 23, 1998, pp. 19–23. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41856095.

RESOURCES ON RESERVE The visual Display of Quantitative information and The Envisioning Information by Edward Tufte AD reader The diagrams of Architecture edited by Mark Garcia Precedents in Architecture: Analytical Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis by Roger H. Clark and Michael Pause Diagram Diaries by Peter Eisenman

DELIVERABLES ­ one 24x36 vertically oriented board (the layout of the panel will be discussed with your instructor): ­ chosen name/title for organization type based on the precedent ­ precedent plan and section (drawn at the same scale with scale and north indicated) ­ 1­2 diagrams pertaining to organization ­ information about the chosen precedent house (project name, architect name, location, year built) ­ several representative photos of the precedent ­ sources (list of books, journals, websites where you found information about the building) ­ one model representing the organizational principal of your chosen precedent house (you will need to make at least 2 working models in the process). The models should fit in an 6x6x6” cube. ­ A clear and concise verbal presentation (5 minutes)

1 2018 ARC201 Part 1

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

LIST OF HOUSES Zumthor House Peter Zumthor Haldenstein, Switzerland 1998 Weekend House Ryue Nishizawa Usui­Gun, Gunna, Japan 1998 Casa de Vidro (Glass House) Lina Bo Bardi São Paulo, Brazil 1950 Maison à Bordeaux OMA Bordeaux, France 1998 Nine Square Grid House Shigeru Ban Architects Kanagawa, Japan 1997 Naked House Shigeru Ban Architects Saitama, Japan 2000 Weekend House Office KGDVS Merchtem, BE 2012 Villa Buggenhout Office KGDVS Buggenhout, BE 2012 Moriyama House SANAA Tokyo, Japan 2011 Solo House Pezo von Ellrichshausen Cretas, Spain 2013 Casa Parr Pezo von Ellrichshausen Chiguayante, Chile 2008 Cien House Pezo von Ellrichshausen Chile 2011 Nida House Pezo von Ellrichshausen Navidad, Chile 2015 Magney House Glenn Murcutt Bingie Point , Australia 1984 Muuratsalo Experimental House Alvar Aalto Muuratsalo, Finland 1953 House for Trees Vo Trong Nghia Architects Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 2014 Casa Bruma Fernanda Canales Mexico 2017 Coutras House Lacaton Vassal Coutras, France 2000 Dordogne France Lacaton Vassal Dordogne, France 1997 Casa Meri Pezo von Ellrichshausen Chile 2014 Mylla Hytte Mork­Ulnes Architects Mylla Lake, Norway 2018 Dutch House OMA The Netherlands 1995 Villa Savoye Le Corbusier Poissy, France 1929 Moonlight Cabin Jackson Clements Burrows Australia 2015 Tepoztlán Lounge Cadaval and Sola Morales Tepoztlán, Morelos, México 2016 Solo House II Office KGDVS Matarraña, Spain 2017 House Without Qualities OM Ungers Cologne, Germany 1995 Slow House DSR Long Island, USA 1990 Casa Habitacion Smiljan Radic Chile 1997 House in Djerba, Tunisia Machado and Silvetti Djerba, Tunisia 1976 Dune House Jarmund/Vignæs Arkitekter Thorpeness, England 2010 Double Chimney House Atelier Bow Wow Nagano, Japan 2008 Villa in the Forest Kazuyo Sejima Chino, Japan 1994 Esherick House Louis Kahn Philadelphia, United States 1961

2 2018 ARC201 Part 1

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

PART 2 ­ Ground Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, September 17.

In Part 2 we will focus on the ground condition of a precedent house to understand the way that the building sits on/in/over the site. Through analysis and re­presentation students will understand the sectional and planimetric strategy/relationship and will speculate on its motivating factors. Students will produce two­ and three­ dimensional diagrams clearly communicating the ideas derived from research, close­reading and observation. It is imperative that the analysis is insightful and the representation both careful and conceptually driven. The project will be evaluated both based on the process of inquiry and the final products, including strength of ideas and craftsmanship.

READING https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/contemporary­architecture­section­is­generator/#

RESOURCES Lewis, Paul, Marc Tsurumaki, David J. Lewis, and Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis. Manual of Section. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016. ­ NA2775 .L49 2016 Hayes Hall Reading Room

A selection of Paul Rudolph’s perspective­sections: http://socks­studio.com/2016/05/22/a­selection­of­paul­rudolphs­perspective­sections/

DELIVERABLES ­ one 24x36 vertically oriented board (the layout of the panel will be discussed with your instructor): ­ chosen name/title for ground condition based on the precedent ­ precedent plan and section (drawn at the same scale with scale and north indicated) ­ 1­2 diagrams pertaining to ground condition (focus on sectional diagrams) ­ information about the chosen precedent house (project name, architect name, location, year built) ­ several representative photos of the precedent ­ sources (list of books, journals, websites where you found information about the building) ­ one model representing the ground condition of your chosen precedent house (you will need to make at least 2 working models in the process). ­ A clear and concise verbal presentation (3 minutes)

1 2018 ARC201 Part 2

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

LIST OF HOUSES

Farnsworth House Mies van der Rohe Plano, IL 1951 House in Balsthal Pascal Flammer Balsthal, Switzerland 2013 Villa Vals SeARCH + CMA Vals, Switzerland 2009 Villa Tugendhat Mies van der Rohe Brno, Czech Republic 1930 Floating House MOS Canada 2005 KWK Promes (Robert Ark House Konieczny) Kraków, Poland 2015 Villa Malaparte Adalberto Libera Capri, Italy 1938 Rebeira de Pena, Tolo House Alvaro Siza Portugal 2005 Villa Chardonne Made In Chardonne, Switzerland 2009 House in Leymen (Rudin House) Herzog de Meuron Leymen, France 1997 Dome House Paolo Soleri Cave Creek, Arizona 1950 Robie House Frank Lloyd Wright Chicago, Illinois 1908 Fallingwater Frank Lloyd Wright Mill Run, Pennsylvania 1935 Das Canoas House (Niemeyer House) Oscar Niemeyer Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1951 Nora House Atelier Bow­Wow Sendai, Japan 2006

House of Double Roof Shigeru Ban Yamanashi , Japan 1993 Earth House BCHO Architects Gyeonggi­do, Korea 2010 Sky House Kiyonori Kikutake Tokyo, Japan 1958 Tatiana Bilbao + Gabriel Observatory House Orozco La Blanca, Mexico 2008

2 2018 ARC201 Part 2

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

PART 3 ­ Spatial Devices Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, September 24.

Beyond programmatic and site considerations, with each design the architect chooses how to define space through spatial devices. Taking into account structure, materiality, constructability and use, the spatial device offers an opportunity to dictate not only the appearance of architecture but also its performance and occupation. Often it speaks to the ideology of the architecture and is a reflection of an attitude towards a broader cultural and social context.

Through analysis and re­presentation students will understand the spatial device in their chosen precedent house and will speculate on its motivating factors. Students will produce a three­dimensional representation as well as diagrams clearly communicating the ideas derived from research, close­reading and observation.

It is imperative that the analysis is insightful and the representation both careful and conceptually driven. The project will be evaluated both based on the process of inquiry and the final products, including strength of ideas and craftsmanship.

READING “A Drawing is not a Plan” by Laurent Stalder and Andreas Kalpakci, in Architectural Ethnography by Momoyo Kaijima, Andreas Kalpakci, Yu Iseki, Tokyo: Toto Publishing, 2018.

RESOURCES http://socks­studio.com/category/topics/representation­axonometric­projection/ https://divisare.com/publications/isometric­desire­of­abstraction?utm_campaign=journal&utm_content=he ading­text­id­1204&utm_medium=email

1 2018 ARC201 Part 3

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

DELIVERABLES ­ one 24x36 vertically oriented board (the layout of the panel will be discussed with your instructor): ­ chosen name/title of the spatial device type based on the precedent ­ 1 three dimensional drawing (axonometric or sectional perspective) representing the house but focusing on the most significant spatial device ­ 2 diagrams focusing on the most significant spatial device in the precedent house ­ information about the chosen precedent house (project name, architect name, location, year built) ­ several representative photos of the precedent ­ sources (list of books, journals, websites where you found information about the building) ­ one model representing the spatial device of your chosen precedent house (you will need to make at least 2 working models in the process). ­ A clear and concise verbal presentation (3 minutes)

LIST OF HOUSES Sheets Goldstein Residence John Lautner Los Angeles, California 1968 Garden and House Ryue Nishizawa Tokyo, Japan 2013 T House Sou Fujimoto Architects Maebashi, Gunma, Japan 2005 Vandenhaute Kiebooms House Juliaan Lampens Zingem, Belgium 1967 Mary Otis Stevens and Lincoln House Thomas McNulty Lincoln, MA 1965 House with One Wall Christian Kerez Zurich, Switzerland 2007 Rietveld Schröder House Gerrit Rietveld Utrecht, NL House NA Sou Fujimoto Architects Tokyo, Japan 2012 House in Miyamoto Tato Architects Osaka, Japan 2018 Villa Le Lac Le Corbusier Corseaux, Switzerland 1924 House VI Peter Eisenman Cornwall, US 1975 Villa Baizeau Le Corbusier Carthage, Tunisia 1927 Tempe á Pailla Eileen Gray Castelar, France 1934 House in Pound Ridge Richard Meier Pound Ridge, NY 1969 Walker Guest House Paul Rudolph Sanibel Island, Florida 1953 Wall house John Hejduk Groningen, Netherlands 2001 Stair House y+M design office Oda, Japan 2010 Furniture House 1 Shigeru Ban Yamanashi , Japan 1995 Suitcase House Gary Chang Beijing, China 2002 Final Wooden House Sou Fujimoto Architects Kumamura, Japan 2008

2 2018 ARC201 Part 3

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

Bernard Tschumi, “#4 K Series,” 1985. Study for “La Case Vide: La Villette,” Folio VIII, 1985. Photostat with hand-applied enamel paint, 16 15/16 x 17”. © Alvin Boyarsky Archive.

PART 4 - Collage method Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, October 15. This is the Midterm Review. “Collage combines pictorial motifs and fragments from disconnected origins into a new synthetic entity which casts new roles and meanings to the parts. It suggests new narratives, dialogues, juxtapositions and temporal durations. Its elements lead double-lives; the collaged ingredients are suspended between their originary essences and the new roles assigned to them by the poetic ensemble.” Juhani Pallasmaa, Foreword to “Collage and Architecture” by Jennifer A.E. Shields, 2014

“So a collage is not only meant as an object, something made, a result, but what is perhaps far more interesting: a process. Moreover, that behind this way of doing something which as a result then leads to a collage, the collage would be meant as an attitude of mind.” Bernard Hoesli from a lecture delivered in Bern on May 2, 1983

1 2018 ARC201 Part 4

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

Using concepts derived from the first three exercises this semester, this project asks you to use a collage method to combine them in spatial ways. Thus abstracting the organization, the ground condition and the spatial device from the three houses you studied, we will combine these three concept to test and experiment with new spatial configurations.

We will explore the potentials and contradictions presented by re-combining potentially disparate, and maybe even opposing, conditions. Taking risk and being open to unpredictable results we will develop an iterative approach through tests and experiments in both two-dimensional collage through hybrid drawings and three-dimensional collage through model making. The outcomes of these studies will not be buildings but rather abstract spatial propositions which will be tested with a site and program in the second half of the semester.

READING “Collage Making” from Appliance House, written by Ben Nicholson, Chicago Institute for Architecture and ​ ​ Urbanism (CIAU), MIT Press 1990

DELIVERABLES - Updated three 24x36 boards and models from Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 - one 24x36 board with one hybrid drawing showing the combination of your organization, ground condition and spatial device - three models representing the combination of your organization, ground condition and spatial device (you will need to produce at least 5 working models in the process). Models should be 12x9x6 inches. - A clear and concise verbal presentation describing the ideas extracted from your precedent houses and your approach to collaging them (4 minutes)

EVENTS DURING CLASS-TIME: Attendance is to be discussed with your instructor Fri 9/28 1 pm Clarkson Chair Seminar: Conservation in India ​ Wed 10/3 2-6 pm “Strategies of Empowerment: A Survey of Emerging Urban Practices in Weak Market ​ Cities” Symposium organized by Erkin Özay with Daniel D’oca, Jennifer Goold, Patty Heyda and Marc ​ Norman

2 2018 ARC201 Part 4

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

Alvaro Sizo, Swimming Pools, Leça de Palmeira, Portugal, 1966.

PART 5 ­ Site and Program Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, November 5.

During the remainder of the semester we will be working on the design of an outdoor public swimming pool for the Seneca Bluffs site in South Buffalo.

Students are not starting the design from scratch but, rather must think through ways that the collaged spatial conditions form Part 4 will be adapted and implemented with the added new parameters of site and program. Students must methodically interrogate and apply the hybrid concept, as well as the comments received at the Midterm, to develop both site and program strategies. The challenge of the project lies in looking at the set of pragmatic requirements in this brief in combination with collaged spatial conditions, and associated narratives, previously developed. Students should work through iterations of diagrams, plans, and sections, as well as digital and physical models.

Most students are already very familiar with the Seneca Bluffs site through the work done for ENV 241: the mapping of the site conditions, the climate and the zoning analysis. These studies coupled with the site visit will enable the students to form an attitude towards the site: to see the potentials within and opportunities for interacting with and creating adjacencies. The site boundary is not strictly defined but all students must address the Seneca Street condition and must allow ample access to the unprogrammed parts of the site to the general public.

1 2018 ARC201 Part 5

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

PROGRAM SFT DIMENSIONS OUTDOOR 25 yard pool 3200 80 x 40 recreation pool 2000 kiddie pool or splash pad 500 diving pool 1000 * at least 3 types must be provided, pools can be combined where appropriate outdoor seating area with tables for snack bar outdoor deck or lawn part with sun and part with shade arrival zone at ticketing parking for 25 cars bicycle parking

INDOOR change rooms with toilets, showers and lockers 2000

* male and female or family reception / ticketing 300 lifeguard room / nurse room 400 snack bar with kitchen and storage 500 multi­purpose community room 2000 janitor space 200 mechanical space 1000 TOTAL INDOOR 6400

READING Christophe Girot “The Four Trace Concepts” in Corner, J, & A Balfour, Recovering landscape. in , Sparks, NV, Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.

Stan Allen “From Object to Field” AD (Architectural Design) 67 n.5­6 (May­June 1997) p 24­31

James Corner “Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique, and Invention” (Dennis Cosgrove, M appings, p.231 ­ 252)

DELIVERABLES ­ Concept diagrams relating to site and program strategy ­ Plans and sections of proposal on site ­ Model of site with proposal (scale to be determined with instructor) ­ A clear and concise verbal presentation

2 2018 ARC201 Part 5

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

EVENTS DURING CLASS­TIME: Wed October 17 – site visit to Seneca Bluffs – meet at the Seneca Street parking lot at 1:30pm. Dress for the weather as we’ll be outside for more than 3 hours. In preparation for the site visit draw the program areas in Rhino on the site plan and dimension them. You will need the dimensions to stake out the program boxes on the site. Bring a camera and measuring tape. Bring printouts from Project 1 and Project 2 from ENV241. Read the Girot reading before the site visit. Through Girot’s process of “Landing, grounding, finding, and founding” attempt to gain new insights from the site.

Monday October 19 – pool precedents presentations – students will present one of the pool precedents to the entire year. Students must do background research on the chosen building, find photographs and drawings that are relevant as descriptions and draw three diagrams of the building relating to organization, ground condition and spatial device.

During the first week of the assignment, students must visit a swimming pool in their own time and will share their experiences with the group. Attention should be paid both to the space of the pool itself (size, lighting, access) but also to the ancillary spaces (change rooms, locker rooms, reception).

3 2018 ARC201 Part 5

10/19/2018 2018 ARC201 Part 5a - Google Docs ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

Alvaro Sizo, Swimming Pools, Leça de Palmeira, Portugal, 1966.

PART 5a ­ Pool precedents Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, October 22.

Working in groups of three students choose one precedent pool (from those assigned to the studio section). Students will research the pool, finding drawings, photographs and related information about it. Not all of the precedents will be identical in program and scope to our design project but they will each be relevant in different ways. Students will produce three original diagrams for their precedent pool (one for organization, one for ground condition and one for spatial device).

The research work and the diagrams will be presented to the entire studio group in Crosby 301 from 2­4pm, on Monday October 22. Each presentation should be no longer than 4 minutes and be clear and concise. Every student from the group must speak as part of the presentation. Please include a title page with precedent name and student names in the pdf.

All material must be included in a pdf and uploaded to the UB Box by 1pm in a folder with the name of the pool precedent here: All Files > 2018 ARC201 >Projects >Part 5a These will become a reference for the entire studio.

1 2018 ARC201 Part 5a

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K_JgF9DsH1Pg5UUuP3E02lQoEKZEAo5bFj1KVAEgwi8/edit 1/2 10/19/2018 2018 ARC201 Part 5a - Google Docs ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

PROJECT NAME ARCHITECTS LOCATION YEAR

Leça de Palmeira, 1 Leça Swimming Pools Álvaro Siza Vieira Portugal 1966

Donald D. Summerville Olympic 2 Pools Wilson + Newton Toronto, Canada 1963 Julia J. 3 Thermal Bath Sidi Harazem JeanFrançois Zevaco Fez. Morocco 1960

4 Naturbad Riehen Herzog de Meuron Riehen, Switzerland 2014

Borden Park Natural Swimming 5 Pool gh3 Edmonton, Canada 2017

6 Copenhagen Harbour Bath Plot (BIG + JDS) Copenhagen, Denmark 2003

7 Therme Vals Peter Zumthor Vals, Switzerland 1996 Sasson Fernando Menis F.A. Rufino, J.M. R. 8 Badeschiff Rodriguez – Pastrana with Gil Wilk. Berlin, Germany 2004

9 Plus Pool Family NY, NY project

10 Jones Beach Bathhouses Herbert Margoon Long Island, NY 1929

11 Service Center in Nautholsvik Arkibullan Reykjavik, Iceland 2001

12 McCarren Park Pool Aymar Embury II Brooklyn, NY 1936 Mustafa 13 Bellinzona Bathhouse Aurelio Galfetti Bellinzona, Switzerland 1970 F. 14 Les Bains des Docks Jean Nouvel Le Havre, France 2008

15 L'Unité d'Habitation (rooftop) Le Corbusier Marseille, France 1952

16 The Canopus Hadrian Tivoli, Italy 200. AD

17 Aarhus Harbor Bath BIG Aarhus, Denmark 2018 Virginia 18 Blue Lagoon Basalt Architects Iceland 2017 M. 19 London Aquatic Center Zaha Hadid London, UK 2011

20 Conversion of a shellfish farm Jovino Martinez Sierra Tapia de Casariego, Spain 2008

21 Freeway Park Lawrence Halprin Seattle, Washington

22 Aquatic Centre Louviers DRD Architecture Louviers, France 2011

Therapeutic Pools for La 23 Esperanza School FUSTER + Architects San Juan, Puerto Rico 2015 Jon S. Šetalište Lona, Rovinj, 24 Lone Outdoor Pools 3LHD Croatia 2013

Renovation and extension of the NAU Architecture + Drexler Guinand Lac de Géronde, 3960 25 Baths of Géronde Jauslin Architekten Sierre, Switzerland 2014

26 Sea Bath in Kastrup White arkitekter 2770 Kastrup, Denmark 2004

27 Swimming Pool Grossenhain Weidinger Landschaftsarchitekten Grossenhain, Germany 2001

Nellie N. 28 Hamilton Fish Park Pool Robert Moses/Carrère and Hastings New York, NY 1936

29 Marina Bay Sands pool Moshe Safdie Singapore 2010

30 Baths of Caracalla Rome 212

2 2018 ARC201 Part 5a

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K_JgF9DsH1Pg5UUuP3E02lQoEKZEAo5bFj1KVAEgwi8/edit 2/2

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

Astoria Park Pool, NYC

PART 6 - Inhabitant Experience Project due at the beginning of class on Monday, November 19.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE REVIEW FOR THIS PART IS ALSO THE PRE-FINAL REVIEW FOR THE SEMESTER AND WILL TAKE PLACE FROM 11 AM - 6 PM.

Undoubtedly you have already considered users in your design process, but this part of the semester urges you to think of your design from the perspective of people even more rigorously.

Representation is one way of achieving this focused view of the user experience. Unlike more objective forms of representation (such as plan drawings), perspectival views allow us to imagine ourselves in the place and from the point of view of the figures represented. Further a sequential approach favors an understanding on place through time and lived experience.

1 2018 ARC201 Part 6

ARC 201: Design Studio 3: Process, Process, Process Fall 2018

First we ask that you consider different types of people who may come to your outdoor pool. Are they young or old? How do they get here? How mobile and independent are they? Are they coming alone or with friends and family? What other preferences do they have? What time of the day do they come and how frequently? Which of the spaces in your pool would they like to experience and in what sequence? How long do they stay and what activities do they take part in?

Pick two imagined user (one child and one adult) and consider these questions and others as you develop a narrative for each. Be sure to examine ideas of the body, scale, duration and materiality.

By thinking of the people who come to your designed outdoor pool you will surely adapt, change and bring specificity to your design. Please update the drawings from Part 5 to reflect this.

SUGGESTED READING Wiltse, Jeff. Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 2007;2009;2010;. Available as an Ebook through UB Library. Conclusion chapter on UB Box

Juhani Pallasmaa “Empathic and Embodied Imagination: Intuiting Experience and Life in Architecture” in V. Gallesse, H.F. Mallgrave, J. Pallasmaa, & S. Robinson, Architecture and Empathy. P. Tidwell (Ed.). Tapio Wirkkala-Rut Bryk Foundation, Finland, 2015.

DELIVERABLES - All updated drawings from Part 5 - An 11x17 with description of each chosen user and a plan view indicating their path through your complex (two 11x17 total) - Sequence of 3 experiential views for each user - each hybrid drawing will be printed on 11x17 landscape format (six 11x17 total)

2 2018 ARC201 Part 6

COURSE OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING OUTCOMES ­ To develop a conceptual approach to the design process ­ To appreciate the value of architectural precedents and be able to draw concepts from them ­ To be able to communicate abstract ideas and concepts through diagramming ­ To understand the value of systematic thinking ­ To develop an iterative working process ­ To promote risk­taking and experimentation ­ To understand the relevance of historical, social, physical and other contexts ­ To develop parallel and integrated strategies for site and building scales ­ To address the relationship between private and public space ­ To enable thinking about passive environmental systems and strategies ­ To enable integration of accessibility strategies in the design process ­ To further develop 2d and 3d graphic skills and model making as means of communicating ideas

ACCREDITATION CRITERIA Students will develop an understanding and ability of the following NAAB accreditation criteria: A2. Design Thinking Skills A6. Fundamental Design Skills A7. Use of Precedents A8. Ordering Systems B4. Site Design

EVALUATION Grades are viewed as a means to communicate evaluation of your work and progress. Work will be evaluated through in‑studio critiques and written commentary when appropriate. Projects will be assigned value corresponding to the complexity and proportion of time that the schedule allots. Two formal grading sessions will take place during the semester: one at or prior to mid‑term and the other following the final review. The final grade will be a compilation of project grades and course participation (attendance, attention, interest, contribution).

Project Grade Breakdown: Part 1­3 15% Part 4 20% Part 5­8 50% Portfolio 10% Lecture Series 5%

Grades should be interpreted as follows: A = 4 Exceptional work. Exceed criteria. Clear understanding of concepts and materials. Exhibits insights indicating that the experiences from one project/exercise to the next are cumulative and transferable. Constructively challenges and criticizes issues brought forth during the semester. Demonstrates enthusiasm and intensity for learning. Develops capability to be constructively self‑critical. Assumes responsibility for intellectual development of self and encourages intellectual development of colleagues. This grade indicates clear capability to perform well at the next level.

B = 3 Above average work. Meets all criteria. Good understanding of concepts and materials. Reasonable carry‑over from previous exercises. Constructively challenges issues brought forth during the semester. This grade indicates a reasonable prediction of competent performance at the next level.

5 2018 ARC201 Syllabus

C = 2 Average work. Meets minimum requirements. Indicates some difficulty in understanding concepts and materials or in transferring experience from one project to the next. Exhibits need for improvement in critical thinking skills. This grade indicates mediocre to poor performance at the next level.

D = 1 Below average work. Does not meet minimum requirements. Indicates serious difficulties in understanding concepts and materials, and/or in the transfer of information. Probable indication of poor attendance and lack of motivation.

F = 0 Late, incomplete, or work not submitted.

ATTENDANCE POLICY Attendance is mandatory at every studio session, required field trip, and other out of class events necessary for the full and adequate completion of the requirements of the studio. S tudents who have more than three unexcused absences during the semester will fail the course. Arriving late, or leaving early will not be tolerated. Two late arrivals or early departures equal 1 absence. A n excused absence requires either a physician’s note or a copy of the funeral card and obituary of the deceased loved one. Students are responsible for information provided during class. Faculty will not recap material missed due to absences except in cases of medically excused illness or emergency. Absence due to illnesses or emergency should be reported to your studio faculty as soon as possible and before the studio session begins.

Students are to attend the School of Architecture and Planning Lecture Series and Symposia. Lectures are typically held on Wednesdays at 6pm in 403 Hayes. In the event of a symposium attended by the class, your presence is part of class attendance. Students must submit either two social media posts from the events (screenshot) or a 100 word description of the event.

Reference the university website for cancellations/delays due to weather or other unforeseen events (http://emergency.buffalo.edu/campus­weather­alerts.html)

WORK EXPECTATIONS An average of eighteen+ hours of work time per week is expected for this course in addition to class time. (Schedule at least 26 hours per week for this course.) This average includes weeks when formal class is not held due to university observed holidays. You are expected to work in studio after class hours and to collaborate with the students in your studio on various projects. You are expected to produce a substantial body of work for each studio session. Your instructor will regularly discuss your work in studio. There will be occasional review sessions, lectures, and field trips. You are expected to make regular progress on assigned studio projects. Instructors will consult with you during a studio session if you have new work to show. Instructors are not obligated to consult with you if you have no new work.

DEADLINES Deadlines for exercises/course projects will be listed on written project statements in addition to being announced in class. All projects will be due at the beginning of studio on the due date unless otherwise indicated. All projects must be submitted to the UB box in a timely manner to be evaluated by the instructor.

6 2018 ARC201 Syllabus