RELEVANCE& RECIPROCITY kathleen gilfoy
RELEVANCE& RECIPROCITY
kathleen gilfoy bachelor of architecture \\ 2010
advisor doug jackson \\ college of architecture & environmental design \\ california polytechnic state university, san luis obispo
005 STUDIES
025 THESIS
045 DESIGN
003
004
005
STUDIES
006 \\ furniture & architectural play 010 \\ skib
furniture& architectural play 006
J
ust as the desire to play may be considered superfluous–an act without any tangible purpose or concrete goal aside from satisfaction– the consideration of furniture’s potential role within a space yields a similar conclusion. Some inhabitants may find contentment or nonchalance in a simple process: acquiring pieces of furniture, bringing them home, and
placing them anywhere, perhaps not to be moved again until they are deemed obsolete and the process is to begin again. There exists, however, this great potential for human interaction in spatial definition; while a user may not feel much of an encounter with his built surroundings (in terms of architectural structure), furniture offers a point of confrontation with the person and his
body. Furniture begs to be touched, to be manipulated, to be sat upon, and to be reconfigured. Consider, for example, a child playing with set of wooden blocks. It is simply a toy, an object rich in possibility to inspire imaginative play, devoid of rules beyond those of gravity. The child’s activities with these blocks are superficially limited to the act of building–the creation of space from these standard little pieces. However, to the child personally, the limitations are only subject to restrictions of the imagination. Perhaps the scent of the wooden blocks reminds him of a specific early memory, and in his mind he imagines he is off in a distant forest and the blocks spread about him are not the debris of toys but instead a multitude of trees dwarfed in his presence? Or perhaps instead of taking the blocks and assembling them to create a fixed
their obvious intended function, be it as basic as a lamp or a chair. A lamp is brought in to light a space, quite simply, but once darkness falls the light source bathes the space in such a way so as to create a feeling, a mood for the user. After a long and stressful day, appropriately chosen soft lighting could provide an instant retreat for the work-weary. A chair is meant to be sat upon, and is perhaps nothing more than an elevated response to sitting on the floor; yet, a chair can lend a space an aesthetic identity, it can be strong and sturdy or precariously fragile or easily moveable to allow for new configurations. Throughout the lifespan of a chair, one cannot keep track of all of the simple elements of life it sees–homemade dinners and morning cups of coffee and Saturday afternoon books and conversations and mourning and joyous laughter. We inhabit empty spaces and fill them with life; furniture is no exception.
“we inhabit empty spaces and fill them with life; furniture is no exception.” object, he plays energetically with each piece as he imagines them to be crude, rectangular cars or trains or spacecrafts? The toy may be a modest one but it is still an object designed to remain open to individual interpretation; the toy does not constitute a game in itself, but rather lends itself to such facilitation with endless possibility. Similarly, the objects with which we fill our homes and studios hold more promise for interaction than simply
There is no question that furniture dominantly defines the way in which we experience architecture. Even the basic functions of rooms in our own homes do not become fully clear until we see the rooms furnished to deduce the intended use. One may move into a new apartment with an open floor plan, a figurative “blank canvas,” but carefully place the furniture within to delineate space with respective functions. While both hold a steady focus at a center point (usually on
007
008
a table), the difference between a setting for a traditional Japanese tea ceremony and that of a rowdy gathering to play board games with a group of friends holds furniture and furniture’s interaction at heart. What if a boisterous social gathering were called into a room with a low, formal setting, to be seated ritualistically upon elegant floor cushions? The previously unrestricted activity would certainly be altered and hedged in upon this sudden spatial confrontation, solely from the disparity of shared social extroversion and an aesthetic aura of meditation. Similarly, what if guests anticipating a contemplative tea ceremony found themselves ushered into a brightly illuminated, disheveled living room, furnished with overstuffed sofas and pillows flung about? It would seem that the juxtaposition of playfulness and austerity should prove equally absurd to the inhabitants in either scenario. A group’s willingness to participate, to play as a collective, is perhaps even more responsive to the mood offered by an architectural setting than is the playful tendency of an individual. One could then speculate that individual pieces of furniture serve the user well if they inspire personal adaptation and reinvention of theiruse–a spirit of play in making the object one’s own–but furniture items intended for more than just a single user (such as an ambient lighting element or communal seating, for example) hold more propensity for play because of the resultant group dynamic.
For as seemingly useless as play is from a utilitarian standpoint, play remains a lighthearted component for achieving human satisfaction. In its most basic form play is an exercise of the imagination, allowing the individual to erect with such limited resources a structure accessible only through the mind. If a work of architecture is to be significant to an individual, it is perhaps because it allows one to “fill in the blanks,” so to speak, and create their own reality with the architecture itself as a point of departure. To encounter a building, to measure its scale with the body, and to navigate and explore, are all forms of play for the curious observer. Teasing out a deeper personal experience with a space lends inherent value, enabling the space to transcend simple structure or obviously discernable construction techniques and take on a mood, a feeling, and a character. Via our own playful nature, we can use these most basic tools – these mere objects–as outlets for creativity, interaction, and a collision of the individual with the built environment. Play takes these pieces and actively engages them in something greater; in our own imaginations, we endow the space with the ability to play back.
“for as seemingly useless as play is... 009
...play remains a lighthearted component for achieving human satisfaction.�
[ skib ] a playful rocking chair 010
The Danish word for a Viking ship, the Skib (pronounced “skeeb�) is a rocking chair with two-axis motion, breaking the traditional linear constraints of a standard onedirectional rocking chair.
The Skib is essentially a three-part system comprised of a frame [ 01 ], internal tensile structure [ 02 ], and an enveloping cushion [ 03 ].
01
02
03
011
[ inspiration ] wind-up sushi 012
The design challenge was to create an original piece of furniture that appealed to one’s propensity to play, using a favorite toy as a point of departure.
When wound up it appears that two California rolls walk side-byside, as feet marching to a steady rhythm. While the toy seems simple at the surface, what defines the walking sushi is that each part needs the other for mobility and rest.
One foot (or sushi roll) cannot move without the assistance of the other, and both must cooperate to reach a state of rest. Once one foot is raised, only gravity can bring it back down to stabilize the entire system.
013
[ concept ] collaboration 014
The Skib invites users to collaborate with one another and with the chair itself to achieve balance and a state of repose.
Able to support one or two people, the Skib is comprised of two basic elements: a graceful, slender wooden frame, and a structurally-self-sufficient reversible cushion. The Skib uses the basic tensile principles of a hammock, applied to slim wood frame furniture construction.
Initial designs of the wooden frame were inspired by the curvature of a violin bow, which is in constant tension and uses simple, elegant curves as leverage.
015
016
The slender frame is composed of 1.5� thick laminated birch plywood. Through CNC milling, the profiles were fabricated in on-campus CNC facilities; the frames were later sanded and finished by hand, then interlocked together with a tight friction-fit. Glue was only used in laminating the frame profiles.
Curved notches on each prow of the frame enables easy rotation of the upholstered cushion: the seat is designed with four loops that slip over the frame and lock into place, providing a secure fit and retaining visual simplicity with ease of use.
017
The upholstered cushion system is far more than meets the eye. A simple draped form conceals an internal tensile system made of 1� wide nylon webbing--a product designed for rock climbing, tested to hold a considerable amount of weight with immense tension--machine sewn for added strength. This web is then covered on both sides with a thick layer of polyurethane foam, and a layer of upholstery batting.
One side of the cushion is black faux mink fur, giving the Skib a soft and intriguing texture that few passers-by can resist investigating. The cushion reverses to a glossy vinyl, artificial and kitschy (an abstract reference to the walking sushi muse). While the two sides were machine-sewn together for durability, a canvas trim was hand-sewn along the entire perimeter of the cushion to enrich the connection of the two disparate material conditions and unite the nylon loops attaching the cushion to the frame. The result is a cohesive cushion unit, easily understood as a seat, but brilliantly keeping its construction and strength a secret.
019
The Skib’s cushion easily reverses from fur to vinyl.
021
022
The Skib is most stable with two people, as the single user is more likely to make hasty assumptions about the chair’s stability and balance point. One must be willing to play with the Skib instead of fight against it, finding comfortable configurations...
...or surrendering to the relentless power of gravity.
023
025
THESIS
026 \\ thesis B.Arch 2010
[ relevance ] architecture as a social lens 026
A
rchitecture holds the potential to serve as a powerful channel for interaction: to move, to guide, to unite, to divide. The current state of our built environment suggests a more passive relationship, however, between the spaces we inhabit and the events that unfold within. I am proposing, then, a more in-depth analysis of this potential architectural energy through a socially oriented lens, centering on the multifaceted question of relevancy.
We are, in essence, “just passing through.” Why expend the effort of going to a store and tolerating traffic and unwanted human contact, with all of its frustrations and spontaneity and textures and smells, when one can remain in the safety of their own solitude and shop online? Why bother with a phone call when one can send a rapid, abbreviated text message? Who are we to expect everything be so “convenient,” so efficient, so new,
Personal relevance is derived from interaction and identity via surroundings, peers, and a perceived reality. Architecture should be a framework that overlaps realities to create programmatic, experiential, and social conditions—a catalyst for reciprocal action and user connections. The very nature of contemporary American culture is transitory, cluttered by the desultory worship of an ever-changing strand of trends, with a premium placed on one’s own convenience and selfish experience.
when we ourselves are unwilling to adapt? It is incongruous that we can devote so much of our time and energy lusting after the visual—such as physical beauty and aesthetic composition in both the people and ob-
027
Allison Janes on the streets of Milan
028
jects with which we seek to fill our lives—and yet we do not reciprocate beyond the impersonal with an offering to meet our own standards and demands. We are allowing technology, which evolves exponentially faster than the human soul, to dictate our physical environment. As we grow apart, not only is architecture becoming less relevant in our lives, but we are becoming less relevant to architecture.
As long as we seek a passive experience from architecture, to merely observe and appreciate as one would skim a work of art from behind the safe distance of a velvet rope, there can be no relationship. There is no further depth. We value fleeting beauty, but do so only with our eyes for the lack of a less superficial and distant action. Until we ask more of our environment, we are spectators; there is no propensity for activity beyond simply observing visually, no opportunity to play, and no chance for a deeply moving experience. Furthermore, there can be no reciprocity between architecture and the user. If architecture can only provide beauty or fulfill some basic programmatic demands, there is nothing we can give back to enrich the experience. In and of themselves, men have nothing to offer to an introverted architecture; both are decidedly selfish entities and therefore there cannot be an interplay, unfolding, or performance that connects the user to the space, as the two become as strangers passing on the street, whose eyes meet merely for a brief nonchalant moment.
Nørreport Metro Station in Copenhagen
Staircase of Alvar Aalto’s Villa Mairea, photo by Lucio Santos for Tectonica Blog
“...the specific treatments of the architecture are then considered as strategies to enhance one’s experience and invite interaction and engagement.” 031 Contemporary Western trends dictate the pristine shine of highly engineered metals and plastics—hybrids tainted for the sake of longevity—because the skins of our built environment should be as ageless as our own Botox-injected facades, lifeless and unexpressive. Quite contrary, the Scandinavian building tradition is rooted in the artful selection of materials to inform personal experiences. Instead of the temporary flash of technological gimmicks, there is an inherent cultural value placed on materials that last, that have a life and a breath and a rhythm all their own. Copper patinas to reveal a visual record of the passage of time, and is considered more beautiful with age as its face becomes more vivid with the unique play of turquoise and green. Wood wears away with touch, dries out with the sun, and resonates with its own scent with the coming of rain. Scandinavian design starts not with the artificial or manmade, but with daylight and gravity as the central building materials; the specific treatments of the architecture are then considered as strategies to enhance one’s experience and invite interaction and engagement.
Evocative examples of this methodology-turned-performance lie at the heart of the architecture of Alvar Aalto, who expressed a sincere regard for ergonomics and design at a human scale. Unconventional formal expression, such as the irregular staircase of the Villa Mairea, is derived from cognizant intent for use as opposed to an assumption of the status quo. Instead of accepting conventional typology as the only (and therefore, “correct”) solution, Aalto reinvents architectural components with every new project; the door handles at the Paimio Sanatorium do not look like those found at the Säynätsalo Town Hall, nor should they, considering that Aalto designed them to illicit rather disparate uses and responses. These elements work together to become more than just fixtures and accessories, but to speak to the people within the space and hopefully strike up a conversation. One may become strangely and quite unexpectedly surprised when he reaches for a wooden banister, ergonomically scrutinized and intentionally shaped to fit the complex geometries of a human hand as it leads the body up or down a flight of stairs;
in this scenario, architecture and man literally go hand-in-hand. It is not simply something to which one may grab on—it grasps back.
032
Doorhandle in Alvar Aalto’s Säynätsalo Town Hall
There is a duality in our physical experience that goes largely ignored in an age that is afraid to reach out. The idea that we may inhabit spaces which we can truly make our own simply through our own involvement is to give oneself to experiencing the space. It is literal confrontation and, in a desensitized culture, an unwelcome form of violence. Architecture with intention forces one to make a decision, a variation on the theme of “fight or flight”—one may choose to interact with a building, with a land-
scape, with his fellow man, or he may choose to ignore. He can surrender an offering of himself to lend reality to his environment or he can remain impersonal, detached, a virtual being. Dynamic engagement, conscious or otherwise, strengthens man’s relevancy to the world around him. A language all its own, the evolution of architectural form relies on man to derive its meaning and connotation relative to social constraints and contemporary expression; perhaps reciprocally man might find new meaning for himself through active authorship.
With respect to the society around him, the individual defines himself via interaction. The activities in which he engages, the people with whom he allies or opposes, the physical locations he frequents, and the ways in which he allocates his time all speak to his character, values, and relative social worth. Through decisions such as these, one asserts his own relevance to the world in which he lives—not just that one “matters,” but that he also has something to offer.
Man gathers social data from his environment: he understands who he is and what he is because he interacts (or refrains from interaction) with his peers. It is not solely what he does,
but with and to whom, that constructs his self-image. Who he knows himself to be—qualities, talents, hopes, and fears—carries little weight compared to who he successfully portrays himself to be to the world. With honesty and a genuine reflection outward comes security and justified confidence.
Human interaction drives the consciousness of the individual. It follows logically that the spaces we build and the situations in which we surround ourselves should encourage social connections: an extroverted architecture. Why, then, have we let architecture diminish in terms of its relevance to our present day lifestyles and selfprofessed needs, not only for its potential role in determining much of our quality of life, but also for its capacity to shape interaction? Perhaps the solution lies in confrontation, or the lack thereof, between man and the built environment. Do we choose to acknowledge architecture’s potential or ignore it for the sake of superficial distraction? As is the case with interpersonal interactions, the reciprocity between individuals—multi-faceted as the scenario may be—lends definition and relevance, defining relevance most generally as a reasonable connection between two or more entities. What is of greater importance is that we do indeed choose, be it “fight or flight,” so to speak; while we may shun interaction with one another and the environment through which we move, even the simple and introverted act of ignoring is a decision.
The present tendency seems to be to treat architecture as an object to be viewed, something beautiful or hideous or moving to be reduced to a postcard image; it is a solitary experience that does not invite a relationship with the built environment. It is when the consideration turns purely visual that the remaining senses are thrown off balance and the user is no longer seduced by some deeper spatial concept and drawn in to a richer and more intimate experience—they may only stop as observers and look, perhaps formulate some opinions, but little else. While the ability of one to smell and touch the elements within a space that define its character is hardly essential to the quality of the architecture, it is certainly an aspect that receives little consideration in a technology-driven virtual age. Vision remains the most “important” of the sensory capacities, and yet does little to propel the perceiver to move and engage.
Despite the inherently passive nature of architecture as an aesthetic force, there still exists the opportunity for play. Playfulness implies a lighthearted exploration on the part of the user when confronted with a given object; when considered from the point of view of a building or inhabitable space, playfulness takes on the connotation of adaptive response. The simple act of crossing a threshold and entering into a space can become the opening sequence to the subsequent unfolding of play within. However, one may argue that whether or not the architecture holds the propensity to
033
034
“play back” depends more on the conscious intent of the architect than the user—that the architecture can only be as playful or as passive as its designer allows. Considering the increasing dominance of a more transitory lifestyle, adaptation is mandatory in the evolution of the built environment. Buildings being designed and erected today compete with monumental one-liners like the works of Frank Gehry: massive tributes to the ego of one man, dishonest in structure and skin, and plastic in nature. They do not change with society’s changing needs, nor do they interact and react with their users. Like the production of consumer goods, these buildings far outlast their swift inherent obsolescence. To bring to life things that are merely “cool” and offer little else is a wasteful luxury in both the construction process and the regular encounter of the public.
Reciprocity between man and architecture is what ensures that there is meaning attached to any interaction, which can just as easily become a mundane and shallow exchange. Drawing upon the purely social analogy, one may consider the activity of an extrovert, whose interpersonal relations are more likely to exhibit connections rich in future interactive opportunities; conversely, one who is
Frank Gehry’s Stata Center, photo by James Muspratt
introverted does not offer much to his peer environment, while asking equally little of them. Introverted architecture can exist quite selfsufficiently, so long as it meets the structural requirements to stand as a cohesive construction—it cannot, however, adapt enough to offer much in play and user interaction. It is the extrovert who makes himself available for others with whom he may interact, and thereby holds a higher likelihood of forging even a few meaningful connections through said interactions. The reciprocity of the act ensures that he holds some relevance to the lives of the people around him.
Architecture, while interacting with users through a less literal reflection of a social scenario, can lend as much relevancy to the user as it gains in return, simply through the interplay of use and spatial navigation. 035
It is only when one asks what he may give of himself that he may make a decision to confront or to ignore. In this conflict between the plastic built environment and the nonchalant user we must ask, What do we have to offer? Very little of our physical environment—this sort of “built reality,” so to speak—offers us collaboration and control quite like the digital realm. Able to be reinterpreted in infinite ways and through infinite manifestations, raw data can take any form we choose and even open new avenues of individual expression. Everything is suddenly able to rise to the surface, to become public domain. So the question now becomes, Why doesn’t architecture give us the same satisfaction of freedom and control? Why do even the most hip and recent of architectural trends become stagnant? A look at the supposedly “great” buildings of our era reveal a persisting love affair with monuments, historically a
triumphant homage, which in the current social context seems to make very little sense. What good is an oversized tribute to nothing?
Simultaneously, some exciting ideas are being explored in what is often referred to simply as “micro architecture,” and these small spaces hold great potential. It is in the little components that architecture finds the hope to permeate the lives of average people, beyond the realm of the bizarre, the unaffordable, or the huge. Most people do not find engaging architecture within reach—instead, they can buy tract homes, work in lifeless strip malls or business parks, and
send their children to cookie cutter public schools. Design at the micro level offers a piece of the vision, not necessarily the whole, but in a way that can be integrated within the existing framework of life. The idea is not to rethink the way we live entirely, but to celebrate the individual.
036
There is an element of functionality behind these micro buildings that encourages their playfulness, their interaction, and their range of motion.
These spaces serve so many different needs because they are inherently adaptive, not because they are small or kitschy; it is the idea driving the movement that we can do more with less that most closely mirrors our social worship of technology. We can publish our thoughts with nothing more than access to a computer, a concept made possible only within the last decade or so, and we can create any reality we choose overcoming distance and time with this increased connectivity. It is about rejoicing in
the fluidity of realities, between the spatial and the temporal, the social and the physical, the local and the global. So, is it possible to translate micro-architecture into something a bit more “macro?” Not to say that we must design futuristic boxes on a giant scale, to literally enlarge what we conceive us as the micro house into, say, an opera house—but the tenants of the micro movement are rooted at the user level. To maximize satisfaction, to maximize efficiency, to most fully make use of the built environ-
ment via the interaction of man and architecture, and to minimize waste. To live as one chooses. To defy expectations and outdated framework. Architecture does not have to look distinctly “micro” to think like a micro building. All a small space does on its own is bring awareness to the human scale, focusing more on this immediate sense of locality as opposed to a larger view; in doing so, one’s perception of time can become more tangible, more personal, more real. However, while this augmented per-
Left: Micro Compact Home; right: Akihabara Capsule Hotel
037
ception of time may come into one’s reach, can there be any heightened spatial experience? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely that a user would do much to explore his reality in some cubic meter capsule. The user is confronted with the issue of use, and must make a decision to inhabit a particular function and create a new spatial configuration that cannot exist apart from him.
038 Without actually pursuing the most obvious tenant of “smallness,” architecture can still take cues from micro concepts that affect one’s experience, manipulating the duality and perception of reality. Programmatically, there tends to be a reliance on buildings that do more, sometimes more than necessary: beds that fold into dining tables, bathrooms that swivel away to reveal a kitchen. These similar functions don’t allow enough contrast for awareness of place; there is something about doing everything in the same multipurpose space that lessens its importance, and it simply becomes a stage for the unfolding of various activities. If each activity is allocated its own place, human
interaction becomes associated with not just the tools, appliances, and furniture required, but also a particular architectural space—a unique place designated for unfolding a specific facet of life. On a grander scale, these small spaces (in addition to lending themselves less to an interior specificity) tend to exist in a vacuum, situated in the middle of nowhere and hardly engaging with a defined site. Its apparent portability, while seemingly useful, misses a huge opportunity to plug into a specific locale: to make an impact, architecture should rely on the site as it cannot exist without it. Microarchitecture, with all of its kitsch and novelty, still offers some truly inventive solutions that extend beyond the mere problem of space. Unfortunately, many of the existing publications and precedents reveal a fascination only with the small, not necessarily with a consideration for the human element (function, comfort, mood, etc.) but rather an emphasis on the cool and weird… as long as it has an incredibly small footprint. Public toilets and water towers, while necessary and important in their own rights, serve as fairly one-dimensional examples, difficult to transfer to greater architecture principles.
There are four very distinct elements that rise to the surface as unifying factors and characteristics that mold the micro manifestation of temporality.
four tenets of thinking “micro” HUMAN EXPERIENCE \\ manipulation by user \\ control + freedom = satisfaction \\ celebration of the individual HONESTY & TACTILITY \\ materials that “play” back \\ materials that speak to mood \\ components that invite interaction between man and architecture TRACES & REMNANTS \\ traces within itself of other uses, functions, realities, implications, etc. \\ traces of time \\ traces of unique existence within a local context FORM \\ not clearly understood for function \\ derived from need and movement \\ seeks anti-objectification
039
040
First, a clear connection to the human user drives much of the design process; with an emphasis on spaces that can be manipulated by whomever chooses to occupy and inhabit them, the user is more closely drawn into the experience of the place. Suddenly, he decides how and when the architecture is to be used, becoming so much more than just a passive observer but an author himself. With so much of our society worshipping the concept of creating one’s own satisfaction, it seems quite natural that man should seek refuge in the digital realm instead of built reality: if one equates control (that is, to actively seek to affect one’s position or outcome) and freedom (to choose, to control, to do as one pleases without regard to consequence) with satisfaction or some slight feeling of fulfillment, architecture largely has little to offer. The ability to make the spaces we inhabit our own has always been a pleasing luxury, not just as an expression of our creativity or interests or favored activities, but as a celebration of our freewill and our literal ownership of a place. It is, in essence, the celebration of the individual.
With this most basic human need met, the next role that this architectural genre embodies is, most generally speaking, that of the haptic. Carefully selected materials and elements in architecture are not merely accessories, but craft a very specific mood, subsequently affecting how one interacts with a space and the tone in which interaction or confrontation plays out. Tactile qualities are powerful determi-
nants in whether or not architecture seems willing to “play back” with us when we reach out and ask it to do more than simply stand still. Feeling comfortable in a space, to touch and relate to the materials within, references the honesty of the construction. Just as people are enabled to really explore a space because a common sensory barrier is removed (such as architecture in which we are afraid to come into that “too close” contact for fear of the sensual experience being uncomfortable or unpleasant), so too are the materials allowed to fully express themselves, with all of their potential textures and scents and unusual patinas.
This idea leads into a third and crucial concept: that architecture should celebrate the remnants of its many lives and facets instead of being always forced to conform and present a cohesive, solid whole at all times. There is something so much more intriguing about a building that expresses a variety of uses and needs, for its possibilities hint at being infinite to the curious observer. What micro architecture does exceedingly well is the unabashed juxtaposition of functions. Programmatically, a lot of activity has to be crammed into a small footprint, but aesthetically these spaces do not try to hide this economy of use. While this may not be a commonly accepted practice in most architecture, micro architects signal to the user that there is more to the space than one simple configuration or use; these tiny spaces become more like machines in their straightforward celebration of
function and honesty. More important than these traces within itself, architecture with its eyes on temporality also recognizes traces of time— focusing clearly on the present for its understanding of remnants of the past, and of a process of aging. Every unique creation (in other words, a one-off work that seeks to plug into an exclusive condition) possesses an aura that acknowledges ties to a very local context, condition, or narrative. These traces of both function and age prove to stand as powerful reminders of the present, be it through an active engagement of the user or a more passive awareness of material properties and the effects of time.
these examples examined appear as simple structures or even further simplified cubes from the exterior, their interiors nonetheless look quite sophisticated for their complexity. Allowing form to be purely dictated by function can become a slippery slope, which is perhaps why so many micro case studies express the compulsive desire to neatly package something into a crisp, clean cube – in some cases treating the exterior and interior as two very disparate aesthetic parts (and specifically for the exterior, approaching its design as though it needed to be neatly packaged for sale, as a large toy that really needs to look “cool”). I argue that, while
“There is some larger picture to be teased out...” The fourth component, though less easily understood in and of itself, is architectural form. As these micro examples place a higher emphasis on function dictating the flow of space, the form the architecture manifests follows and rarely leads. Most micro structures are not purely sculptural just for the sake of artistic expression and freedom of form, but rather draw upon their constraints to devise beautiful and clever solutions to programmatic needs. In other words, if the form is derived from need and the movement of users within a space, then it is likely not to be clearly understood at first glance unless one fully understands its function. There is some larger picture to be teased out, as opposed to a small architectural one-liner. Admittedly, while many of
this is a pervasive practice, it is in breaking down the idea of architecture as something to be objectified, as a fetish for a cool object, that we may begin to look more deeply into a given work of architecture. We are slowly becoming desensitized by architectural objects that look cool but lack a good reason to do so – that is, their “coolness” is independent of any substantial reason, beyond that of a presumed need to look cool. Why can’t they capture our imaginations and interest because they respond to a need, and one deeper than a vain desire to be impressed? That sort of mindset is not a sustainable way of thinking, particularly given the life span of the built environment relative to its brief stay in the favor of the public opinion.
041
042
T
he conclusion, then, is not that micro architecture is particularly significant as an architectural genre; in reality, it is a relatively rare find in our built landscape. Instead, it is the thought and strategy behind micro architecture that we can learn from in solving real world problems (not just satisfying the whims of the wealthy or the impractical pursuit of the “cool” solely for the sake of experimentation). To “think micro” does not necessarily mean one must build small or design at that level of density. If there is anything we can learn from these little trial structures it is how to speak to the user, how to recapture a sense of time, how to strengthen one’s ties to an immediate local environment— how to do more with less. We are the authors of our own identity through the connections we choose to create; now is the time to make to make those choices count and bring meaning to the surface.
045
DESIGN
046 \\ project overview 050 \\ site 062 \\ process & explorations 080 \\ final design & components 098 \\ model documentation
[ reciprocity ] engaging the extroverted conservatory 046
This project turns the traditional music conservatory typology insideout to create new social nodes; performance and practice spaces are all too often an enclosed structure that turns its back on the public, when the opportunity exists to not only embrace the cityscape, but to invite the city in and project its melodies outward to the public. If all the most interesting activities are happening at a building’s core, why can’t they be celebrated and broadcasted? Performance spaces require isolation because they are sound- and light-sensitive; the educational opportunities of musicians in training embrace the transitory and fleeting nature of music and performance, so these considerations are no longer a hindrance. Bring all the life to the surface and let their creativity and boldness grow.
Proposed is not a comprehensive institution for secondary education, but specifically a music academy serving the blended urban community where Chinatown, North Beach, and the Financial District converge. In the heart of San Francisco, there exists the potential for a supplementary facility to serve city high schools: a program that offers concentrated music education and highly specialized facilities to students in public schools that otherwise cannot nurture their growing talents and gifts. The site is located at the now-abandoned Jazz at Pearl’s, a jazz club with deep roots in the San Francisco music community since the 1920’s that has since fallen into decay.
With urban and typological renewal the site looks forward, to enrich a new generation of passionate musicians.
048
&
conservatory program 01
PERFORMANCE \\ sound stage \\ public theater with audience seating
02
ARCHIVAL \\ recording facilities & technical equipment
03
PRACTICE & IMPROVISATION \\ transformable practice rooms \\ street performance
04
MUSIC EDUCATION \\ classrooms \\ faculty & administrative offices
05
STUDENT AMENITIES \\ cafe & lounge \\ instrument & equipment storage
&
demonstration of thesis PERFORMANCE spaces that exhibit multiple states of being, responding to user demand and shifting in character and configuration ARCHIVAL facilities that incorporate performance needs without spatial hindrance PRACTICE spaces that embrace the notion of musical and social IMPROVISATION and public openness MUSIC EDUCATION at the building’s core, complementing dynamic architectural response with fixed classrooms and basic resources STUDENT AMENITIES that offer universal space to gather and interact
049
jazz at pearl’s Bay Area Jazz vocalist Kim Nalley and husband, former comedian/ vaudevillian Steve Sheraton re-opened Jazz at Pearl’s with a grand opening party in October. This legendary North Beach Jazz spot known as San Francisco’s last full-time jazz club made waves nationally in April when it closed. New owners, Kim Nalley and Steve Sheraton have saved this Bay Area institution. The resurrected Jazz Club boasts an upgraded interior, improved sound system and a new late night menu of affordable, assorted tapas, delectable desserts and delicious entrees. [description from www.jazzatpearls.com]
051
GREEN
VALLEJO
BROADWAY
CO LU M BU S
PACIFIC
JACKSON
WASHINGTON
256 columbus avenue san francisco, california In its prime, Jazz at Pearl’s was a popular spot for bringing together a diverse range of musicians from all over the Bay Area, as well as a faithful audience base. When the owners had to close the club due to financial hardship, the entire parcel seemed to dry up: no longer a bustling, lively site defined by raucous entertainment and a free exchange of musical wisdom, the building sits vacant and rundown.
Situated where Chinatown, the Financial District, and the North Beach / Telegraph Hill areas meet, this site is ripe with opportunity for bringing people together.
053
AY BROADW COL UMB US
054
zoning diagrams
055
site
NOB HILL CHINA TOWN RUSSIAN HILL NORTH BEACH FINANCIAL DISTRICT
If a successful conservatory strives to feed multiple communities it must Broderick be readily and safely accessible. & Beach
Bay & Fillmore
30
22
Between BART [rail] and MUNI [bus] lines, the site is well connected to San Francisco’s core and even within the greater Bay Area. Because the location marks the meeting place of multiple cultural fabrics, commuting becomes a vibrant experience all in itself.
Fillmore & Chestnut
3
28
Fillmore & Lombard
056
San Fra Presidio & California
rd Ave Geary
Fisherman’ s Wharf
San Francisco Park Presidio Arguello
25th Ave & Geary
& Geary 20th Ave & Geary
Fillmore & Sacramento
Ferry F Building J L M Embarcadero Fillmore Masonic
& Geary & Geary Montgomery Powell Divisadero 6th Ave Spruce Civic Center/UN Plaza & Geary & Geary & Geary & Geary
1
Ocean Beach N
Park Presidio & Fulton S.F. Zoo L
Van Ness ChurchUniversity & Duboce of San Francisco UCSF Church F Castro
Arguello Forest Hill & Fulton West Portal
AT&T Park
UCSF Mis
Masonic & Fulton J
6th Ave St. Francis Circle Stanyan & Fulton & Fulton Stonestown
SFSU
M
San 4th
16th St Mission Fillmore & 22nd St McAllister 24th St Mission
Divisadero & McAllister
K/T
&
Glen Park
CCSF
Balboa Park
Daly City
Pacific Ocean
Fillmore Masonic J K M & Haight Sunnydale &T Haight Baysho Stanyan & Haight
Divisadero & Haight
Colma
Haig
Laguna/Gue
South S
Judah & 19th Ave
Judah & 9th Ave
UCSF Carl & South ParnassusSan Francisco Cole
T
Duboce & Church
Duboce & Noe San Bru
San 15th/Sanchez Bruno 16th/Noe
Chu Sa
Ai
St
Judah & 22nd Ave
Dolores/Duboce
Ch
Beach & Jones
Concord
F
Jefferson & Taylor/Beach & Mason Jefferson & Powell/Beach & Stockton
Van Ness & North Point Richmond 28L
47
Pier 39
Pleasant Hill
49L
Fisherman’s Wharf
e Th ba Em
Downtown Berkeley
Orinda
ro
UC Berkeley
Broadway & Columbus
Ferry Building
8X
Clay & Drumm
Sacramento/Clay
1
T MacArthur Embarcadero
West Oakland
gh t
Ri
iss M nd ke ta ar
Harrison & 4th St
M
2nd & King
Lo w er
n so Bu sS to p nd
N
30
47
Bay Fair
et ca
ra
30
San Leandro
4th & King
St re
Mission RockValley Castro
Fo r 14
Hayward
9L
Mission urch an Francisco & Duboce irport (SFO)
9,
47, 49L
South Van Ness & Mission
,1 4L
Hayward
San Francisco
hurch &
Coliseum/ Oakland Airport Bryant & 3rd St/ 0
ght/Gough
uno
Brannan
,3
Van
Laguna Ness & Haight 71, 71L ore
e
71L
Oakland Coliseum
Van Ness & Hayes
errero
38
71
8X
Larkin & McAllister 5, 5L
Civic Center/ UN Plaza
Laguna & McAllister
5L
io
Turk/Eddy
Van Ness & McAllister
9L
Se
Powell
ssion Bay
n t n
5 38L
Di
Fruitvale
9
Transbay Terminal
e
Francisco N & King Van Ness &
ag ra m
O’Farrell
Powell & Geary/ O’Farrell
14L
East Bay Folsom
T
at Lo w er
12th St/Oakland Montgomery City Center Merritt Leavenworth & Geary/ Lake Stockton & Geary/ Jones & O’Farrell 38, 38L
14
Main & Mission
19th St Oakland
Oakland Jack London
Laguna & Geary
Ferry Plaza
L M
n,
Van Ness & Geary/O’Farrell
J
8X
Van Ness & Post/Sutter
057
Broadway Ferry Plaza
& Ashby Kearny/Stockton Rockridge
Van Ness & Sacramento/Clay Emeryville
Washington Lafayette
Green
de
30
Berkeley
Walnut Creek
Greenwich
a rc
ve sA
North Berkeley 47, 49L
Van Ness &
ancisco Bay Broadway
El Cerrito Plaza bu um
Van Ness & Union
Chestnut
El Cerrito del Norte l Co
8L
28L, 30, 47, 49L
Van Ness & Chestnut
30
Bay
47
Bryant & Division
UCSF Mission Bay
South Hayward
Mariposa Potrero
Union City
058
Official parcel drawings from the Assessor’s Office
060
Photo collages of the site from an initial site visit on December 13, 2010: above, the entire block along Columbus Avenue; below, a closer look at the parcel at 256. Right: a view south toward the Financial District [with the Transamerica Pyramid] from the alley on site.
061
062
[ process ] digital models & explorations 063
Rhino conceptual models developed from January to April 2010
064
Early audience seating, acoustic ceiling, and circular practice room explorations.
065
066
First iteration of a full building concept, illustrating the folding motions of the ground floor plane and the separation of program and skin.
067
068
Above: prismatic glazing study with simple structure Below: organic practice pod concept [open & closed]
069
Development of the truss bay in conjunction with massive shear walls. Image below depicts a view up toward the truss system from the stage; to the right, a simple building section demonstrating scale.
071
072
Building section cut perpendicular to Broadway
073
074
Building section cut parallel to Broadway
075
076
A simple gestural model demonstrates the emergence of an independent truss system to support the exterior glazing envelope.
077
Process models showcasing formal development, considering first a gesture with programmatic consideration, then manipulation of floor planes and skin.
Later models express a separation of interior program from envelope, conceiving of the building as having separate organs and skin that are independent in form and function.
BROADWAY
08 01
08
02
03
07
04
05
06
[ FIRST FLOOR ]
01_ kitchen 02_ barista & service 03_ lounge 04_ public entry 05_ box office & lobby 06_ administrative office 07_ student instrument & equipment storage 08_ restroom CO
LU
M
BU
S
01
05
02 02
06
03
02
[ SECOND FLOOR ]
05
01_ public performance seating 02_ practice rooms 03_ sound stage 04_ technical & recording equipment 05_ restroom 06_ open to floor below
04
05
05
02
02
02
02
01
03
[ THIRD FLOOR ]
01_ audience seating 02_ classroom 03_ faculty office 04_ restroom
01
02
01
[ FOURTH FLOOR ]
01_ mechanical & equipment service 02_ truss assembly
081
082
05
[ EAST\\WEST SECTION ]
01_ kitchen 02_ barista & service 03_ lounge 04_ student instrument & equipment storage 05_ public performance seating 06_ practice rooms 07_ audience seating 08_ sound stage 09_ classroom 10_ truss assembly
01
06
02
10
09
07
03
09
08
04
SMALL
[ configuration_ 01 ]
084
MEDIUM
[ configuration_ 02 ]
LARGE
[ configuration_ 03 ]
practice rooms [ PRACTICE ROOMS ] are loosely organized as fingers extending toward the street from within the conservatory volume. Within each column, the absorptive walls slide to simultaneously tune the size of two adjacent rooms.
Depending upon the wall placement, practice spaces can accommodate a variety of needs. [ Configuration_ 01 ], which is most evenly-spaced, best suits single occupancy for solo practice. [ Configuration_ 02 ] expands a bit wider to allow for small ensembles to practice and collaborate, such as private music lessons or ensemble sectionals. Finally, [ configuration_ 03 ] pushes the walls together to form a deeper barrier between larger spaces intended for large ensembles, classes, and preperformance warm-ups and tuning.
085
086
audience seating Within the main performance space, the [ AUDIENCE ] is free to transform from empty stage to full house. Instead of traditional theater seats, which stand fixed until the user flips down the cushion and occupies it, the seats first appear as a cushioned bench; the backrest may be flipped up into a vertical position to engage the seat as a more supportive chair. When fully closed, students may lounge more freely and take a break between rehearsals.
Seats may be altered at will to produce different environments and social conditions, creating barriers or coming together. Fully opened to accommodate a performance, the audience seating appears as one would expect.
087
088
public performance The seating at the corner of Columbus Avenue and Broadway, which gestures toward the truss peak overhead, offers a sheltered spot to gather and watch a [ PUBLIC PERFORMANCE ], whether sponsored by the school or simply an impromptu show from a street performer.
089
[ case study ] seattle public library
skin & structure Because the building envelope is conceived as a separate entity from the conservatory’s contents, the skin was inspired by that of the Seattle Public Library in Seattle, Washington, by OMA. To create a free, open floor, structural supports are spread out amongst a diagrid set within a larger abstract form. Read from the outside as a giant, scaleless prism, the envelope itself is actually subdivided into small units to accommodate fixed glazing.
This approach lends itself well to the conservatory and its cantilevered corner condition. Utilizing a series of trusses instead of a long-spanning diagrid enables the skin to touch the ground plane at only three points. The image becomes less of an abstract prism and more like a curtain being pulled away to allow users to see through to the inner function and to physically enter the building as well. Essentially, it is about removing a boundary to life on the street.
091
092
An external framework of large-scale [ TRUSSES ] encloses the building and offers a fully-enveloping structure that touches the ground plane at only three points. This permeability means that each time the building appears to lift away from the ground, [ PUBLIC ENTRY ] points and [ GATHERING SPACES ] bloom; the ground plane remains uncluttered by structural connections. Shown is the main public entry and box office, located adjacent to Jack Kerouac Alley, puncturing the site off of Columbus Avenue.
095
social space By literally hanging the [ AUDIENCE ] from an upper-story assembly of [ TRUSSES ], the communal space below remains an open field of activity and connection devoid of columnar interruptions. Visitors and students are able to circulate through this space to access a cafe, open lounge space, and instrument and equipment storage. The [ STAIRS ], uninhibited by overhead structural constraints, contract and expand playfully to squeeze the flow of traffic as users circulated between the Broadway and Columbus street levels (the second and third floors, respectively, much like pedestrians passing through the ebb and flow of a city street.
public performance seating
kitchen & barista
practice rooms
[ COLUMBUS AVENUE ELEVATION ]
lounge
public entry & box office audience seating
sound stage & recording classrooms
[ documentation ] conservatory physical model 099
Built for exhibition at the Trans/Form studio show and the 7th Annual Fifth Year Architecture Thesis “Chumash Show”
Materials \\ basswood with internal corrugated cardboard structure Constructed by hand [no laser cutting or CNC] Scale \\ 1/8” = 1’-0”
Photographs taken in the CAED Photo Lab
100
Columbus Avenue facade \\ public entry
101
Broadway entry \\ public performance space
103
104
Corner view at Broadway and Columbus Avenue
105
106
Theater interior
107
Aerial view of public performance seating
108
Aerial view of roof framing
109
110
I learned to think like a musician long before I began learning to be an architect. Since the age of six, I’ve taken up a new instrument every few years, discovering just as much about myself and my capabilities as I delve into the technicalities of musicianship. As my collection expands, a very tangible point of reference for a flourishing passion and skill, so follows my practical knowledge, my widening understanding and worldview, and my growing heart for serving people.
Not every child has been given the opportunity and encouragement that I’ve been blessed with. This project is significant to me because it has taken me most of my life to fully understand that becoming a musician, while some raw talent is required, has everything to do with being equipped by others: to be given the tools, both literal and figurative, to express oneself through music. Natural talent alone can only go so far without the proper foundation and resources.
I believe that we are placed in one another’s lives, and that every social connection—even the smallest of exchanges—has meaning. Architecture shouldn’t be an object, but a framework for life to unfold. It should have a greater agenda beyond its own temporal glory: intention and purpose are the only antidotes to an architecture of obsolescence.
111
Trans/Form studio show opening in Berg Gallery. May 14, 2010.
[ sincere thanks ] 112
MADE POSSIBLE BY Doug Jackson, Thesis Advisor \\ Kelly & Gail Gilfoy The College of Architecture & Environmental Design California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
SPECIAL THANKS TO Steven Hasegawa \\ Allison Janes \\ Kiki Kornblatt \\ Tommy Bennett Jason Iijima \\ Joshua Kessler \\ Garlie Boom \\ Phil & Karyn Steckling Finger Monsters \\ Zach Copoulos \\ Donna Clark \\ Jessica Downard Eric Herrmann \\ Jewl Callahan \\ Arthur Lau \\ Trevor Tantum Dexter & Bailey Markley \\ Douglas Gomes \\ Bryan Ridley
WITHOUT WHOM MY LIFE WOULD NOT BE NEARLY SO INSPIRED.
113
Personal relevance is derived from interaction and identity via surroundings, peers, and a perceived reality. Architecture should be a framework that overlaps realities to create programmatic, experiential, and social conditions—a catalyst for reciprocal action and user connections.