PROJECT 1 | RE-CONFIGURE
01 Sites
02 Investigate
03 Reconfigure
04 Readings
05 Requirements
06 Due
01 Sites
Located in the Beirut, Jounieh and Tripoli Harbors, the three selected sites offers a strategic location in their proximity to the
waterfront, to main street connections, and visual relationships. It is in this
urbanistic context that the projects should speculate on their relationship to
their respective cities, as they will –
the streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, while also generating a prospective
relationship to the water as a piece of infrastructure.
With the proposed ferry terminals, the sites will become the
waterfront gateways to their respective cities.
02 Investigate
The task for the first phase (beginning with the site visit)
is to first investigate the qualities of your site that can be perceived, described,
abstracted and represented through architectural skills and media.
Light\
shadow\ Noise
Views to
and from site \Axial relationships with close and distant points
Accessibility
to site and car\boat\pedestrian flows
Environmental factors: prevailing winds\ solar
exposure\ orientation
Major trees and natural features on the site.
Densities, facades and character of adjacent buildings
Scale of
adjacent conditions and spaces
Vertical\horizontal
spaces
Edge Conditions
on\around the site
Existing
moments of arrival on site; perspectival approaches.
Character
of the site and relationship with adjacent plots.
Daily
movements and rituals of the area, both during the day and at night, on a
workday and over the weekend
This
descriptive part of the task lies beyond a conventional analysis of
infrastructure, massing, spaces, typologies etc... The
description itself is part of the construction of a new reality emerging from
the observed area.
As Lebbeus Woods says on such methodology in his
essay, Analogical Architecture,
The idea of an analog is to be like something else in some ways but not in others. If the something else is part of a city, therefore too complex for any definitive form of analysis, the analog can make manifest and analyzable some essential characteristics, while leaving others, less important, aside. The analog is not an abstraction, though it use abstraction as a tool. It is not a reduction or a simplification, for it remains complex in its own terms. Rather it is a shift in the angle of viewing and understanding a situation or complex set of conditions, one that gives the opportunity to see the familiar in new ways.
This is extremely important when the familiar is, like a part of a city, overburdened with historical interpretations that inhibit the creation of new ones.
By creating a parallel reality, the analog circumvents this historical over-determination and liberates the imagination in ways that can impact the primary reality under consideration.
In today’s world of rapid changes, where history is less and less reliable as a guide to the future, intellectual freedom and inventiveness of the type enabled by the analog are increasingly important.It is true that architecture, as a practice and a form of production, is bounded by precise practical considerations--technical, economic, legal, cultural--that restrict imagination and invention. But as culture, technology, law, and socio-economic factors themselves undergo change, the boundaries of architecture require adjustment or even redefinition that cannot be devised by the simple extrapolation of old ones. This is where analogical thinking and the analog—as a model of constructed reality—become useful.
The description that you will construct for the site plays
an active part of the production of space and transformation of the site.
Your architectural project will emerge from this description
and will consist of these transformations.
03 Reconfigure
Parallel to this investigation, students shall use their
abstracted observations to come up with strategies for the site that will pave
the way for a future architectural scheme.
04 Readings
Rosalind Krauss. sculpture in the expanded field
Andrea Kahn. Site Matters
Carol Burns. High Performance Sites
Stan Allen. Field Conditions
05 Deliverables
A full documentation of the site (Photos, Plans, Diagrams,
significant Texts)
A 1/500 site model
06 Due Date
16.10.2012 at 2pm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT 2 | RE-PROGRAM
06 November
2012, 2pm sharp.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P3: TECTONIC TRANSFORMATIONS
01 Brief
In this assignment, you will develop formal massing strategies for your project based on factors discovered in your first two assignments.
Your massing intervention needs to engage the site, rethink existing conditions, urban context and topography (or lack of topography), and design new tectonic and land-formation relationships that change the experience of the site and the perception of the city.
The waterscape should be foregrounded in your transformation, focusing on designing a threshold between the water and ground, whether interior or exterior.
Redesigning the entire ground of the site, whether landscape, waterscape, or indoor space is a prerequisite in this assignment. No area in the site should be left unaddressed. Cantilevers, engaging the water, changing the site topography and the edge of the water are permitted.
Method: Develop a tectonic operation/ formal language that guides your design actions, your urban concept and adapts to small scale and large-scale spaces of the program, and to the different spatial experiences of the users.
02 Requirements
·
Site Plan 1:500
03 References
Lisa Iwamoto. Digital Fabrication : Architectural and Material Techniques.
Frei Otto. Form Finding: Towards an Architecture of
the Minimal
Cecil Balmond. Informal.
04 Due Dates
Pin Up 1: December 4, 2012, 2pm sharp. 7% grade
Mid-Review: Dec 12, 2012, 2pm sharp. 23 % grade
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1 10% | EVALUATION | ||
Louay Ghaziri | C | 70 | weak content and model.no conclusion, weak presentation |
Aya Lamaa | C+ | 76 | good content, model. No conclusion. Good presentation |
Mazen Sleiman | C | 70 | fair content, model. No conclusion, weak presentation |
Hiba Hteit | C+ | 75 | good content, model. No conclusion, weak presentation |
Abbas Sweid | C- | 68 | weak content, unfinished model. No conclusion. Weak presentation.late |
Rim El Fatayri | C+ | 76 | good content, model.fair presentation, weak conclusion |
Nadeen Safa | B- | 77 | good content, model, presentation. Weak conclusion |
Sara Addam | C- | 68 | weak content, model, presentation. No conclusion. Late |
Ghida Khayat | D+ | 65 | weak content, unfinished model. No conclusion. Weak presentation.late |
Omar Meski | C | 70 | fair content, unfinished model. No conclusion, good presentation.late |
Maya Mansour | F | 59 | out of subject content, no model. |
Mohamad Safieddine | C | 71 | good content, unfinished model, no conclusion, good presentation.late |
Katia Chehayeb | C | 72 | good content, unfinished model, no conclusion, good presentation.late |
Soumaya Salloum | C- | 68 | weak content, model, presentation. No conclusion. |
Fadel Makhzoum | C+ | 73 | very good content, presentation, unfinished model, no conclusion, late |
Dana Zaidan | C- | 68 | weak content and model.no conclusion, weak presentation |
Ahmad Almawi | C | 72 | good content, unfinished model, no conclusion, good presentation.late |
Laura Baidoun | C+ | 75 | good content, model, presentation. No conclusion |
Ali Abbas | C- | 68 | good analysis but weak content, unfinished model, no conclusion. Late |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT 2 | RE-PROGRAM
01 Brief
02
Requirements
03 References
04 Due Date
Case study of one the selected projects
to become familiar with architectonics of transport projects and cultural projects
by waterfronts.
1-Yokohama
Ferry Terminal, Japan – Foreign Office Architects
2-Zeebrugge Sea Terminal, Belgium- OMA
3- Main Station Stuttgart- Ingenhoven
4- ICA- Diller Scofidio Renfro
5- Kilden Performing Arts Center,
Kristiansand, Norway- ALA Architects
6- Ferry
Terminal, Stockholm- C.F.Møller Architects
7- NEMO, Amsterdam- Renzo Piano Architects.
8- KAOHSIUNG Port Terminal- WW Architecture
9- Maritime
Youth House, Copenhagen- BIG DK and JDS
10-
The Playhouse, Copenhagen- Lundgaard & Tranberg Arkitecktfirma
11- Lucerne Cultural and Congress Center- Jean
Nouvel
01 Brief
I- Investigate/Diagram all
the following criteria in the analysis of your project, focusing on the
temporal and spatial relationship between users,
programmatic elements and site flows.
Parti/Concept: What is the
building about?
Program: How do the spaces get
used in time and space?
Site: How does the building
interact with urban & environmental context?
Structure: What is the structural
system/ components? How do they work?
Tectonics: What are the main
materials, aggregation and joining details?
Culture: What is the cultural
significance of the building?
II- Based on your site and program analysis,
present an programmatic proposal for your Ferry Terminal, which includes a new
program within the ferry terminal that respond to the social needs/vocation of
the site.
This proposal should
be innovative; in a way that overlaps transport, event spaces, and waterfront
experiences.
The program
should assimilate the relationships between the water and ground, between interior
and exterior, between the utilitarian /technical and abstract/ poetic moments.
The terminal
building will consist of a 7000-m2 indoor space that includes:
Terminal [2000 m2] Entrance, Outdoor Loggia, Info Point, Ticket Sales, Shops, Café,
Viewing Space, Lounge, Exhibition Space, Administration
New
programmatic function based on your analysis [2000 m2]
Lodging [1000
m2] Lobby, 10 Small Rooms [20 m2 each], 10 Large Rooms [30 m2 each],
Kitchen, Dining, Laundry
Convention Area
[600 m2] Foyer, Convention Hall, WC,
Coats
Restaurant [500
m2] Waiting, Dining, Kitchen
Public
Toilets [100m2] Men’s, Women’s
Public
Lockers, [100m2]
Bikes Rental
[100 m2]
Bus Stop
[100 m2]
Technical
Space [500 m2]
Covered open
space
Bus Stop,
Parking [15 cars], Drop-off Loop
Ferry Dock ,
Roof Deck , Waterfront Park
02 Requirements
Present your findings on one A0
portrait orientation, as per the following:
Organization of a ferry terminal
station.
Diagrammatic plans, sections and
elevations of the selected project.
3d and 2d Diagrams that explain
the criteria of the selected project.
Diagrams that explain the Program proposal of your ferry
terminal
3d physical model of the ferry terminal program proposal
03 References
Neufert.Architect’s Data
Andreas Deplazes. Constructing Architecture: Materials,
Processes, Structures.
Precedents in Architecture: Analytic
Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis
Daniels,
Klaus, Low-tech Light-tech High tech: Building in the Information Age, English
translation by Elizabeth Schwaiger, Birkhauser, 2000
Daniels,
Klaus. The Technology of Ecological Building: Basic Principles and Measures,
Examples and Ideas, English translation by Elizabeth Schwaiger, Birkhauser,
1997
04 Due Date
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P2 10% | EVALUATION | |||||
Louay Ghaziri | C | 72 | Fair Case Study and Program Proposal | |||
Aya Lamaa | C | 72 | Good Case Study, Weak Program Proposal | |||
Mazen Sleiman | C+ | 75 | Good Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Hiba Hteit | C | 72 | Fair Case Study and Program Proposal | |||
Abbas Sweid | C- | 69 | Weak Case Study, Weak Program Proposal | |||
Rim El Fatayri | B | 82 | Good Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Nadeen Safa | B | 80 | Good Case Study, Shy Program Proposal | |||
Sara Addam | C | 70 | Fair Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Ghida Khayat | C- | 69 | Weak Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Omar Meski | C+ | 75 | Fair Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Maya Mansour | C- | 69 | Good Case Study, Very Weak Program Proposal. | |||
Mohamad Safieddine | C+ | 74 | Fair Case Study, Program Proposal. Late | |||
Katia Chehayeb | B- | 77 | Fair Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Soumaya Salloum | C | 72 | Fair Case Study and Program Proposal | |||
Fadel Makhzoum | C+ | 75 | Good Case Study, Shy Program Proposal | |||
Dana Zaidan | C- | 69 | Weak Case Study, Program Proposal | |||
Ahmad Almawi | C- | 69 | Fair Case Study, Weak Program Proposal | |||
Laura Baidoun | C | 70 | Fair Case Study, Weak Program Proposal | |||
Ali Abbas | C | 72 | Fair Case Study, Weak Program Proposal |
P3: TECTONIC TRANSFORMATIONS
01 Brief
In this assignment, you will develop formal massing strategies for your project based on factors discovered in your first two assignments.
Your massing intervention needs to engage the site, rethink existing conditions, urban context and topography (or lack of topography), and design new tectonic and land-formation relationships that change the experience of the site and the perception of the city.
The waterscape should be foregrounded in your transformation, focusing on designing a threshold between the water and ground, whether interior or exterior.
Redesigning the entire ground of the site, whether landscape, waterscape, or indoor space is a prerequisite in this assignment. No area in the site should be left unaddressed. Cantilevers, engaging the water, changing the site topography and the edge of the water are permitted.
Method: Develop a tectonic operation/ formal language that guides your design actions, your urban concept and adapts to small scale and large-scale spaces of the program, and to the different spatial experiences of the users.
02 Requirements
·
Site Plan 1:500
· Massing Model
1:500
· Sketches,
Diagrams, Axonometric that
narrates your concept’s intention.
· Preliminary Plans Sections
for the project
·
A least 5 Study Models 1:500 and diagrams showing
the design process.· Research of
reference projects in relation to your project.·
Revised and detailed program diagrams.
03 References
Lisa Iwamoto. Digital Fabrication : Architectural and Material Techniques.
Frei Otto. Form Finding: Towards an Architecture of
the Minimal
Stan Allen, Points and Lines: Projects and Diagrams for
the City (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999)
Farshid Moussawi. The Function of Form OMA. SMLXL
Cecil Balmond. Informal.
04 Due Dates
Pin Up 1: December 4, 2012, 2pm sharp. 7% grade
Mid-Review: Dec 12, 2012, 2pm sharp. 23 % grade
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P3 7% | ||
Louay Ghaziri | C | 72 |
Aya Lamaa | C- | 67 |
Mazen Sleiman | C | 71 |
Hiba Hteit | C | 72 |
Abbas Sweid | D+ | 63 |
Rim El Fatayri | A- | 87 |
Nadeen Safa | A- | 88 |
Sara Addam | C+ | 73 |
Ghida Khayat | C- | 69 |
Omar Meski | C | 70 |
Maya Mansour | F | - |
Mohamad Safieddine | C+ | 75 |
Katia Chehayeb | B | 82 |
Soumaya Salloum | C- | 69 |
Fadel Makhzoum | C- | 67 |
Dana Zaidan | C | 70 |
Ahmad Almawi | C | 72 |
Laura Baidoun | B- | 77 |
Ali Abbas | C- | 67 |
MID 23% | ||
Louay Ghaziri | C+ | 75 |
Aya Lamaa | C | 70 |
Mazen Sleiman | C+ | 73 |
Hiba Hteit | B+ | 85 |
Abbas Sweid | C- | 69 |
Rim El Fatayri | A- | 88 |
Nadeen Safa | A- | 88 |
Sara Addam | B | 82 |
Ghida Khayat | C | 72 |
Omar Meski | C+ | 75 |
Maya Mansour | F | 0 |
Mohamad Safieddine | B+ | 85 |
Katia Chehayeb | B+ | 86 |
Soumaya Salloum | C | 70 |
Fadel Makhzoum | C | 70 |
Dana Zaidan | C+ | 73 |
Ahmad Almawi | C- | 69 |
Laura Baidoun | A- | 88 |
Ali Abbas | C- | 69 |
No comments:
Post a Comment