>

blackdot.gif (799 bytes)
ARC308 Architectural Design Studio - Spring 2003
Professor Bruce Coleman

Project 1 - Transformation

 

Return to Course Home Page
blackdot.gif (799 bytes)
PROBLEM 1

The development process, the developed plan, transformation.

To develop: 1. to cause to grow gradually in some way; to cause to become gradually fuller, larger, better, etc. 7 In music, to elaborate (a theme). 9. to show or work out by degrees; reveal; disclose. 12. in mathematics, to work out in detail or expand (a function or expression).

In the contractual terminology of the profession of architecture, the term refers to the process of evolution of a scheme, the design process that occurs after the schematic design phase and before the construction document phase. It is legally referred to as the design development phase. This phase does not involve the generation of the project’s fundamental idea or concept nor the initial response to program or site. These are aspects that are part of the earliest phases of the process.

There are a number of different ways to consider the development phase. One might be described as the theory of increasing linkages while another might be called the theory of increasing specificity.

1. The theory of increasing linkages assumes that the early design phase is exclusionary, that it removes from the design process consideration of many concerns and focuses on a very few, those that the designer considers to be the most critical. As the design process advances, more and more considerations or forces are brought to play. If the initial concerns are primarily function then later concerns might be formal. If the initial concerns are largely formal, spatial, or compositional than later concerns might include tectonic, social, psychological, political and economic concerns. If the initial concerns are highly simplified, later concerns might include increasing levels of complexity and detail.

2. The theory of increasing specificity suggests that the designer maintains as many concerns as possible from the earliest moment in the design process. This might be described as an inclusionary process because it attempts to include all of the concerns throughout all of the phases. The development is then a process of advancing the design in successive levels of precision, each one more definitive than the last.

At this school the former tends to be preferred. It may be seen by the way problems are structured in the design studio. Projects in the first semester are typically highly abstract, often having little or no program, orientation, site, client, budget, construction method or sense of materiality. As one moves through the design years, additional concerns are added. As the student takes courses in architectural history, theory, structures and technology, these areas of knowledge are expected to become incorporated into the design studio and into the design process itself.

In this studio we will attempt to focus, not on the origination of the design itself, but on the successive steps. This means that it is critical to be able to come to grips with certain basic aspects of the project quickly.

Characteristics of the well developed plan.

There is a distinct and rather obvious difference between the sketch and the well developed plan. This may seem trivially true but as it is the focus of the semester we will expend considerable time on the issue. The well developed plan, highly developed plan and highly resolved plan mean essentially the same thing. The rationalized plan means something quite different. Plans of buildings can be identified as highly developed by a number of signature characteristics. One of our objectives is to gain the skill of recognizing these characteristics.

Transformation of the well developed plan.

One characteristic of the design process is that as it progresses and various decisions about aspects of the project are made, components of the design tend to get "locked in" or "frozen". Sometimes these aspects have very real consequences to them. An example would the structure of a building on a fast track schedule where the frame has been designed, its cost determined and contracted well before the remainder of the building has been designed. Subsequent changes to the frame are extremely difficult and costly. At other times the aspects that are locked in are more a matter of the mental attitude. They simply represent decisions made but can, in fact, be changed quite readily. A major aspect of the semester therefore is to develope the skill of transformation.

Return to top of page.
EXAMPLES OF WELL DEVELOPED PLANS

1. Palazzo Ducale, Ducal Palace, Urbino, 1444-82, Luciano Laurana
Il Palazzo di Federico da Montefeltro, NA7756.U8 P3 1985

2. Palazzo Farnese, Rome, 1530, Antonio da Sangall the Younger, Michelangelo
the Farnese Palace, Dempsey, Charles, ND623.C38 D46 1995

3. Villa Rotunda, in Vicenza, Italy, 1566 to 1571, by Palladio
Werner Blaser and Monica Stucky. Drawings of Great Buildings. Boston
Birkhauser Verlag, 1983. ISBN 3-7643-1522-9. LC 83-15831.
NA2706.U6D72 1983. plan and section/elevation drawings, p119.

4.Petit Trianon, at Versailles, France, 1762 to 1768, by Ange-Jacques Gabriel
Arnott, James Alexander. The Petit Trianon, Versailles, New York : W. Helburn, 1929

5. Hôtel d’Evry, in Paris, France 1772-80, Main floor (Premier etage)by Claude-Nicolas Ledoux
Court & Garden, Michael Dennis, MIT Press and The Graham Foundation.

6. Altes Museum, in Berlin, Germany, 1823 to 1830, by Karl Friedrich Schinkel
Stamm, Brigitte., Schinkel in Berlin und Potsdam : Führer zum Schinkeljahr 1981 Berlin : Nicolaische, [1981]

7. John Soane’s House, 13 Lincoln Inns Field, in London, England, 1812 to 1834, by Sir John Soane
Feinberg, Susan Gail; Sir John Soane's "Museum" : an analysis of the architect's house-museum in Lincoln's Inn Fields, London; Published:1979. Bird-4th Floor N1110 .A55 1979

8. Biblioteque St. Genevieve, The Library of S. Genvieve, Paris, 1845-50, Henri Labrouste
Henri Labrouste: 1801-1875,Milano : Electa, c2002 NA1053.L18 H46 2002

9. Villa Savoye, in Poissy, France, 1929, by Le Corbusier
Oeuvre Complete, Boesinger

10. Casa del Fascio, Como, Italy, 1932, Giuseppe Terragni
Surface & Symbol, Terragni and the Arfchitecture of Italian Rationalism, Schumacher NA1123.T4 S37 1991

11. The Atheneum, New Harmony, Indiana, 1975-79, Richard Meier
Richard Meier Architect 1, Rizzoli

12. Martin House, in Buffalo NY, 1904-6, by Frank Lloyd Wright
McCarter, Robert, Frank Lloyd Wright, Phaidon Press Limited, 1997
or Frank Lloyd Wright, the Early Work, Bramhall Press

13. Mason de Verre, in Paris, France, 1927 to 1932, by Pierre Chareau and Bijvoet
Pierre Chareau : architect and crafstman, 1883-1950 Rizzoli, 1985, c1984
Maison Dalsace ("Maison de Verre") Paris, France, 1928-1932 Tokyo : A. D. A. Edita, 1977.

14. Parish Center, in Wolfsburg, Germany, 1959-62, by Alvar Aalto
Alvar Aalto 1963-1970, Praeger Publishers

15. Phillips Exeter Academy Library, in Exeter, New Hampshire, 1965-72, by Louis I. Kahn
Ronner, Heinz. Louis I. Kahn : complete work, 1935-1974 2nd rev. and enl. ed., Basel ; Boston : Birkhäuser Verlag, 1987.
Working drawings

16. Hanselmann House, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1967 by Michael Graves
Working drawings.

17. House in Stabio, Casa Rotunda, Stabio, Switzerland, Mario Botta, 1980-81

18. Garden Pavilion, Atlanta, Gerogia, Anthony Ames, 1985
Five Houses, Anthony Ames, P

19. Rachofsky House, in Dallas, Texas, 1991-96, by Richard Meier
Richard Meier Architect 3, Rizzoli

Return to top of page
METHOD

Document - Analyze - Speculate

We must begin with documentation. It will be necessary to generate the most specific drawing possible. The vehicle for this exercise is limited to plans, one plan for each building. It is understood that this is somewhat artificial and restrictive but will suffice. Documentation is a recording of the facts. Anyone knowledgable about the subject building should agree on the drawing as one that accurately represents the facts of the building. Documentation answers the question "What is the building?".

The second part of the exercise involves a meticulous analysis of the plan. The criteria is not specified. The determination of the criteria is a critical part of this phase. Different people may differ on what to include in an analysis or on the significance of certain aspects of the analysis but once the criteria is set, the amount of judgement should be greatly reduced. Analysis answers the question "Of what is the building composed?".

The third phase involves speculation. The speculation is, however, directed in the sense that it is basedon the analysis. There are distinct similarities between this process and the design process. To complete the process one must involve a significant component of speculation. For this phase, different people may be led to take vastly differing approaches. Speculation answers the question "What can we make with the information revealed in the analysis?".

Instructions:

Documentation:

  1. Locate the most precise and definitive documentation possible. The sources suggested are only that, suggestions. Consider them as starting points. There may be more definitive documentation available.
  2. Photocopy and enlarge the existing documentation until it is as large as possible within the boundaries of an 11" x 17" sheet of paper.
  3. Redraw the plan including all of the detail in the original documentation.

Analysis:

  1. Analyze the plan. Analysis is a process of breaking down something into component parts. In this case the component parts may be considered constituent systems, such as symmetry, hierarchy, circulation, structure, enclosure, fenestration, railing, partition, etc. Much of the process of analysis is in the definition of these constituent elements or systems. For each part of the analysis, make a separate drawing.

Speculation:

  1. Speculation involves manipulation of aspects of the given building, based on the analysis. The speculation is not random but is guided by the analysis. To be successful it must do at least two things:

a: It must be tied closely to one observation about the building revealed in the analysis.

b: It must be believable as a building itself.

Return to top of page
TIME SCHEDULE
  • Problem issued: Monday January 13. 2003
  • Documentation complete: Wednesday January 15. 2003
  • Analysis complete: Wednesday January 22. 2003
  • Speculation complete: Wednesday January 29. 2003
ANALYSIS

[Gr. analysis, dissolving, a resolution of a whole into parts; ana, up, back and lysis, a loosing, from lyein, to loose.]
1. a separating or breaking up of any whole into its parts so as to find out their nature, proportion, function, relationship, etc.

from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary

The analysis of an architectural work can take many forms. Our interest is a primarily formal one. For the most part, we are not in a position to make valid judgements about the usefulness of the spaces, the appropriateness of the program, the cost, the effectiveness of various materials and tectonic systems in the buildings we are examining. There are, however, many things we can observe and learn about these buildings. The greatest lesson to learn from this exercise is that an analysis of this sort requires insight and a way of looking at things that ranges from the most general to the most particular.

More general observations:

What is the overall organizational typology or strategy of the building?

  • Unified
  • Elementarist
  • Composite
  • Concatenated

What is the overall organizational strategy of the major components?

  • Centrally organized
  • Peripherally organized
  • Void center
  • Solid center
  • Multiple layers of organization

What is the spatial typology of the building?

  • Discrete spatial definition
  • Ambiguous spatial definition
  • Overlapping/interpenetrating spaces

What is the hierarchical organization of the building?

  • Programmatic by function
  • Programmatic by size
  • Symbolic
  • Non-hierarchical

Is there use of symmetry in the organization of the building?

  • Overall symmetry
  • Local symmetry

Is there use of fragmentation or distortion?

Is there use of gridding of the plan?

What is the circulation strategy of the building?

  • Linear
  • Sequential
  • Reentrant

What is the structural strategy of the building?

  • Wall
  • Column
  • Regular grid
  • No grid

what is the enclosure strategy of the building?

  • Deep wall, armored enclosure
  • Thin screen

What is the fenestration strategy of the building?

  • Singular punctures
  • Grouped punctures
  • Curtain wall
  • Screen or filigree glass wall
  • Invisible membrane

How are services in the building organized?

  • Grouped
  • Distributed
  • Vertical
  • Horizontal

How are support functions in the building handled?

  • Objectified
  • Spatial definer

Return to top of page
blackdot.gif (799 bytes)
Link to Syracuse University home page http://soa.syr.edu/faculty/bcoleman/Arc308Spring2003/308spring2003.project1.html Send email to: webmaster@soa.syr.edu
Last update: November 01, 2003. Copyright © 2004 Bruce M. Coleman
No text, images or content on this page may be copied or linked to without the author's express written permission.