Architecture 101 Final Portfolio Thomas Biba

Final  Learning  Por-olio  

Thomas  Biba  

Itera6on  15  •  Program:  Experiment  with  sec6oning  (wild  construc6on),  make  a  clear  defini6on  and  

dis6nc6on  and  difference  between  interior  and  exterior  spaces  defined  •  Ques6ons:  What  is  possible  with  sec6oning?  How  far  can  I  stretch  the  rules  and  how  

can  I  even  break  them?  What  new  insights  could  the  rapid  approach  to  building  and  construc6on  provide?    

•  Analysis  of  elements:  varia6on,    

•  Strength  :  Complexity,  Varia6on  of  sec6oning  approaches  (axial,  radial,  ver6cal,  pedal),  some  ordering  present,  inside  space  is  very  dis6nct  form  exterior  form  

•  Weaknesses:  craR  could  be  refined,  more  could  be  done  with  perceived  entry  paths,  ordering  could  be  more  inten6onal,  inside  space  could  be  more  clearly  defined,    

•  Conclusion:  Deepened  understanding  and  applica6on  of  varied  sec6oning  approaches  achieved,  inside  and  outside  spaces  defined  

•  Hypothesis:  use  this  model  to  hypothesis  how  you  would  alter  design  if  this  were  built  on  monumental  scale  

LeR  is  a  photo  of  the  inside  looking  up  ver6cally  and  as  you  can  see  is  no6ceably  dis6nct  in  rela6on  to  exterior  form.  To  the  right  is  a  photo  of  the  sketch  that  envisioned  what  this  would  look  like  if  it  were  blown  up  to  a  human  scale,  this  is  what  began  my  mental  transi6on  from  studio  to  life  size  planning.    

This form became my liberation from the uninhabitable models to thinking about inhabiting, but what I had not yet discovered was the deep meaning, significance, and architectural important of site

Field  Studies  •  The  field  study  project  was  my  introduc6on  to  the  6p  of  the  iceberg  of  

the  meaning  of  site.  The  analysis  was  mainly  about  spaces  and  their.  geometry  and  how  that  influences  feelings,  which  create  experiences.  This  was  the  founda6on  point  of  me  learning  about  how  to  craR  3  dimensional  human  inhabitable  experiences  through  the  spaces.  Here  I  began  to  learn  the  algorithms,  of  the  language  of  crea6ng  emo6onal  experiences  with  geometrical  forms.    

•  I  learned  that  6ght,  geometrically  confining  spaces  (exist  mainly  as  right  angles)  (angles  that  create  divisions)  angles  that  are  most  prominent  in  human  built  environments..    These  confining  spaces  encourage  you  to  move  from  closing  in  spaces  to  spaces  that  open  up    

•  In  the  photo  on  the  right  of  the  “built  world”  of  the  embarcadero  center  (it  seems  the  architect  knew  this  but  misused  it)  the  ver6cally  confining  spaces  lead  you  laterally  outward  to  find  the  ver6cally  unconfined  space.    (this  was  my  primary  learning  from  my  study  of  the  built  environment)  (more  examples…    

- In my study of glen canyon to the left, the feeling of awe, wonder, freedom, openness filled me. I observed how the v shape that opened towards the sky in the form of the canyon created this feeling. Outward upward slopes jutting out at about 60 degrees create this openness (the same degree within all angles of an equilateral triangle) -  the lesson I learned from this place was that nature is primarily open, open spaces cause you to move more calmly slowly and peacefully, and make you feel unconfined . . . Even when there is the sense of enclosure, the feeling is still openness because the density of natural environments is characterized not by complete enclosure but by fragmentary enclosure, where space if defined not confined

Field  Study  •  Upon  further  study  of  the  natural  environment  I  learned  some  key  datum  about  

specific  special  experiences  of  par6al  enclosure,  nurturing  feel,  and  plays  on  light  that  would  all  be  of  great  significance  to  the  final  product  of  our  final  instala6on..li]le  did  we  know  how  important  that  may  have  been.    

•  In  space  to  the  right,  in  a  redwood  grove  as  observed  at  glen  canyon  we  discovered  how,  “gentle,  par6ally  dense”  enclosure  can  create  a  warm  soR,  nurturing  feeling  environment  

•  In  the  image  below  this  cap6on  we  discovered  the  wonder  and  intricate  complexity  in  this  phenomenon  in  nature  of  the  permeable  skin,  that  defined  space  but  didn’t  feel  confining,  it  felt  opening  as  well,  because  the  space  could  breath,  physically,  visually,  and  geometrically.    

•  As  we  moved  into  site  study,  which  is  the  next  slide  I  tried  to  apply  the  tools  for  analysis  I  had  learned  in  the  field  study  exercise.  

As we walked back onto the concrete I realized how the softness of nature’s ground gave with the pressure of my foot, whereas the concrete did not give, it didn’t adjust to fit me, it was hard, and it wasn’t an interactive and rich experience, in comparison to the softer grounds with varying densities and pressures and textures

Site  Study    •  As  I  sat  in  the  “hilltop”  area  behind  the  courtyard  behind  

bat  mail  hall,  a  sat  medita6vely  by  myself  for  a  few  hours.  I  consciously  or  unconsciously  recalled    what  I  had  learning  from  the  previous  exercise  where  we  explored  the  built  and  the  natural.    

•  I  had  such  dras6cally  different  experiences  in  the  built  and  the  natural  environments  that  when  on  this  site  the  existence  of  both  of  those  forces  was  even  more  apparent,  almost  to  the  point  where  the  built  was  unbearable  and  that  it  was  imposing  not  only  on  the  individual  but  on  the  natural  environment  that  exists  just  across  the  new  access  road  behind  the  retaining  wall.  

•  This  feeling  guided  me  to  a  very  specific  pinpointed  spot  (in  the  upper  leR  photo  marked  by  the  umbrella),  where  I  felt  that  I  had  escaped  the  influence  of  the  built  environment  and  had  found  refuge  in  the  apprecia6on  of  nature,  and  this  framed  view.    

•  This  drove  me  in  my  first  site  specific  itera6on  (in  the  following  slide)  to  seek  to  highlight  that  pinpointed  area  where  you  were  just  far  enough  away  from  the  air-­‐condi6oners  of  Batmail  not  to  quite  be  able  to  hear  them;  instead  what  prevailed  was  the  sound  of  the  birds  chirping  in  the  trees  across  the  road  to  the  north.    

View toward “nature”, chirping birds, and sense of tranquility

Itera6on  16  

•  Program:  Create  a  structure  that  blocks  out  experience  of  the  built  world  on  site,  through  filtering  sound  and  framing  a  view  using  a  structural  form  that  communicates  serenity.    

•  Ques6ons:  What  materials  best  block  out  sound?  What  does  it  feel  like  to  transi6on  from  a  world  of  human  dominated  space  into  a  sanctuary  celebra6ng  and  capturing  sudden  experience  of  nature?  What  would  that  transi6on  feel  like  and  what  would  be  the  meaning  of  it  in  the  experience?  

•  Analysis  of  elements:  Rear  wooden  wall,  trapped  roof  skin  with  wood  frame  suppor6ng  it,  frames  views  cut  into  bent  plywood,  wrapped  around  wood  frame  

•  Ra6onale:  Rear  wall  would  block  out  sound,  roof  would  allow  lots  of  con6nuous  natural  light.  The  rear  rounded  wall  would  be  predominantly  south  facing  and  the  main  opening  would  be  north  facing.      

•  Strengths:  Sensi6ve  to  sound  +  framed  views  of  specific  site  –  the  experience  could  only  exsist  there,  enclosure  created,    

•  Weaknesses:  threshold  experience  is  too  abrupt,  there  is  only  one  main  node,  and  no  real  pathways,  framed  views  are  not  the  most  specific  in  their  direc6on,  no  journey  

•  Conclusion:  Not  full  understanding  of  site  specificity,  but  good  first  a]empt,  the  spirit  and  inten6on  is  there,  but  the  evolving  tectonic  language  is  not  yet  developed  

•  Hypothesis:  Create  a  structure  that  serves  the  same  purpose  but  that  has  different  dis6nct  nodal  experiences,  and  pathways  linking  them.  

The  bo]om  leR  photo  shows  an  aerial  view  of  the  site.  The  open  end  of  the  structure  would  face  north  a  which  on  the  photo  is  (up  or  foreword)  –  even  though  the  structure  would  be  underneath  the  trees  in  the  photo,  the  photo  serves  as  a  reference  point  for  the  context  of  the  experience  described  in  the  analysis  of  this  itera6on  

Itera6on  17  

•  Program:  Create  mul6modal  experience  that  blocks  out  the  built  and  slowly  transi6ons  you  from  built  environment  to  the  final  nature  apprecia6on  point  

•  Ques6ons:  How  can  you  create  a  journey  with  mul6modal  approach  that  slowly  unfolds  and  provides  you  with  gradual  changes  that  slowly  reveal  the  awe  of  nature  to  the  person  experiencing  the  journey?  

•  Analysis  of  elements  and  materials:  wood  frame,  poten6ally  tarp  stretched  across  it.    

•  Ra6onal:  As  you  enter  near  the  emergency  road  leading  into  upper  deck  of  Bat  mail,  you  hear  air  condi6oners,  as  you  pass  into  first  node,  sound  is  blocked  out  by  a  wooden  wall,  as  you  travel  to  second  node  you  get  farther  from  sound,  entering  into  second  node  you  see  frames  view  of  northern  micro  –  forest,  but  it  is  not  a  complete  view,  this  encourages  you  to  precede  to  next  node  where  you  see  hills  to  southeast,  the  around  to  the  final  node  which  opens  vivaciously  outward  in  obtuse  angles  that  jehson  you  off  into  the  experience  of  the  trees  and  endless  sky  

•  Strength:  Strong  mul6modal  design  that  creates  a  gradually  changing  experience  through  framed  views,  ad  the  geometrics  of  the  spaces  which  frame  those  views  that  the  feelings  they  convey,    

•  Weaknesses:  not  very  feasible  to  build  •  Conclusion:  Idea  and  understanding  of  how  to  craR  journey  achieved,  also  growing  understanding  of  site  

specific  site  responsive  spaces  

•  Hypothesis:  apply  evolving  concept  of  this  unfolding  journey  and  deepen  and  refine  the  meaning  and  the  specifics  of  the  journey  

Top –node 1, entry way, right wide node 2 framed view of north facing nature scene

Itera6on  18  •  Program:  redefine  experience  previously  craRed  to  

incorporate  the  three  trees  on  the  site  into  design.    

•  Ques6ons:  What  is  the  evolving  context  of  my  story  and  how  can  it  expand  to  incorporate  the  experience  of  the  trees  on  the  site  

•  Analysis  of  elements:  each  spherical-­‐like  oblong  form  surround  each  tree  

•  Ra6onale:  expansion  and  contrac6on  of  space  is  supposed  to  create  a  hide  and  revealed  effect  to  the  experience  of  every  newly  experienced  tree  space.  On  the  journey  you  cannot  see  everything  full  up  ahead  

•  Strengths:  interes6ng  formal  response  to  trees  •  Weaknesses:  not  very  site  specific,  no  defined  entry  

ways  or  exits,  no  clear  way  to  build  this  structure  (maybe  with  pvc  piping)  (unclear  how  a]achments  would  happen)  needs  more  integra6on  conceptually  with  narra6ve  

•  Lingering  ques6ons:  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  bowing  of  each  of  the  spaces?  How  can  form  and  geometry  be  more  responsive  to  the  form  of  the  trees?  How  can  this  form  of  expansion  and  contri6on  be  elaborated  upon?  

•  Conclusion:  interes6ng  form  created  that  expands  on  the  experience  of  the  nature  of  a  “general  journey”    

•  Hypothesis:  in  next  itera6on  further  refine  this  spa6al  evolu6on  of  the  experience  of  a  journey,  and  more  specifically  the  specific  type  of  journey  you  want  to  create  

At  this  point,  our  team  was  slowly  gehng  a  be]er  idea  of  our  group  concept  and  place.  My  team  decided  we  are  going  to  use  space  around  three  trees  so  I  had  to  alter  my  design  around  that  new  element  

Itera6on  19  •  Program:  further  evolve  this  developing  form  that  

further  enunciates  the  specific  nature  of  the  experience  I  want  to  create  

•  Ques6ons:  How  can  the  form  of  the  last  itera6on  be  improved  upon?  How  is  it  6meless?  How  can  it  be  materially  and  structurally  built?  

•  Analysis  of  elements:  similar  form  to  last  design  except  each  node  gets  larger  as  you  progress  past  each  tree,  and  each  pathway  gets  smaller  as  you  progress  signifies  nature  of  journey  as  life  expands  you  have  to  navigate  through  harder  contrac6ons  

•  Strenths:  defined  entry  and  exit,  more  defined  form  and  experience,  sec6oning  approach  using  wood  

•  Weaknesses:  how  is  the  general  defini6on  of  a  journey  relevant  and  credible  to  specific  narra6ve?  Not  so  feasible  

•  Conclusion:  deeper  understanding  of  general  journey,  needs  to  be  more  specific  

•  Hypothesis:  general  framework  for  journey  is  there  in  place,  now  focus  on  making  each  nodal  experience  unique  

Itera6on  20  •  Program:  experiment  with  nodal  experience  and  the  

deeper  meaning  of  tree  and  use  of  wood,  and  celebra6on  of  nature  as  inconsistent  philosophies  

•  Analysis  of  elements:  “built  wood”  sharp  and  acute  appears  to  pierce  through  the  bark  “unadulterated  wood”  

•  Ra6onale:  needs  to  be  a  response  and  commentary  on  the  to  use  wood  in  our  installa6on  because  it  is  cheep  and  I  have  experience  with  it,  how  can  we  use  this  to  our  advantage?  Tree  would  be  at  center  

•  Strengths:  tectonically  complex,  shards  would  appear  to  pierce  tree…  this  could  be  a  powerful  message  if  maybe  used  at  a  first  node  to  describe  on  experience  then  the  next  nodes  could  describe  an  apposing  experience  

• Weaknesses: minimalist, not specific enough with respect to narrative about conflict between man and nature, not site specfic • Conclusion: • Hypothesis:find way to integrate this concept discovered into a larger whole.

Itera6on  21  

•  Program:  come  up  with  more  economical  concept  for  incorpora6ng  of  three  trees  in  design  

•  Pros:  use  of  less  material,  sec6oning,  nodes  are  s6ll  responsive  to  each  other  even  thought  they  are  not  physically  very  connected  except  by  pathway  

•  Cons:  to  bone  dry,  not  enough  credible  material,  doesn’t  define  a  specific  experience  

•  Hypothesis:  explore  more  into  materials  so  you  can  make  a  more  economical  design  in  a  different  vien  

Itera6on  22  •  Program:  conduct  nodal  explora6on  into  the  repurposing  of  

materials    

•  Pros:  successfully  repurposed  pumpkin,  made  abstract,  not  clear  that  it  is  a  pumpkin  at  first  glance  metaphorically  and  physically  this  same  process  can  be  done  with  found  wood.  

•  Cons:  Can  be  a  in  efficient  process,  repurposing  could  be  a  more  difficult  method,  also  the  the  craR  of  the  forms  are  not  smooth  and  refined.    

•  Hypothesis:  try  another  nodal  design  experiment  with  a  structure  that  would  use  wood  common  to  buy  at  hardware  stores.  

Itera6on  23  

•  Program:  Explore  use  of  stright  pieces  of  wood  to  create  more  biomorphic  form  

•  Strengths  –  biomorphic  form  achieved  

•  Weaknesses  –  to  familiar,  and  now  new  and  inova6ve  

•  Hypothesis:  take  knowledge  form  nodal  experiments  and  apply  the  toa  design  that  works  around  three  trees  

Itera6on  24  

•  Program:  re-­‐use/reevaluate  earlier  mul6-­‐nodal  design  nodal  design  in  itera6on  21,  how  does  it  map  onto  narra6ve  expressed  in  itera6ons16  and  17?    

•  Pros:  expansion  and  progression  built  upon  from  itera6ons  18  and  19,  diagonal  lines  create  sense  of  movement,  the  forms  are  biomorphic,  the  can6lever  structures  have  unity,  varia6on,  hierarchy  rhythm  and  repe66on  

•  Cons:  to  simplis6c,  not  enough  specific  relevant  content  

•  Hypothesis:  Try  same  approach  ut  with  different  nodal  experiment  

Itera6on  25  •  Program:  create  nodal  experience  that  

communicates  reverence  for  trees  following  nodal  model  of  previous  itera6ons  

•  Pros:  more  complex  parabolic  forms  mimic  form  of  tree  and  respond  in  crea6ng  space  around  tree  more  sacred  

•  Cons:  craR,  s6ll  the  “nodal  model”  doesn’t  seem  unified  

•  Hypothesis:  expand  on  the  learning  or  the  parabolic  shape  mimicking  the  tree,  and  then  revisit  la]er  problem  in  next  itera6on  

Itera6on  26  

•  Program  :  refine  design  that  communicates  reverence  for  tree,  experiment  with  different  poten6al  materials  and  are  realis6c  

•  Pros,  form  of  reverence  achieved  through  send  of  eleva6on  of  diagonal  forms,  complexity  and  intricacy,  use  of  rope  and  tarp  to  create  lahce  structure  adds  more  skinning  possibili6es,  wood  would  be  used  for  core  structure  

Cons: form perhaps a little too intense due to more extreme angles for fully communicating reverence, Lattice idea has promise but could be tacky and potential vulnerable to wind. Buthow to the two structural types unify Hypothesis: apply this to an allegory

Itera6on  27  

•  Program:  Use  the  Plato’s  allegory  of  the  cave  to  guide  your  specific  journey  construc6on  using  typified  material  described  in  previous  itera6on  with  the  goal  of  trying  to  make  one  conscious  of  something,  through  the  experience  of  they  journeys  

•  Pros:  journey  mapped  out  through  tectonic  language  of  first  rec6linear  shapes  in  node  1  and  then  pointy  shapes  in  node  2,  and  then  opening  biomorphic  shapes  in  node  3.  nod  e1  communicate  built  world  but  also  being  in  the  “cave”  in  the  allegory  the  represents  ignorance.  As  you  move  to  node  to  it  gets  spiky    with  maps  onto  leaving  the  cave  it  is  painful  leaving  the  built  world  behind,  then  node  3  is  the  light  at  the  end  of  the  tunnel  to  freedom  of  the  truth  which  communicates  reverence  for  tree  and  then  has  opening  to  nature.  To  the  realer  and  truer  world.  I  think  this  is  decently  successful  

•  Cons:  enclosure  and  rela6onship  of  tarp  structure  to  wood  en  structure  could  be  be]er  defined  (cave  would  be  full  enclosure  (what  I  have  here  is  just  par6al  enclosure  

,  also  how  are  the  people  going  to  receive  the  message  of  the  allegory  -­‐    

Itera6on  27  

•  This  slide  maps  out  the  journey  in  the  prospec6ve  of  the  alker  

Conclusion: narrative refined and basis for more growth achieved Hypothesis: work with group to expand on your own ideas and to contribute usefully, but not overbearingly. research tarp technologies and wood and joint technologies

My  concept  for  Space  •  Evolved  to  fit  all  three  trees  

•  rope  system  to  support  lahce  pieces  of  tarp  sews  across  it  

•  Wooden  structured  pathways  with  extensions  to  create  internal  experiences  

Research  on  materials  

•  Ques6on:  What  are  material  considera0ons  for  frame  and  surface  components?  

•  Skin  –  Use  of  tarp  –  for  crea6ng  weather  proof  and  

poten6ally  sound  reducing  surfaces  and  facades  •  Connec6ons  

–  Grip  clips  (shown  above)  are  a  joint  fastening  material  invented  by  “Shelter  Systems”  –  they  are  used  to  grip  tarps  without  puncturing  holes  in  them  –  and  are  very  strong  

–  Sewn  loops,  sewn  onto  tarp  as  shown  in  upper  right  most  picture  and  further  described  at  h]p://www.backpacking.net/makegear/cat-­‐tarp/index.html  

•  Frame  

–  Wood  –  holding  tarp  in  space  –  Rope  –  holding  tarp  from  tree  to  ground  

•  Ques6on:  What  are  the  most  resourceful  structural  types  that  can  be  considered  for  this  project?  Why?  

–  Equilateral  triangles  –  because  they  are  strong,  visually  interes6ng,  and  can  be  used  as  a  sub  shape  (or  theme  of  forms)  to  create  more  complex  forms  that  are  either  biomorphic  in  nature  or  more  rec6linear  in  form  

To the right is an image describing how to sew seams of two tarps together in a structurally strong way

Evolu6on  of  Group  Concept  •  Individual  Ideas  to  Group  idea  

–  Julio  –  morphogenesis  and  change  –  relates  back  to  his  biography  topic  of  balance  and  nature  –  Kevin  –  interest  in  peacefulness  of  nature  and  sacredness  –  Crystal  –  interest  in  biomorphic  lahce  like  structures  –  Thomas  –  philosophizing  about  consciousness  “human  dominance”  of  people  growing  up  into  city  life  

•  Deciding  and  Refining  Group  Idea  –  4  node  design  with  concept  of  mans  dominance  over  nature  as  theme  

•  Node  1  –  communicate  man’s  dominance  over  nature  –  rec6linear  on  outside  and  inside  •  Node  2  –  nature  power  over  man,  biomorphic  on  outside,  rec6linear  inside  •  Node  3  –  example  of  human  in  harmony  with  nature  biomorphic  inside  and  out  

•  Node  4  –  a  interwoven  harmony  of  natural  and  synthe6c  material  s  and  interior  and  experience  biomorphic  and  rec6linear  shapes  

•  This  journey  is  meant  to  communicate  the  intricacies  of  the  complex  conversa6on  and  conflict  between  man  and  nature    that  we  iden6fied  as  being  characterized  by  the  site  

•  We  chose  to  cut  down  to  2  trees  instead  of  3  for  shear  reality  of  cost  of  materials  and  pheasbility  in  6me  we  had  been  alloted  

Group  Itera6on  1  

•  Fundamental  Ques6on:  From  all  aspects  researched,  what  are  the  most  inspiring  approaches  and  why?  

–  I  think  the  4  nodal  design  was  most  inspiring  because  it  was  provoca6ve  layered  and  imbued  with  complex  story  journey  message  and  execu6on  through  fairly  clear  tectonic  language  

•  SWOT  Analysis  of    –  Strengths  –  concept  is  strong  and  tectonic  language  is  strong  and  narra6ve  is  strong  –  Weaknesses  –  the  use  of  materials  could  be  to  literal  (branches  for  biomorphic)  lumber  for  

rec6linear,  each  node  seams  like  its  own  separate  insula6on,  lacks  unity  

–  Opportuni6es  –  are  for  growth  in  use  and  repurposing  of  materials  (blending)    –  Threats  –  this  design  could  be  unfeasible  because  could  be  too  much  material    

To the left shows a diagram which “imperfectly” documents our group’s process for deciding on a unified design. We all came up with a few refined proposals, which we drew all the possibilities on this board, then we voted on the one that we felt was the most efficient and credible design to carry out our narrative and program

Beginning  Construc6on  

•  We  built  frame  base  for  node  1  of  our  planned  design  and  through  the  amount  of  6me  this  took  we  realized  the  rest  of  our  design  is  not  feasible  

•  So  we  went  back  to  the  drawing  boards,  but  looked  to  work  from  the  solid  founda6on  already  created  

Change  in  Design  

•  Skin  –  Twine  –  semi-­‐permeable  skin  (like  we  had  seen  in    

•  Connec6ons  –  Wooden  joints  craRed  out  of  stacking  1x4’s  on  2x4’s  

and  sandwiching  them  with  cut  pieces  of  plywood  

•  Frame  –  Wood  –  connected  1x4,  2x4,  and  2x1’s  ver6cal  

pieces  

–  Ques6on:  What  are  the  most  resourceful  structural  types  that  can  be  considered  for  this  project?  Why?  

–  Equilateral  triangles  –  because  they  are  strong,  visually  interes6ng,  and  can  be  used  as  a  sub  shape  (or  theme  of  forms)  to  create  more  complex  forms  that  are  either  biomorphic  in  nature  or  more  rec6linear  in  form  

•  We  would  end  up  using  a  form  of  this  in  our  joint  technology  

Problem Our design was too complex (we already heavily simplified it) and guess what – jerry knew it – he came up with an idea about creating a morphing shape emanating from the frame base we had already built and we ran with the idea

Through this proccess I discovered a deaper sense of what it meant to be site specific and how the language of tectonics was truly spoken

Evolution in understanding of true meaning of site specificity and its application

Groups  Itera6ons  2  (second  approach  

•  Idea  based  on  re-­‐evaluated  approach  based  on  alightnments  to  batmail  and  visual  arts  exten6on  

•  New  understnading  of  site  specificity  through  tectonic  language  emerged  

–  Ques0on:  From  all  aspects  researched,  what  are  the  most  inspiring  appraoches  that  have  relevance  to  this  Project  and  why?  

–  Eventually  this  would  evolve  into  the  concept  that  in  the  context  of  a  built  dominant  physical  and  psychological  world  wrought  with  fast  pace  life,  and  nero6c  scedules  behaviors  and  social  preasures,  we  forget  the  beauty,  awe,  presence  and  power  of  nature  

Construc6on  of  First  Node  

•  SWOT  Analysis  of    –  Strengths  –    Form  achieved,  craR  achieved,  

learning  achieved,  through  facing  challenge  off  broken  jiont  

–  Weaknesses  –    

–  Opportuni6es  –  what  to  do  for  the  skin?  –  Threats  –    what  to  do  for  the  skin?  Construc6on  of  

node  2  with  6me  constraints  

Break in foundation due to storm Joint

fastening solutions

Construc6on  of  Node  2  •  Swot  

–  Strengths  •  Efficiency  based  on  established  and  

repe66ve  system  

–  Weaknesses  •  Close  to  deadline  

–  Opportuni6es  •  Learning  the  ease  of  building  when  

you  have  structural  systems  in  place  for  connec6ons  established  before  work  on  site  

–  Threats  –  Being  viewed  as  incomplete  by  

judges  

Ins6lla6on  Comple6on  

Installa6on  Tes6ng  and  Analysis  •  Three  people  independently  all  described  a  essen6ally  similar  experience,  when  journeying  

through  the  structure.    –  Every  person  independently  reported  as  they  walked  through,  without  being  

ques6oned,  that  they  felt  confined  as  they  walked  through  the  geometrically  overarching  angles  of  the  north  west  most  node,  and  as  they  moved  into  the  second  they  felt  liberated  and  welcomed  into  a  space  in  the  second  node  where  they  responded  by  pleasant  sighs  of  relief,  and  then  most  came  to  sit  at  the  highest  bench  and  one  perosn  remarked  ….it  feels  like  I  am  meant  to  sit  here  (as  though  they  felt  it  was  the  most  natural  place  to  sit.    

–  Was  this  the  response  of  the  Judges???  •  Chandler  –  elements  of  first  space  could  be  more  established,  and  excentuated  •  Skin  on  second  node  could  be  more  established    

–  Demonstra6ng  how  this  process  made  made  people  conscious  of  their  feelings  by  captured  the  extremes  of  two  spa6al  experiences  and  juxtaposing  them  in  the  context  of  inters66al  space.  

Post  Mortem  

•  Strengths:  the  final  outcome  of  the  design  and  the  experience  created,  the  design  goals  achieved  the  experiences  a]ained  the  deep  mul6faceted  group  learning  and  building  intelligence  and  awareness,  and  the  response  of  the  community  and  the  sparking  of  rich  social  interac6ons  were  all  strengths  

•  Weaknesses:  fullness  and  completeness  and  the  end  product  and  the  facts  and  reali6es  and  sufferings  of  having  to  adjust  on  site,  as  a  result  of  not  having  the  most  concrete  plan  in  the  beginning  in  the  lab  

•  Opportuni6es:  more  tes6ng  of  experience  of  different  people  walking  through  structure,  true  and  honest  and  relaxed  celebra6on  of  comple6on.    

•  Challenge  remaining:  Refining  the  skin  on  node  2    

Advice  to  Future  101  students  

•  Reflec6ons  

•  Medita6ons  

–  Free  your  mind  •  For  the  first  half  of  the  coarse  feel  what  is  within  you  –  seek  to  honestly  express  yourself  through  form  of  the  modeled  itera6ons  

•  For  the  second  half  of  the  coarse  learn  to  feel  the  space  around  you,  your  site,  let  its  presence  fill  you,  and  allow  every  element  that  makes  that  space  what  it  is  (the  sounds  the,  sunlight  touching  your  skin,  your  eyes  gazing  in  direc6on,  the  feeling  of  the  ground  on  your  feet  and  the  wind  in  your  bones,  and  once  you  know  inside  yourself  what  it  truly  feels  like  to  be  in  that  space,  then  you  have  the  informa6on  and  the  capacity  to  realize  it,  and  craR  your  vision  for  how  you  want  to  mold  the  experience  of  the  space,  (how  would  you  take  the  world  that  is  and  make  a  be]er  world?)  ..  Once  you  know  what  is…  then  you  can  create…