anthony vischansky architecture portfolio 2016
DESCRIPTION
Anthony Vischansky, Master of Architecture 2016, Penn State UniversityTRANSCRIPT
ANTHONY VISCHANSKYA R C H I T E C T U R E P O R T F O L I O 2 0 1 6
VISCHANSKYANTHONY
EDUCATION
WORK EXPERIENCE
HONORS
QUALIFICATIONS
2016
May 2015 - June 2015
2013
May 2013 - Aug. 2013May 2014 - Aug. 2014
Aug. 2013 - Present
Sept 2015 - Present
July 2015 - Present
Sept. 2012 - May 2013
January 2016
May 2013
Oct. - Nov. 2012
Nov . 30 - Dec. 1, 2012
Pennsylvania State University Master of Architecture
Pantheon Institute- Rome, ItalyArchitectural Studies
Alfred State SUNY College of TechnologyBachelor of Science in Architectural Technology- 3.86 GPA
Johnson-Schmidt & Associates ArchitectsInternExamined and documented existing conditions in historic structures, produced Revit models of existing buildings, and schematic design for adaptive reuse projects: mixed-use, residential, and commercial
Penn State Graduate SchoolGraduate Teaching AssistantWorking with Profs. Nida Rehman and Katie Endresen, I grade assignments, meet with students, and answer questions in an introductory architecture and urbanism course, Architecture and Ideas (ARCH100)
Hajjar Air Wall Building ResearchResearch AssistantConstruction of Revit and physical models of an experimental building on the Penn State campus by A. William Hajjar, one of the first double-skin buildings
Embrace Design GroupVisualization ConsultantProduction of architectural renderings for a variety of clients
Alfred State Tutoring ServicesPeer tutorStructural Design courses, studio, and Photoshop
John Stewardson Memorial Fellowship in Architecture, Penn State Finalist- One of five finalists chosen by Penn State architecture faculty, representing the school in a competition to design a Syrian refugee girl’s school. Participants include graduating BArch students, MArch students, and recent graduates from six Pennsylvania architecture schools.
Alfred State Senior Thesis Finalist- A jury consisting of Alfred State architecture faculty chose the Chemung Valley Awareness Center senior thesis as runner-up in my class.
Bath, New York Master Plan- My studio won a competition between three senior studios of 14 students each, where a master plan proposal for the village of Bath, New York was presented to community residents, the mayor, and practicing professionals in the field.
Appalachian Teaching Project- Chosen alongside five other students to represent Alfred State at a conference in Washington, D.C. where I presented our studio’s Bath master plan in front of 14 other colleges and universities. The goal of the conference was to develop students’ leadership skills,awareness of community assets that foster sustainability, and their involvement in related regional projects.
RevitAutoCADRhinoGrasshopperSketchUp
PhotoshopIllustratorInDesign
SketchingModel-BuildingLaser CuttingCNC Fabrication3D Printing
Microsoft OfficeArcGISQGISClimate ConsultantGoogle Earth Pro
348 W. Thurston St. Elmira, NY
607.207.6954
CONTENTS
CHEMUNG VALLEY AWARENESS CENTERElmira, New York
RAYSTOWN LAKE RESORTHuntingdon, Pennsylvania
PITTSBURGH ARTS CENTERPittsburgh, Pennsylvania
VIA GIULIA ROMAN MUSEUMRome, Italy
HAJJAR AIR WALL RESEARCH BUILDINGState College, Pennsylvania
SYRIAN REFUGEE SCHOOLAl-Zaatari Refugee Camp, Jordan
SUPERSUBURBANDetroit, Michigan
03
47
51
37
1527
53
0403
The Chemung River, located in New York’s Southern Tier, is an outstanding natural resource which provides limitless opportunities for surrounding communities, not only on the river, but adjacent to it as well. The river is not only conducive to outdoor recreational activities such as fishing, kayaking, and hiking, but is an important catalyst for urban development. However, most bordering towns fail to take advantage of this natural resource, particularly Elmira, NY, the largest municipality on the Chemung. The City of Elmira suffers from numerous social and economic issues: a declining population, a high impoverished population, and one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The downtown area also contains an insufficient amount of storefront businesses and residences. In 1972, Elmira and numerous surrounding communities were devastated by a flood caused by Hurricane Agnes, which pushed the Chemung over its walls and into downtown. Entire blocks of buildings were demolished in the following years due to flood damage, thus the shortage of downtown storefronts and housing. Despite being geographically split in half by the river, the city and river fail to share any sort of connection. Mark Twain Riverfront Park, which stretches for about four blocks through downtown, is the closest to any sort of link to the water. Despite the name implications, the park provides almost no views to the water, let alone access.
Because Elmira lacks a connection to the river, thousands of people are missing out on the opportunity to take full advantage of the waterway. Fishing, kayaking, hiking, and biking are just a few activities that the river and the surrounding area provides but are not capitalized on. Although not everyone is interested in outdoor activities, many are simply unaware of the opportunities which lie in their own backyard. Ever since the flood, both Elmira and the Chemung River have developed an undesirable image in the area. Many Elmira residents, particularly those that have lived there all their lives, even have a negative attitude toward the river. Some think it is dangerous and unclean, and this ignorance is what is truly hurting the river’s potential. Adding to this the social issues of an uneducated and impoverished population, along with very few downtown businesses and residences, it is no wonder the city is looked at in an unfavorable light.
To attempt to address and resolve Elmira’s many issues, the construction of a multi-use complex adjacent to the river on Mark Twain Riverfront Park is proposed. The building will serve several purposes, each relating to and addressing a particular community issue. The biggest goal which the project will attempt to accomplish is to attract people to return to the struggling downtown area by using the river as a focal point. The building and site will work together in finally connecting the city to the water both visually and physically.
CHEMUNG VALLEY AWARENESS CENTERELMIRA, NEW YORK
Spring 2013Professor - David Carli
0403
0403
The Chemung River, located in New York’s Southern Tier, is an outstanding natural resource which provides limitless opportunities for surrounding communities, not only on the river, but adjacent to it as well. The river is not only conducive to outdoor recreational activities such as fishing, kayaking, and hiking, but is an important catalyst for urban development. However, most bordering towns fail to take advantage of this natural resource, particularly Elmira, NY, the largest municipality on the Chemung. The City of Elmira suffers from numerous social and economic issues: a declining population, a high impoverished population, and one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The downtown area also contains an insufficient amount of storefront businesses and residences. In 1972, Elmira and numerous surrounding communities were devastated by a flood caused by Hurricane Agnes, which pushed the Chemung over its walls and into downtown. Entire blocks of buildings were demolished in the following years due to flood damage, thus the shortage of downtown storefronts and housing. Despite being geographically split in half by the river, the city and river fail to share any sort of connection. Mark Twain Riverfront Park, which stretches for about four blocks through downtown, is the closest to any sort of link to the water. Despite the name implications, the park provides almost no views to the water, let alone access.
Because Elmira lacks a connection to the river, thousands of people are missing out on the opportunity to take full advantage of the waterway. Fishing, kayaking, hiking, and biking are just a few activities that the river and the surrounding area provides but are not capitalized on. Although not everyone is interested in outdoor activities, many are simply unaware of the opportunities which lie in their own backyard. Ever since the flood, both Elmira and the Chemung River have developed an undesirable image in the area. Many Elmira residents, particularly those that have lived there all their lives, even have a negative attitude toward the river. Some think it is dangerous and unclean, and this ignorance is what is truly hurting the river’s potential. Adding to this the social issues of an uneducated and impoverished population, along with very few downtown businesses and residences, it is no wonder the city is looked at in an unfavorable light.
To attempt to address and resolve Elmira’s many issues, the construction of a multi-use complex adjacent to the river on Mark Twain Riverfront Park is proposed. The building will serve several purposes, each relating to and addressing a particular community issue. The biggest goal which the project will attempt to accomplish is to attract people to return to the struggling downtown area by using the river as a focal point. The building and site will work together in finally connecting the city to the water both visually and physically.
CHEMUNG VALLEY AWARENESS CENTERELMIRA, NEW YORK
Spring 2013Professor - David Carli
0403
HISTORIC MASSING RATIONALIZED MASSING
VISUAL CONNECTION
PHYSICAL CONNECTION
VEGETATE + POPULATE
PARTS OF THE WHOLE
FLIP DENSITY
0605
GATEWAY SIGNAGE EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
HISTORIC MASSING RATIONALIZED MASSING
VISUAL CONNECTION
PHYSICAL CONNECTION
VEGETATE + POPULATE
PARTS OF THE WHOLE
FLIP DENSITY
0605
GATEWAY SIGNAGE EXTENSIVE GREEN ROOF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
RetailOutfitter / RentalAtriumAdministrationClassroomStorage
123456
3
11
11
12
12
13 13 13
13 13
13 13
13 13
13
12
12
3
13 13 13
13 13
13 13
13 13
13
12
12
13 13
13
13
13 13
11
11
12
12
13 13
13
13
13 13
78910C10E10V
10H10K10A111213
Temporary GalleryOrientationConferenceGallery: CorningGallery: ElmiraGallery: The Valley
History GalleryChildren’s AreaAquarium2-Bedroom Apartment1-Bedroom ApartmentStudio Apartment
4
3RESIDENTIAL I
RESIDENTIAL II
0 8 16 32 64
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
55 5
5 56
7
7
8 9
10C
10E 10V
10H
10K
10A
2
1RETAIL FLOOR
EDUCATION FLOOR
0807
RetailOutfitter / RentalAtriumAdministrationClassroomStorage
123456
3
11
11
12
12
13 13 13
13 13
13 13
13 13
13
12
12
3
13 13 13
13 13
13 13
13 13
13
12
12
13 13
13
13
13 13
11
11
12
12
13 13
13
13
13 13
78910C10E10V
10H10K10A111213
Temporary GalleryOrientationConferenceGallery: CorningGallery: ElmiraGallery: The Valley
History GalleryChildren’s AreaAquarium2-Bedroom Apartment1-Bedroom ApartmentStudio Apartment
4
3RESIDENTIAL I
RESIDENTIAL II
0 8 16 32 64
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
55 5
5 56
7
7
8 9
10C
10E 10V
10H
10K
10A
2
1RETAIL FLOOR
EDUCATION FLOOR
0807
1009
1009
1211
1211
RETAIL
ADMINISTRATION
EDUCATION
RESIDENTIAL
VERT CIRCULATION
HORIZ CIRCULATION
1413
RETAIL
ADMINISTRATION
EDUCATION
RESIDENTIAL
VERT CIRCULATION
HORIZ CIRCULATION
1413
The building is intended to be an artifact, discovered at the terminus of a long path of varying slope and directionality. From the lake, the building is understood as an evident human intervention, emerging as an imposing edifice, yet giving scale to the homogeneity of the terrain through architectural constructs: exterior stairs and indications of guest rooms, through a series of punctures in the facade. On site, the monumentality of the gesture is scaled back, providing views over the building and up the valley. Guests are drawn effortlessly down into the building, using the steep slope to assist in the progression, towards a vertical panoramic view of the lake. The project makes the argument that the passerby’s peripheral encounter is as valuable as the user’s spatial experience.
The project began by using language prompts to inform aesthetics, as well as a series of provocative images. Words like “artifact, ”fragment”, and “discovery” became key terms to shape the building through multiple iterations of massing models. Students created initial conceptual models and then inherited another student’s project, in which they would impose their own design sensibilities on. We then created an additional conceptual model which was a product of this cross-pollinization of ideas.
RAYSTOWN LAKE RESORTHUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA
Fall 2014Professor - Rebecca Henn
1615
The building is intended to be an artifact, discovered at the terminus of a long path of varying slope and directionality. From the lake, the building is understood as an evident human intervention, emerging as an imposing edifice, yet giving scale to the homogeneity of the terrain through architectural constructs: exterior stairs and indications of guest rooms, through a series of punctures in the facade. On site, the monumentality of the gesture is scaled back, providing views over the building and up the valley. Guests are drawn effortlessly down into the building, using the steep slope to assist in the progression, towards a vertical panoramic view of the lake. The project makes the argument that the passerby’s peripheral encounter is as valuable as the user’s spatial experience.
The project began by using language prompts to inform aesthetics, as well as a series of provocative images. Words like “artifact, ”fragment”, and “discovery” became key terms to shape the building through multiple iterations of massing models. Students created initial conceptual models and then inherited another student’s project, in which they would impose their own design sensibilities on. We then created an additional conceptual model which was a product of this cross-pollinization of ideas.
RAYSTOWN LAKE RESORTHUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA
Fall 2014Professor - Rebecca Henn
1615
1817
1817
0 5
1
2
3
4
GUEST ROOMSRESTAURANT 1RESTAURANT 2MECHANICALOUTDOOR
GUEST ROOMS0 8 16 32 64 128
STRUCTURAL PLANS
5
R
5
4
3
2
1
G
ROOF LINE ABOVE
MONO TRUSS ON W24W/ CLERESTORY (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W12 (TYP.)
RAMP SLAB ON GRADE TO ROOF(1:12, 1005’ - 1010’)
ROOF SLAB ON GRADE(1010’-0”)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
SLAB ON GRADE
ELEVATOR PITS
1010’
160
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0 8 16 32 64 128
EGRESS DIAGRAMSSTRUCTURAL PLANS
R
4
G
10
125
4
75
3
2
2
2
100 3
2
1
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 223”STAIR WIDTH: N/A
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 3EGRESS WIDTH: 148” > 127”STAIR WIDTH: 96” > 95”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 48”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 61”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 3EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 102” > 48”
1115
115
3
2
2
2
80
22
2
2
2
2
2
3
68
400
5
W12 (TYP)
RAMP SLAB ON GRADE TO ROOF (1:12, 1005’ - 1010’)
‘ROOF’ SLAB ON GRADE (1010’-0”)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
ELEVATOR PITS
SLAB ON GRADE
MONO TRUSS ON W24 W/ CLERESTORY
ROOF LINE ABOVE
EGRESS STRUCTURE
R 3
5 2
4 1
G
R 3
5 2
4 1
G2019
0 5
1
2
3
4
GUEST ROOMSRESTAURANT 1RESTAURANT 2MECHANICALOUTDOOR
GUEST ROOMS0 8 16 32 64 128
STRUCTURAL PLANS
5
R
5
4
3
2
1
G
ROOF LINE ABOVE
MONO TRUSS ON W24W/ CLERESTORY (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W12 (TYP.)
RAMP SLAB ON GRADE TO ROOF(1:12, 1005’ - 1010’)
ROOF SLAB ON GRADE(1010’-0”)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
W24 (TYP.)
SLAB ON GRADE
ELEVATOR PITS
1010’
160
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0 8 16 32 64 128
EGRESS DIAGRAMSSTRUCTURAL PLANS
R
4
G
10
125
4
75
3
2
2
2
100 3
2
1
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 223”STAIR WIDTH: N/A
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 3EGRESS WIDTH: 148” > 127”STAIR WIDTH: 96” > 95”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 160’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 48”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 61”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 2EGRESS WIDTH: 72” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 104” > 36”
MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE: 145’ < 200’AREAS OF REFUGE: 3EGRESS WIDTH: 257” > 48”STAIR WIDTH: 102” > 48”
1115
115
3
2
2
2
80
22
2
2
2
2
2
3
68
400
5
W12 (TYP)
RAMP SLAB ON GRADE TO ROOF (1:12, 1005’ - 1010’)
‘ROOF’ SLAB ON GRADE (1010’-0”)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
W24 (TYP)
ELEVATOR PITS
SLAB ON GRADE
MONO TRUSS ON W24 W/ CLERESTORY
ROOF LINE ABOVE
EGRESS STRUCTURE
R 3
5 2
4 1
G
R 3
5 2
4 1
G2019
2221
2221
OUTDOOR GATHERINGFENESTRATIONGUEST ROOMS
INDOOR GATHERINGVERTICAL CIRCULATIONSUPPORT SPACE
2625
2625
The project is inspired by the Strip District's status as a hub for the delivery of goods, particularly produce. Instead of a distribution center for food, the art center engages the neighborhood as a hub for art, using the delivery of an exhibit module which is plugged in to the museum via gantry crane and other industrial devices. The building's aesthetic recognizes Pittsburgh's rich manufacturing history and represents a merging of machine-age and new media thinking.
Historically, the Strip district’s development has been marked by increased density and massiveness along its main corridors, especially Penn Ave. Blocks of attached storefronts and warehouses soon replaced standalone buildings, and these structures were often added to haphazardly in the rear of the property along the alley. This created a distinct separation of permanence and temporary. The Art Center reflects this notion of an enduring streetfront and ever-changing rear.
The theatrics of the machine provide a spectacle in itself to pedestrians and museum-goers alike. The crane provides all the standard equipment of a traditional fly tower, but allows each act’s backstage to be imported in the same manner as the exhibits- from freight to museum, truck to performance.
PITTSBURGHARTS CENTERPITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Spring 2015Professor - Ute Poerschke
2827
The project is inspired by the Strip District's status as a hub for the delivery of goods, particularly produce. Instead of a distribution center for food, the art center engages the neighborhood as a hub for art, using the delivery of an exhibit module which is plugged in to the museum via gantry crane and other industrial devices. The building's aesthetic recognizes Pittsburgh's rich manufacturing history and represents a merging of machine-age and new media thinking.
Historically, the Strip district’s development has been marked by increased density and massiveness along its main corridors, especially Penn Ave. Blocks of attached storefronts and warehouses soon replaced standalone buildings, and these structures were often added to haphazardly in the rear of the property along the alley. This created a distinct separation of permanence and temporary. The Art Center reflects this notion of an enduring streetfront and ever-changing rear.
The theatrics of the machine provide a spectacle in itself to pedestrians and museum-goers alike. The crane provides all the standard equipment of a traditional fly tower, but allows each act’s backstage to be imported in the same manner as the exhibits- from freight to museum, truck to performance.
PITTSBURGHARTS CENTERPITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Spring 2015Professor - Ute Poerschke
2827
Container ExhibitsSeminar RoomsExhibit LobbyAuditorium LobbyCafeComputer Lab
1-121314151617
181920212223
2425262728
Music StudioLibraryWorkshopOfficesStorageLocker Rooms
StageOutdoor ForumFly SpaceProjection RoomElectrical Room GROUND FLOOR
1882
1900
1923
1957
2015
113
13
13
28
28
14
14
19
20
15
16
24
23
23
26 27
1525
2 3 4 5 6
17
18
7 8 9 10 11 12
2SECOND FLOOR PLAN
3THIRD FLOOR PLAN
4FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
5FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
30290 84 16 32
1GROUND FLOOR
Lobby
Reception Machine Viewing
Container ExhibitsSeminar RoomsExhibit LobbyAuditorium LobbyCafeComputer Lab
1-121314151617
181920212223
2425262728
Music StudioLibraryWorkshopOfficesStorageLocker Rooms
StageOutdoor ForumFly SpaceProjection RoomElectrical Room GROUND FLOOR
1882
1900
1923
1957
2015
113
13
13
28
28
14
14
19
20
15
16
24
23
23
26 27
1525
2 3 4 5 6
17
18
7 8 9 10 11 12
2SECOND FLOOR PLAN
3THIRD FLOOR PLAN
4FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
5FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
30290 84 16 32
1GROUND FLOOR
Lobby
Reception Machine Viewing
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
0 8 16 32
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
0 8 16 32
3231
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
1 32
4 65
3433
1 32
4 65
3433
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
Roof 70’-0”
Fifth Floor 56’-0”
Fourth Floor 42’-0”
Third Floor 28’-0”
Second Floor 14’-0”
First Floor 0’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
Steel Grating
Rubber Roof Membrane
Rigid Polystyrene Insulation
5” Concrete Slab
Metal Decking
5/8“ GWB
2” x 6” Light Gauge Metal Framing
Batting Insulation
5/8” GWB Sheathing
Moisture Barrier
4” Rigid Polystyrene Insulation
Air Space
LED Luminaire
Perforated Anodized Aluminum Panel
WALL SECTION / ELEVATION
0 5 1 23635
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
Roof 70’-0”
Fifth Floor 56’-0”
Fourth Floor 42’-0”
Third Floor 28’-0”
Second Floor 14’-0”
First Floor 0’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 14’-0”
THIRD FLOOR 28’-0”
FOURTH FLOOR 42’-0”
FIFTH FLOOR 56’-0”
ROOF 70’-0”
FIRST FLOOR 0’-0”
BASEMENT -14’-0”
Steel Grating
Rubber Roof Membrane
Rigid Polystyrene Insulation
5” Concrete Slab
Metal Decking
5/8“ GWB
2” x 6” Light Gauge Metal Framing
Batting Insulation
5/8” GWB Sheathing
Moisture Barrier
4” Rigid Polystyrene Insulation
Air Space
LED Luminaire
Perforated Anodized Aluminum Panel
WALL SECTION / ELEVATION
0 5 1 23635
This studio was particularly context-driven, focusing on contemporary design within the historic urban landscape. Rome exhibits a unique set of challenges and opportunities given its high density of historically-significant and monumental buildings. Not only is context understood in terms of the site’s adjacencies, but the stratified remains of the city’s past, below ground. The site abuts the Tiber River, occupying one of the final unbuilt tracts of land in the city center, with ancient Roman ruins beneath.
The program consisted of both art museum and piazza, the fundamental urban space in Italian cities. The project began with the study of Piazza Santa Marie Della Pace, analyzing critical attributes of piazze: geometry, enclosure, entry and exit, hierarchy, traffic patterns, human activity in relation to time, views, and programmatic requirements. The next step focused on the interpretation of an abstract art painting in to three dimensional space by creating two physical models; one which used primarily additive means of constructing space, and one which used primarily subtractive means.
The building’s primary objective was in achieving an understanding of Rome’s profound layering, from ancient Rome up to Renaissance Via Giulia. Most buildings in Rome’s historic center meet the ground heavily, whereas the museum is slightly lifted, revealing activity below grade. The facade is conceived as a contextual wrapper, using a gridwork derived from surrounding fenestration. Pushes and pulls in the grid are intensified along the pedestrian-scaled Via Giulia side, whereas the articulation is much simpler along the more institutional Lungotevere facade. The facade acts as a receiver of information below, as incisions indicate the location of ruins in the piazza.
The piazza creates separation from the busy Lungotevere by stepping down from the street. Traditional Roman basalt pavers are used throughout, with the exception of those areas indicating ruins. A portion of ruins are left exposed, recalling Largo Argentina. Within the museum, art galleries are sculpted by extruding the space formerly enclosing the Roman structures below.
VIA GIULIA ROMAN MUSEUM/ URBAN ANALYSISROME, ITALY
Summer 2015Professors: David Sabatello, Simone Bove Group: Marie McKenna, Megan Haines
3837
This studio was particularly context-driven, focusing on contemporary design within the historic urban landscape. Rome exhibits a unique set of challenges and opportunities given its high density of historically-significant and monumental buildings. Not only is context understood in terms of the site’s adjacencies, but the stratified remains of the city’s past, below ground. The site abuts the Tiber River, occupying one of the final unbuilt tracts of land in the city center, with ancient Roman ruins beneath.
The program consisted of both art museum and piazza, the fundamental urban space in Italian cities. The project began with the study of Piazza Santa Marie Della Pace, analyzing critical attributes of piazze: geometry, enclosure, entry and exit, hierarchy, traffic patterns, human activity in relation to time, views, and programmatic requirements. The next step focused on the interpretation of an abstract art painting in to three dimensional space by creating two physical models; one which used primarily additive means of constructing space, and one which used primarily subtractive means.
The building’s primary objective was in achieving an understanding of Rome’s profound layering, from ancient Rome up to Renaissance Via Giulia. Most buildings in Rome’s historic center meet the ground heavily, whereas the museum is slightly lifted, revealing activity below grade. The facade is conceived as a contextual wrapper, using a gridwork derived from surrounding fenestration. Pushes and pulls in the grid are intensified along the pedestrian-scaled Via Giulia side, whereas the articulation is much simpler along the more institutional Lungotevere facade. The facade acts as a receiver of information below, as incisions indicate the location of ruins in the piazza.
The piazza creates separation from the busy Lungotevere by stepping down from the street. Traditional Roman basalt pavers are used throughout, with the exception of those areas indicating ruins. A portion of ruins are left exposed, recalling Largo Argentina. Within the museum, art galleries are sculpted by extruding the space formerly enclosing the Roman structures below.
VIA GIULIA ROMAN MUSEUM/ URBAN ANALYSISROME, ITALY
Summer 2015Professors: David Sabatello, Simone Bove Group: Marie McKenna, Megan Haines
3837
SECTION AASPATIAL DIVISIONS
Piazza Volume
Program Volume
Residual Space
SECTION BB
Parking
Cafe Seating
Circulation
Piazza 1482 Church FacadePiazza 1656-61
19
11
9
4
3
Pedestrian- Sedentary
Jullian de la Fuente Additive Subtractive
Pedestrian- ActiveProjecting Pronaos
PAINTING EXERCISE
PIAZZA SANTA MARIA DELLA PACE 4039
SECTION AASPATIAL DIVISIONS
Piazza Volume
Program Volume
Residual Space
SECTION BB
Parking
Cafe Seating
Circulation
Piazza 1482 Church FacadePiazza 1656-61
19
11
9
4
3
Pedestrian- Sedentary
Jullian de la Fuente Additive Subtractive
Pedestrian- ActiveProjecting Pronaos
PAINTING EXERCISE
PIAZZA SANTA MARIA DELLA PACE 4039
VIEWS THROUGH SITE
ACTIVITY + TRAFFIC
Two volumes of the site’s buildable area are represented as transparent volumes. Darker red indicates greater visibility, thus overlapping views.
Sedentary PeopleParked VehiclesBlocked Area
Pedestrian TrafficBlocked Area
20
11
Primary TrafficSecondary TrafficTertiary TrafficBlocked Area
VIEWS THROUGH SITE
ACTIVITY + TRAFFIC
Two volumes of the site’s buildable area are represented as transparent volumes. Darker red indicates greater visibility, thus overlapping views.
Sedentary PeopleParked VehiclesBlocked Area
Pedestrian TrafficBlocked Area
20
11
Primary TrafficSecondary TrafficTertiary TrafficBlocked Area
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
LONGITUDINAL SECTION 4241
Entry Level-Descent to Roman ruins
Crevasse- Transitional void between mass and circulation
Gallery Circulation-Additonal exhibit, revolves around mass gallery
Mass- Galleries to be carved out
Ruin Voids-Exposing the underground
Structure-Mass is suspended from surrounding steel frame
SITE PLAN
0 168 32 64
3029
2GALLERY
1ENTRY FLOOR PLAN 3GALLERY
4GALLERY
5TERRACE GALLERY
4443
Entry Level-Descent to Roman ruins
Crevasse- Transitional void between mass and circulation
Gallery Circulation-Additonal exhibit, revolves around mass gallery
Mass- Galleries to be carved out
Ruin Voids-Exposing the underground
Structure-Mass is suspended from surrounding steel frame
SITE PLAN
0 168 32 64
3029
2GALLERY
1ENTRY FLOOR PLAN 3GALLERY
4GALLERY
5TERRACE GALLERY
4443
1 2 4645
3
6 7
4 5
8
1. Campidoglio, Rome2. Pantheon, Rome3. Palazzo Farnese, Rome4. Sant-Andrea al Quirinale, Rome5. Monument to the Fallen, Como6. San Lorenzo, Florence7. Duomo, Florence8. Novocomum, Como9. Castelvecchio, Verona
SKETCH BOOK SELECTIONS
1 2 4645
3
6 7
4 5
8
1. Campidoglio, Rome2. Pantheon, Rome3. Palazzo Farnese, Rome4. Sant-Andrea al Quirinale, Rome5. Monument to the Fallen, Como6. San Lorenzo, Florence7. Duomo, Florence8. Novocomum, Como9. Castelvecchio, Verona
SKETCH BOOK SELECTIONS
The school responds to the dense and active ground plane which comprises the majority of the Al Zaatari camp, siting itself along the only qibla-paralleling road in the complex. The building is constructed of basic materials: concrete slab and roof, and wood posts and slats, using a repetitive 16 foot by 24 foot module that can be continually added to, providing space for a multitude of programs.
A rooftop play space serves as a unique vantage point to connect with or escape the humdrum of Al Zaatari, filtered through a screen of timber posts. Interior spaces including classrooms, a prayer room, and support spaces inform the façade’s level of openness and closure, creating a pulsing horizontal wave which echoes the street activity.
The roof and floor slabs are cast-in-place concrete, using 55 gallon barrels as formwork to create a subtle vaulting. This vaulting not only provides structural support and better acoustics, but allows for water draining through the floor and evaporative cooling strategies to take place through the reuse of greywater and natural ventilation through the slab.
The school seeks to provide an alternative to the tents and prefabricated units the residents are accustomed to, in exchange for dignity, well-being, and safety, discovering the permanence within the temporary.
SYRIANREFUGEE SCHOOLAL-ZAATARI REFUGEE CAMP, JORDAN
REPLICABLEMODULE:16’ x 24’
CENTRALIZEDSERVICE CORE:MECH + STOR
GREYWATER EVAPORATIVE COOLING
4847
The school responds to the dense and active ground plane which comprises the majority of the Al Zaatari camp, siting itself along the only qibla-paralleling road in the complex. The building is constructed of basic materials: concrete slab and roof, and wood posts and slats, using a repetitive 16 foot by 24 foot module that can be continually added to, providing space for a multitude of programs.
A rooftop play space serves as a unique vantage point to connect with or escape the humdrum of Al Zaatari, filtered through a screen of timber posts. Interior spaces including classrooms, a prayer room, and support spaces inform the façade’s level of openness and closure, creating a pulsing horizontal wave which echoes the street activity.
The roof and floor slabs are cast-in-place concrete, using 55 gallon barrels as formwork to create a subtle vaulting. This vaulting not only provides structural support and better acoustics, but allows for water draining through the floor and evaporative cooling strategies to take place through the reuse of greywater and natural ventilation through the slab.
The school seeks to provide an alternative to the tents and prefabricated units the residents are accustomed to, in exchange for dignity, well-being, and safety, discovering the permanence within the temporary.
SYRIANREFUGEE SCHOOLAL-ZAATARI REFUGEE CAMP, JORDAN
REPLICABLEMODULE:16’ x 24’
CENTRALIZEDSERVICE CORE:MECH + STOR
GREYWATER EVAPORATIVE COOLING
4847
Fabric Screen
Corrugated Polycarbonate
2" x 4" Lumber Slats
4" x 4" Column
2" x 12" Joists
Play Space Benches
Ventilated Floor Slab
Metal Grate Flooring
1. Classroom2. Food Prep3. Entry / Office4. Storage5. Mechanical6. Classroom7. Ablutions8. Prayer Room9. Play Space
1
1
2
3
45
2
8
9
FIRST FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
0 8 16 32
Fabric Screen
Corrugated Polycarbonate
2" x 4" Lumber Slats
4" x 4" Column
2" x 12" Joists
Play Space Benches
Ventilated Floor Slab
Metal Grate Flooring
1. Classroom2. Food Prep3. Entry / Office4. Storage5. Mechanical6. Classroom7. Ablutions8. Prayer Room9. Play Space
1
1
2
3
45
2
8
9
FIRST FLOOR PLANROOF PLAN
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
0 8 16 32
ROOF PLAY SPACE PRAYER SPACE
5049
Designed by architect and Penn State professor A. William Hajjar in 1959, the Air Wall Research Building was one of the first buildings which utilized a double skin facade, a system which attempted to maximized transparency and natural light without sacrificing the performance of a poorly insulated, fully glazed facade. The Air Wall Building has since been demolished.
Myself and another graduate student have been working with a research team of Penn State faculty, creating both a digital model for energy analysis and documentation, as well as a physical model.
HAJJAR AIR WALLRESEARCH BUILDINGSTATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA
Fall 2015 to Spring 2016Research Team: Ute Poerschke, Henry Pisciotta, David Goldberg, Moses Ling, Mahyar Hadighi, Marie McKenna, Laurin Goad
27' - 0"
27' -
0"
9' - 9 1/2" 9' - 9 1/2"3' - 6 3/8" 3' - 6 1/4"
3' -
6 3/
8"9'
- 9
1/2"
9' -
9 1/
2"3'
- 6
3/8"
6' - 0 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2"0' - 4 3/4"0' - 6 3/4" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 6 3/4"
0' -
6 3/
4"6'
- 0
3/4"
0' -
4 3/
4"2'
- 9
1/2"
0' -
4 3/
4"2'
- 9
1/2"
0' -
4 3/
4"6'
- 0
3/4"
0' -
6 3/
4"
3' - 4"1' - 4 7/8"
1' - 2"0' - 9 3/8"
6' - 3 3/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 6' - 3 3/4"
12' - 8"
6' -
2 1/
4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
6 PM
A102
First and Second Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
FIRST + SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A102
1114
' -6"
1115
' -6"
1116
' -6"
1117'-6"
1117
' -6"
1118'-6"
1118
' -6"
23' - 5 5/8"
9' - 11 5/8" 9' - 11 5/8" 3' - 6 3/8"
23' -
5 5
/8"
9' -
11 5
/8"
9' -
11 5
/8"
3' -
6 3/
8"
2' - 8 1/2"
2' - 8 5/8"
6' - 8 3/4"
6' -
8 3/
4"
3' - 3 7/8"
5' - 11 5/8"
5' -
11 5
/8"
3' - 4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
5 PM
A101
Ground Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
GROUND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A101
2A301
27' - 8 7/8"
27' -
8 7
/8"
3' - 10 1/2" 0' - 6 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 6 3/4"
1' - 4 7/8"
1' - 2"
1' - 3 5/8"
6' - 3 3/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 6' - 3 3/4"
12' - 8"
6' -
2 1/
4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
7 PM
A103
Third Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
THIRD FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A103
01 Ground Floor0' - 0"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
00 Top of Footer-2' - 8"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
06 Roof34' - 7 3/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
As indicated 1/13
/201
6 3:
22:2
8 PM
A301
Building Section
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
1
A301
BUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
2
A301
DETAIL SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1st + 2nd FLOOR PLAN 3rd FLOOR PLAN
SECTIONDETAIL SECTION
Designed by architect and Penn State professor A. William Hajjar in 1959, the Air Wall Research Building was one of the first buildings which utilized a double skin facade, a system which attempted to maximized transparency and natural light without sacrificing the performance of a poorly insulated, fully glazed facade. The Air Wall Building has since been demolished.
Myself and another graduate student have been working with a research team of Penn State faculty, creating both a digital model for energy analysis and documentation, as well as a physical model.
HAJJAR AIR WALLRESEARCH BUILDINGSTATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA
Fall 2015 to Spring 2016Research Team: Ute Poerschke, Henry Pisciotta, David Goldberg, Moses Ling, Mahyar Hadighi, Marie McKenna, Laurin Goad
27' - 0"
27' -
0"
9' - 9 1/2" 9' - 9 1/2"3' - 6 3/8" 3' - 6 1/4"
3' -
6 3/
8"9'
- 9
1/2"
9' -
9 1/
2"3'
- 6
3/8"
6' - 0 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2"0' - 4 3/4"0' - 6 3/4" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 6 3/4"
0' -
6 3/
4"6'
- 0
3/4"
0' -
4 3/
4"2'
- 9
1/2"
0' -
4 3/
4"2'
- 9
1/2"
0' -
4 3/
4"6'
- 0
3/4"
0' -
6 3/
4"
3' - 4"1' - 4 7/8"
1' - 2"0' - 9 3/8"
6' - 3 3/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 6' - 3 3/4"
12' - 8"
6' -
2 1/
4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
6 PM
A102
First and Second Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
FIRST + SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A102
1114
' -6"
1115
' -6"
1116
' -6"
1117'-6"
1117
' -6"
1118'-6"
1118
' -6"
23' - 5 5/8"
9' - 11 5/8" 9' - 11 5/8" 3' - 6 3/8"
23' -
5 5
/8"
9' -
11 5
/8"
9' -
11 5
/8"
3' -
6 3/
8"
2' - 8 1/2"
2' - 8 5/8"
6' - 8 3/4"
6' -
8 3/
4"
3' - 3 7/8"
5' - 11 5/8"
5' -
11 5
/8"
3' - 4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
5 PM
A101
Ground Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
GROUND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A101
2A301
27' - 8 7/8"
27' -
8 7
/8"
3' - 10 1/2" 0' - 6 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 2' - 9 1/2" 0' - 4 3/4" 6' - 0 3/4" 0' - 6 3/4"
1' - 4 7/8"
1' - 2"
1' - 3 5/8"
6' - 3 3/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 3' - 2 1/4" 6' - 3 3/4"
12' - 8"
6' -
2 1/
4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
1/2" = 1'-0" 1/13
/201
6 3:
20:4
7 PM
A103
Third Floor
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
THIRD FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
A103
01 Ground Floor0' - 0"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
00 Top of Footer-2' - 8"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
06 Roof34' - 7 3/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
As indicated 1/13
/201
6 3:
22:2
8 PM
A301
Building Section
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
1
A301
BUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
2
A301
DETAIL SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1st + 2nd FLOOR PLAN 3rd FLOOR PLAN
SECTIONDETAIL SECTION
01 Ground Floor0' - 0"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
00 Top of Footer-2' - 8"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
06 Roof34' - 7 3/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
02 First Floor8' - 6 1/4"
03 Second Floor17' - 7 1/8"
05 Third Floor26' - 7 3/4"
Scale
Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
As indicated 1/13
/201
6 3:
22:2
8 PM
A301
Building Section
AJV, MEM
Hajjar Air Wall Building
CheckerAuthor
Issue DateProject Number
1
A301
BUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
2
A301
DETAIL SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
PHOTOGRAPH, 1961 REVIT MODEL, 2016
5251
The suburban life does not need to be lived in the suburbs. To destigmatize our decaying city centers, the unique sentiment of the American home must be allowed to operate within the quasi-urban cavity defined by urbanity and sub-urbanity.
American community ideology, rooted in antiquated agrarian ideals, would have us believe that “the good life” lies outside the realm of the city. This has promoted a culture engrossed in individual freedoms, manifesting itself in the changing settlement structures of the early twentieth century. Suburban settlements were not immune to the pervading community bias and were unable to detach themselves from a fundamentally rural sentiment of home. The resulting urban neglect has produced a perpetually stigmatized city and a disassociated domain on the urban periphery. To discourage these tendencies, cities must offer an architecture which reconciles these competing residential preferences and lifestyles.
Residential choice is currently divided: urban and not-urban. The project questions the necessity of this dichotomy, with a long term goal to reduce suburbanization’s adverse effects on the built and natural environment through offering a “middle ground” residential typology. The project identifies the boundary between residences as the most underutilized space in residential architecture. Its fundamental use as a space-making device is questioned by dividing the party wall and concentrating interactions within this gap. The ideal outcome of the project would be a shift in how we divide space and delineate ownership of property; from compartmentalization to obscured and interlacing boundaries.
SUPERSUBURBANTHESISDETROIT, MICHIGAN
Fall 2015 and Spring 2016Professor - Juan Ruescas
5453
The suburban life does not need to be lived in the suburbs. To destigmatize our decaying city centers, the unique sentiment of the American home must be allowed to operate within the quasi-urban cavity defined by urbanity and sub-urbanity.
American community ideology, rooted in antiquated agrarian ideals, would have us believe that “the good life” lies outside the realm of the city. This has promoted a culture engrossed in individual freedoms, manifesting itself in the changing settlement structures of the early twentieth century. Suburban settlements were not immune to the pervading community bias and were unable to detach themselves from a fundamentally rural sentiment of home. The resulting urban neglect has produced a perpetually stigmatized city and a disassociated domain on the urban periphery. To discourage these tendencies, cities must offer an architecture which reconciles these competing residential preferences and lifestyles.
Residential choice is currently divided: urban and not-urban. The project questions the necessity of this dichotomy, with a long term goal to reduce suburbanization’s adverse effects on the built and natural environment through offering a “middle ground” residential typology. The project identifies the boundary between residences as the most underutilized space in residential architecture. Its fundamental use as a space-making device is questioned by dividing the party wall and concentrating interactions within this gap. The ideal outcome of the project would be a shift in how we divide space and delineate ownership of property; from compartmentalization to obscured and interlacing boundaries.
SUPERSUBURBANTHESISDETROIT, MICHIGAN
Fall 2015 and Spring 2016Professor - Juan Ruescas
5453
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
stre
etgr
ass
side
wal
k
front
yar
d
hom
e
back
yar
d
stre
etgr
ass
side
wal
k
porc
h
front
yar
d
hom
e
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alle
y
VACANCYTIME TO CITY CENTERSUBURBAN NECESSITIES +
INSCRIBED INFRASTRUCTURE
01234567
THRESHOLDS
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Immeubles Villas-Le Corbusier
Narkomfin Building-Moisei Ginzburg
Unite d'Habitation-Le Corbusier
Robin Hood Gardens-Alison and Peter Smithson
Spangen Quarter Housing-Michiel Brinkman
5655
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
stre
etgr
ass
side
wal
k
front
yar
d
hom
e
back
yar
d
stre
etgr
ass
side
wal
k
porc
h
front
yar
d
hom
e
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alle
y
VACANCYTIME TO CITY CENTERSUBURBAN NECESSITIES +
INSCRIBED INFRASTRUCTURE
01234567
THRESHOLDS
_suburban/suburbandetroit metro
_urban/suburbandetroit city
Dogma, A Field of Walls
Michael Maltzan, One Santa Fe
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
home
back
yar
d
stre
et
gras
sside
walk
fron
t ya
rd
porch
home
back
yar
d
gara
ge
alley
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Immeubles Villas-Le Corbusier
Narkomfin Building-Moisei Ginzburg
Unite d'Habitation-Le Corbusier
Robin Hood Gardens-Alison and Peter Smithson
Spangen Quarter Housing-Michiel Brinkman
5655
10.8% 27.5%
1950 2015
_inscribed urbanism +suburban necessities
_inner city vacancy
James Wines, SITE, Highrise of Homes Filip Dujardin, FictionsA.B. Walker, 1909 Theorem
SUPERSUBURBAN
10.8% 27.5%
1950 2015
_inscribed urbanism +suburban necessities
_inner city vacancy
James Wines, SITE, Highrise of Homes Filip Dujardin, FictionsA.B. Walker, 1909 Theorem
SUPERSUBURBAN
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
1950
2016
Avg. Influenced Area -Daily [-]:Weekly:
Monthly [+]:
0.068 mi.2
0.318 mi.2
0.386 mi.2
4.23 mi.
Avg. Influenced Area -Daily [-]:Weekly:
Monthly [+]:
0.302 mi.2
0.748 mi.2
0.959 mi.2
9.93 mi.
Suburbia gives the appearance of independence through clearly defined ownership boundaries, but the reality is that the less urban one becomes, the more dependent on the system one becomes. In other words, the area that influences you becomes much larger. DETROIT, MI
STATE COLLEGE, PA
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Site Constraints Vehicular Circulation Stacked Program Sun Exposure /Views to Downtown
Division of Units
DETROIT, MICHIGANDOWNTOWN + MIDTOWN
5857
10.8% 27.5%
1950 2015
_inscribed urbanism +suburban necessities
_inner city vacancy
James Wines, SITE, Highrise of Homes Filip Dujardin, FictionsA.B. Walker, 1909 Theorem
SUPERSUBURBAN
10.8% 27.5%
1950 2015
_inscribed urbanism +suburban necessities
_inner city vacancy
James Wines, SITE, Highrise of Homes Filip Dujardin, FictionsA.B. Walker, 1909 Theorem
SUPERSUBURBAN
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
1950
2016
Avg. Influenced Area -Daily [-]:Weekly:
Monthly [+]:
0.068 mi.2
0.318 mi.2
0.386 mi.2
4.23 mi.
Avg. Influenced Area -Daily [-]:Weekly:
Monthly [+]:
0.302 mi.2
0.748 mi.2
0.959 mi.2
9.93 mi.
Suburbia gives the appearance of independence through clearly defined ownership boundaries, but the reality is that the less urban one becomes, the more dependent on the system one becomes. In other words, the area that influences you becomes much larger. DETROIT, MI
STATE COLLEGE, PA
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Michigan Central Station
Masonic Temple
Comerica Park
Urban Locations
Area of Influence
Driving Routes
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
3.80 mi.
0.021 mi.20.162 mi.20.174 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.96 mi.
0.104 mi.20.765 mi.20.765 mi.2
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
6.71 mi.
0.033 mi.20.288 mi.20.573 mi.2
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
9.93 mi.
0.302 mi.20.748 mi.20.959 mi.2
1 2 3 4
AVG.AREA OF INFLUENCE:
AVG.Σ ROUTE LENGTH:
DAILY[-] :WEEKLY :
MONTHLY[+] :
4.23 mi.
0.068 mi.20.318 mi.20.386 mi.2
D E T R O I T R I V E R
1 2 3 4
TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH:
AREA OF INFLUENCE: DAILY[-] :
WEEKLY :MONTHLY[+] :
5.06 mi.
0.099 mi.20.215 mi.20.258 mi.2
Site Constraints Vehicular Circulation Stacked Program Sun Exposure /Views to Downtown
Division of Units
DETROIT, MICHIGANDOWNTOWN + MIDTOWN
5857
a v i s c h a n s k y @ g m a i l , c o m