pugh scarpa book sm

7/31/2019 Pugh Scarpa Book Sm

1/93

SERIES OF CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTS STUDIO REPORT IN THE UNITED STATES

Pugh+

Scarpa

Acknowledgements

This publication has been

made possible with help and

cooperation of many people

and insititutions The great-

ful acknowledgement is made to

Pugh + Scarpa for its inspir-

ing work and kindly supporting

us to prepare a book about Pugh

+ Scarpa for Book Series of

Contemporary Architects Sudio

Report In The United Sates

All rights reserved No part

of this publication may be

repreduced stored in a re-

trieval system or tansmitted

in any form or by means elec-

tronic mechanical photocopy-

ing recording or otherwise

without the permission of

AADCU

Office of Publications

United Asia Art & Design Co-

operation

www aadcu org

info@aadcu org

Project Director:

Bruce Q Lan

Coordinator:Robin Luo

Edited and published by:

Beijing Office United Asia Art

& Design Cooperation

bj-info@aadcu org

Editor in Chief:

Bruce Q Lan

Book Design:

Design studio/AADCU

Translation:

Blue Space Tranlation Office

ISBN: 121356780x

www.aadcu.org

info@aad cu.org

info-bj@ aadcu.org

/

AADCU

Pugh+Scarpa


2/93

Introductionwith Article Review, page7.Project SurveyColorado Court, page23.COoP Editorial, page41. Nascent Ter-

rain, page57.Diva, page65. Orande Grove, page75. North Point,

page83. Jigsaw, page93. Solar Umbrella, page107. SM College Stu-

dent Service Center,page115. Bergmot Station, page123. Vail

Grant House, page137. The Firm, page147. XAP, page155. Reactor

Firms, page167.Chronologypage177&Bibilography,page186.

Contents


3/93







Contents


4/93

Introduction With Article Review

INTERVIEW WITH LAWRENCE SCARPA

By Mark Dillon for Volume 5

V5: Pugh + Scarpa has developed a fast response designstudio which works closely with a wide range of trades.

How does this work?

LS: Each project is different so the team and rela-tionships change. In the case of our project InsideOut, a renovation of a building built in the 1960s,the owner wanted to convert it into a place where theycould do off-line editing. The first thing that reallystruck me was how the courtyards were buried internallywithin the offices, and we really wanted to make thempart of the public space. I worked from the conditions

that presented themselves. The found conditions wereinspiring to me and something that has always been ofgreat interest. A lot of the paneling and the exteriordoors on the exterior were reused in the interior. Wewound up reusing quite a bit of the materials that werealready there by virtue of stripping and reconfiguringthem.

V5: Did your team design all the built in furniture?

LS: Yes. We were using a lot of the materials that wefound on the site for this as well.

V5: That requires a level of hands on evaluations asyou go through a project.

LS: Absolutely. A lot of times we wind up changing ourminds in the middle of things and having to deal withdecisions that we have.

V5: Does that scare the client?

LS: Initially, yes. But we have gotten into a posi-tion where they are more comfortable with the interiorsthat we do by virtue of our past portfolio. But in thebeginning it was very difficult.

V5: You are working with a very rich palette of mate-rials; existing woods, metals, plaster and drywall. Isthat hard to control?

LS: In this case, the materials stemmed from the exist-ing wood in the office, so we used that as a base forour palette. The steel that you see is actually some-thing that we developed with the fabricator, who is in-cidentally a great craftsman. We did probably a hundredsamples of steel and this is just cold rolled, eighteen-gauge steel, we sandblasted it then started rubbing itwith gun blue and copper.

V5: Did you make your own finish recipe?

LS: Yes, we developed our own recipe to come up withthe kind of finish that is there. So what really inter-ests me and has taken me a long time to learn is whatyou can find in simplicity. I have become less interest-ed in form-making and more interested in space shapingand the experience of it. In fact, I taught a studiothis past semester at Otis College with my wife, An-gela Brooks, where we did an interiors project. Unlikemost student projects, we did not concern ourselveswith form making at all, but did material exercises. Welooked at how we could turn the horizontal grains, howthe verticals changed with subtle patterns, things youalso see in steel as well as in wood.

V5: In your design process, how do you visualize these

factors in order to bring that kind of decision-makinginformation to the project?

Introduction With article Review

Introduction Introduction

Mark Dillon

+

-,

60

10018

8 9

Below: interior view of

the COop editorial

Right upper: exterior

view of the Bergamot

loft


5/93

LS: With this particular project we did do all draw-ings. Generally we try to do it differently for eachproject so that we get a fresh perspective each time.For example, I find that working in the same method overand over again, whether it is doing drawings or makingmodels, will have a certain predictability of what theoutcome is. We try to say, lets not do it the way wedid it in the last project and lets try something com-pletely different. What that does is it makes us seethings that we would not normally see.

V5: There is clarity of all the materials.

LS: Yes. That is an interest that repeats for us overand over, this kind of idea of surface wrapping or

making space through surfaces that create a negativespace. You can see things that penetrate through suchas ceiling planes that turn into wall planes and con-nect to the floor planes. The materials are important.How can you put a material on the floor and wall thatwill work in both cases?

V5: It adds a level dynamic quality to the space, thereis not a bottom, middle or top. It is not a classiclanguage.

LS: Right. Which is what I am interested in and in-trigued with. What we try to do is to make each pieceextremely readable and the whole project will in someways become more abstracted through readable pieces.

LS: One of the things that really inspired me wassomething Robert Venturi said, Familiar things seen inan unfamiliar way become both perceptually old and newat the same time. So when you are able to take things,for example, this (shipping) container, it alreadyhas a history or richness already built in it. So toweave in some piece, so to speak, of history or some-thing that someone relates to, it already has a sortof richness to it. Then we transform it into somethingelse. In the case of the (shipping) container, it hasa incredible history of housing of goods, being movedfrom east to west, it has its own baggage attached toit before you even touch it. Then when you alter it youdevelop an even richer meaning and story to it.

V5: It is very collage like in that the first reading ofit is not a (shipping) container at all, it has beenmanipulated to a point that it is clearly somethingquite different.

LS: We are not interested in just taking down thingsand throwing them into the space.

V5: You have authorship of the design.

LS: Yes. We treat the things pretty seriously and onething that we have become fairly good at as an of-

fice is the pragmatic issues. A lot of architects havea very poor sigma attached to them regarding cost anddetailing. When we design a conference room, we makeit acoustically sound. We try to treat the budget andprogram quite seriously when we deal with the project.We take a lot of risks and many times we have to makeamends for that, yet we treat it seriously. GramercyGroup Homes was a project that we did with some SCI-Arcstudents and this was a sixteen-unit rehab for single,teenage mothers, a non-profit group in the Crenshawdistrict of Los Angeles. We did a one-week study andbuilt this project. This was actually one of my stu-dents ideas, Wendy Bone. My client provided them witha space, since they had no money. SCI-Arc kicked in afew dollars and we were funded. The students built thefurniture for the mothers as well. You can see the back

of the structure and one of the interiors, a very smallunit, about three hundred square feet each. Jackson,who works in my office, made all the furniture and wedid these tables with a storage box on the side, it isa very large table so that they can do homework anddine. It has a little storage component with a doorthat flips down and this is the little kids worktable.Of course, you get a lot of interest at first, but itwound up being a small, dedicated group of people thatreally did the work. This non-profit group built allthis very inexpensively. I am quite proud of this work.

V5: Did these projects lead to the new residentialprojects that you are now working on?

LS: Partly. We have done work with the schools herewhere we have actually worked with the elementaryschool kids and art teachers where we actually havemade tiles and plaques. Now they hang in the schoolhallways. Another collaboration-based project was theelectric vehicle charging station; we did that in con-junction with Tony Louie, and John Ingersol. We wrotea grant through a state assembly bill for clean airproject securing funding to build this project. Thenwe went to the City of Santa Monica, saying we havemoney to build this project, can you provide a site forus, and they did. So we are active in trying to cre-ate projects as well as waiting for projects to come tous. The kinds of projects we try to create are one thatinvolve the community and reach out to other people.We did a housing complex project in South Central LosAngeles with Roger Sherman, which was an invited com-petition, we didnt win. It consisted of forty unitsof housing, a mixed-use project and we put together adesign-build team, which included a non-profit developerand contractors, and was sponsored by First InterstateBank.

V5: How many other participants where there in the com-petition?

LS: It started out open, they then pared it down to tenand then down to three.


18-GUAGE

Robert Venturi

Gramercy Group Home

16

300

10 11


6/93

V5: Is the project going forward?

LS: Yes, it is under construction now. Dan Solomon outof San Francisco won the competition. But our strategywas our belief in doing the right thing, making it homeownership, as opposed to rentals. We provided everysingle home with a private garden, so rather than it becondominiums with a balcony, on all levels every unithad a garden. That in turn made our project more expen-sive and we needed entitlements for it to get done, soit was a much more difficult undertaking than Dan Solo-mons project. I think that was part of the reason whywe didnt win but we obviously thought ours was a muchbetter project.

V5: Did First Interstate Bank pay for your developmentcosts?

LS: We did received some money to prepare a design,

which is unlike most competitions. It just means welost that much less. (laughs)

V5: We just did an interview with Yo Hakomori and theteam ( HPST ) that worked on the Beijing competition,and they spoke about how expensive in time and materialit is. It is a fairly extraordinary undertaking. Do youfind your studio doing competitions often?

LS: We do them, but try to be selective about them. Wepick competitions based on what our real interests are.I think that helps our studio.

We talked about how the contractor is part of our teamand we generally do things without bidding them, soits negotiated in the budget, and we start construc-

tion often within the first week of design. We reallywork as a team. Our project Click3xLA started withthe idea of a translucent wall. All the offices are cladin translucent corrugated fiberglass. We wanted it toglow. Many times you will go into large film companiesand their offices are dismal, its like they turn theirback on them to make a kind of pretty form. They aredark, no light in them and are a terrible work environ-ment. Its important for us to look at the offices as animportant work place and getting natural light into itwas part of it. So we were looking for ways to maintainprivacy, which was very important to them, but also getlight. The wall acts as a translucent filter, which alsoilluminates the space when the lights are on.

V5: Is the carpet of your design as well?

LS: Yes, the carpet, coffee table and reception desk wedesigned as well. This was done in a similar fashionwhere we take common carpets and stitch them togetherinto patterns, which we can do very economically.

V5: Have you ever taken your furniture outside thecontext of a project and began to market it as a stand-alone product?

LS: No, we havent, but right now we are working withDave Scott, who we do the steel work with, we are juststarting now to do some products. We are going to de-velop a new product line and expand it beyond furni-ture.

V5: It seems that you hire lots of young people intoyour studio.

LS: Yes, we are mostly young people. Some of the peopleI have known for a long time. For instance, Heatherand Jackson were students of mine, and Tim is an SCI-Arc graduate and the most experienced person. Joe is anengineer and fresh out of school.

V5: What advice would you give a student?


Tony Louie

John Ingersol

,

RogerSherman

40

1 0

3

Dan Solomon

Yo Hakomori

Click3xLA

.

Dave Scott

1 0

10

12 13

Above: interior view ofthe COop editorial


7/93

LS: I tend to look for people who can acquire experi-ence. There are some people who get ten years of ex-perience in ten years; I look for the people who canget ten years of experience in two years. So being athinker is important, I dont necessary look for provenskills or experience, but people who think criticallyabout what they do. I want people in our office who con-tribute and not just do whatever we tell them to do. Tobe able to bring to the table ideas and challenge ourideas and test them. We are also small enough that wecare about architecture and try to operate it like astudio. You can see in our studio there is not a singledoor. (laughs) So our private meeting space is out-side in the parking lot, thats where we conduct pri-vate meetings. (laughs) Everyone here can draw and westill draw a lot even though everyone has a computer.

Freehand drawing is still an integral part of what wedo. Everyone here is very versatile. We operate like alittle kids soccer team! The whole team follows theball, so thats how we go, everyone is on a projectthen we jump to the next project. It is partly becausewe are in constant charette mode because of how fast wehave to do projects. It is very intense, almost likedoing a studio project, so we need people who can thinkquick and develop ideas quickly and implement them. Iwish we had projects that we could spend two years on,but most of them are very short and intense, but ex-tremely gratifying. We will work on a project and inthree months or less, see it completely built. There isa certain beauty to that as opposed to a big house thattakes five years to finish. One of my first collaborationswas with David Hertz in 1989. He fabricated a concretestair for us. This was my first project in Los Angelesthat I was really excited about. This was the typicalstudent project in the sense that I got so into it anddetailed everything. What happened in the course ofthis project was the owner; a film director and a veryhigh-powered guy kept stripping it. I was very angrythat he was destroying my building by taking out allthe stuff that I had designed. But in the end, it was amuch better project, because he reduced it to its es-sence and I was surprised. It was a great lesson for mebecause I could then see the beauty in simplicity.

V5: You work with metal fabricators and all differenttypes of craftspeople but David Hertz is an architect.Do you often work with other architects?

LS: I have always loved Davids product. Then when Icame to Los Angeles I was thinking of the possibili-ties of Syndecrete and was able to develop them in thisproject. We had to go very quickly. The client wanteda really strong image, so we took a simple idea of thestair to connect the two levels. I though it shouldbe a very powerful mass, yet how we could do this inbudget and on time. I approached David with the ideaof a spiral stair and said I need to make this thing

while the building is under construction, so when thebuilding is done, we can just assemble it there. We

Introduction

10

3

5

1989

David Hertz

14


8/93

V5: I have always thought that with Baragans work.When you look at his work in plan, it does not seemextraordinary; there are not the clues that say this isgoing to be an amazing piece of architecture. Yet whenyou see it there is something that is just breathtak-ing. It is a little scary because we have to make somany judgments from plan form and sectional form andmodels and it is as though someone is seeing thingsthat we are not able to.

LS: Its hard especially if you are early in yourcareer. Our plans of our projects tend to be prettyboring, the plan is generally orthogonal. I guess theold adage of the plan as the determinate of form forus is really not of significance or an issue. We often

get times when our clients will say, cant you rotatethis nor do something in plan, and its always workto convince them not to worry about what the plan is.Thats not really important. Its the space that is re-ally quite important, and the plan is just an outcomeof your intentions. I try to teach one class a year,although I have taught the last three semesters in arow, which is a bit too much for me.

I like the energy of being around students and studentscontribute to make your work better. One of the beauti-ful things about Los Angeles is there are a hand fullof really good schools and there is the opportunity toteach in several places.

V5: Do you find your interest more in line with certainprograms.

LS: No, not particularly, since my interests vary somuch. I am interested in the idea at the moment andalthough there are many common threads in our work, my

interest lies in a wider array of experiences. What Ido like tremendously about Woodbury University, thestudents there are incredible in the fact that they areextremely hard working. Most of the students are therebecause of circumstance, and not because of a great de-sire to go to Woodbury. They are hungry and hardworkingand remind me in some ways of SCI-Arc in the old dayswhere people went there because they could get into theschool. There were incredible faculty and the studentswere driven, and I think Woodbury is that school now.

V5: It is scrappy. (laughs)

LS: Very, very scrappy, blue collar. Bright kids andvery hungry for architecture.

V5: You get the sense teaching there that for abouthalf of the students, it is their familys first genera-tion into higher education. They are very hard workingand a little scared.

LS: Right. Maybe thats partly why I like it there too

came up with the idea of three pieces, a sort of radiusrail piece, and a tread and tread support. David workedwith us and we made one prototype and then adjusted it.David went to town and had his guys start fabricatingpiece after piece, so there were about twenty sets ofcomponents. Then when we were ready they brought theparts to the job site and we bolted them into place.That was the first project we collaborated on.

V5: The heavy base of concrete stair and the very lightsystem of metal for the walk is a very nice contrast.

LS: That is basically the idea. The concrete stair tiestwo levels together so they can interface. It really isan exciting place when they are doing casting calls be-cause there is this incredible activity. I think what I

am most proud of is that in almost ten years they havenot altered this project in anyway. Im most pleasedthat most of our projects have remained unaltered. Itsays that people like their environment.

V5: When you went back is there now a patina to thematerials?

LS: Yes, in some ways it feels better because the Syn-decrete material is wearing at the stairs. It is agingnicely now. It feels like an old place now. (laughs)

V5: You have taught at a range of different schoolshere. What do you think of the schools in the Los Ange-les area? How much time do you spend teaching?

LS: Ive taught at SCI-Arc, University of Florida, Mis-sissippi State University, University of New Mexico,Otis College, and Woodbury University. At Woodbury Idid a joint project with Jennifer Siegal, where we useda sixty-seven foot trailer that was donated by the

Salvation Army for a client of mine, a non-profit group.I approached Jen and we talked about doing this as astudio and we did in one summer! So Im interested ingiving back as well and this is sort of one form of it.

V5: I think that is an amazing project, I have walkedthrough some of the Los Angeles junior high and highschools and there are all these temporary buildings andreally awful trailers set up that the students mustspend six hours a day in. There is no quality gradegiven to schools.

LS: In the case of that trailer, for thirty-five hundreddollars, you can make these incredible things out of avery simple project with a singular move. So thingsbecome incredibly rich with very little in terms of theform. I think of the Salk Institute, if you look at thedrawings for that and you give those to a student to-day, and present this as one of your second year proj-ects, you would be failed as a student. But go see the

building, it is awe-inspiring. There is a differencebetween looking at the form and experiencing the place.


3

500

Baragan

16 17

Right: house detail of

the Jigsaw


9/93

them and go, Wow. I then found out who the architectwas and I said this is the guy Im going to work for.He wound up hiring me; his name was Gene Leedy. I endedup working for him in the summers and to this day weare still very good friends. He was Paul Rudolphs firstemployee in Florida, so there was that connection thereas well and he put in a good word for me.

V5: What was that like being in Paul Rudolphs office?

LS: I pulled more all nighters in the two years thatI was there than in my four years in school. It washard work, but extremely gratifying. There were certainthings in his office that I learned such as how to de-velop a method of design. One of the great experienceswas a house in Jacksonville, Florida that he did called

the Biome House, incredible concrete block house, andI always loved that house. So one of the first things Idid when I started work there was I went to the base-ment in the shop in SoHo and found the drawings for thehouse. I pulled out all the drawings and when I opened

because Im the first generation, college educated in myfamily. Perhaps there is some kind of relationship.

V5: Where did you go to school?

LS: I went to school at the University of Florida, andin some ways because it was the local school. My fatheris an Italian immigrant and most of my family barelyfinished high school. When I grew up, we really didnthave too many books around the house other than SportsIllustrated. I always knew from a young age that Iwanted to become an architect, but mainly because myfather, who worked for the post office, used to do smallconstruction jobs such as additions. I would hang outwith him and get in his way, and thats what I thoughtarchitects did. (laughs)

V5: Maybe it is what architects do!

LS: I always wanted to become an architect and the in-teresting thing was my father had also always wanted tobecome an architect, but because of having four chil-dren, it just never happened.

V5: Was your family supportive of your education?

LS: Yes, but frankly, my parents really didnt knowwhat to do. They were supportive about going to col-lege, but had no idea what you do to get accepted tocollege. I wasnt the most stellar high school student,although I knew what I wanted to do at an early age.So I went to the local college my first year and tookthe only class that the college offered that resembledarchitecture, I think it was a drafting class. I waslucky enough that the guy who taught it asked me what Iwas doing there. I said I was going to be an architect,to which he replied, You are in the wrong place.

(laughs) He was the one who told me what I needed to doin order to go to architecture school and educated meof the process of becoming an architect. I didnt re-ally wake up until my first year of college. I wound uptransferring very quickly to Florida and upon gradua-tion, I moved to New York and worked for Paul Rudolph.He was the guy who was a very big influence on me whileI was in school.

V5: Thats quite of jump. Did someone help you in col-lege to get into the Rudolph office?

LS: No, but I worked summers with an architect, who Isort of forced myself upon until he acquiesced.

V5: Did you sleep on his doorstep?

LS: When I played high school baseball, our playingfield was up against a residential area, and balls werehit over the fence, which I would have to go get. I

remember seeing these incredible houses and they weremade out of pre-stressed concrete and I used to look at


4

18 19

Right below: house de-

tail of the Jigsaw


10/93

them up, I was in complete shock. He kept very goodrecords, so when I looked at the very first sketches ofthe house and it was the most god-awful design I hadever seen. (laughs) But then when you look through it,you can see the evolution and at that point I realizedthere might be hope for me. I had thought his talentwas god given and, with a stroke of genius had justcome with the design. It was a lot of hard work andevolution; at that point I said there might be a chancefor me. At that point I became convinced that if youworked hard, you could better yourself significantly.

V5: There is always a kind of honesty and presenceabout Paul Rudolphs work.

LS: That was the way his lifestyle was and the way his

office worked.

V5: Did everyone work together?

LS: His office was a big studio, when you got off theelevator you were in the middle of the office. I hadalways been under the impression before I went to workthere, that it would be a corporate place like I.M.Peis studio or SOM. It was completely opposite, it waslike going into a SCI-Arc studio, and it looked justlike that. You got off the elevator on Fifty-seventhStreet; you opened the elevator, and were in the mid-dle of a bunch of desks. There was nothing pretentiousabout it; it was a studio, not really an office.

V5: Where there hierarchies within the studio?

LS: No, there were only about eight people there whileI was there and one guy had been there for about twentyyears, another person ten years. There was really nohierarchy, he gave everyone as much experience and op-

portunity as you would take. He was a tough guy to workfor but fortunately I got along with him very well.

V5: Was he fairly quiet? The only personal view I haveof him is from the book Conversations with Architectsthat I read when I was a student.

LS: Yes, he was very quiet, but he could also be veryvolatile.

V5: How did he deal with the changes that happened inarchitecture, as styles and preferences moved away fromthe modern idiom and into Postmodern?

LS: He stayed with what he believed in. In fact, theAIA tried to give him the gold medal and he refused tojoin the AIA. Even the people who had worked for him,past employees and so forth, many who were very closeto him, especially during the early years of his ca-reer, said, We will do all the paperwork, all you haveto do is agree to sign up. He wouldnt do it. In someways he really practiced as an outsider and stuck to

what he believed and that was it.

V5: Is it personally difficult for him to see major com-missions go to other architects?

LS: No, he was busier later in his life than he wasearly in his life. He had tremendous projects overseasin Southeast Asia, spending a couple of months thereeach year. At least to me it never was an issue forhim. He never seemed frustrated about recognition. Ihad been to all his projects from the 1940s, ones hedid with Ralph Twitchel, the Cocoon House, which wasalmost destroyed and I would show him pictures. He washeartbroken; it would crush him to see them in suchdisrepair. It really bothered him because he truly bledarchitecture. He was a very interesting guy. After I

worked for Paul, I went to graduate school at the Uni-versity of Florida. Then moved to Vicenza, Italy andwas there for about two years teaching and doing re-search on Carlo Scarpa.

V5: Is there a family relationship there?

LS: No, the name Scarpa comes from a small fishing townjust south of Venice, and if you look in the phone bookthere, Scarpa is the equivalent of Rodriquez in Miami.(laughs) Its not an uncommon name, but I actually didmy graduate thesis project on Carlo Scarpa. It happenedstrictly out of coincidence. The interesting thing wasthat most everything that was written about Scarpa atthe time, even in Italian, was all bits and pieces,nothing that talked about his body of work, and that iswhat I focused on for my thesis.

V5: There is a strong sense of material quality and de-tail development that is supportive of the design ideasin both your work. Thank you Larry.


Jacksonville

Biome House

SOM

57

8

,20

10

2040

Ralph

TwitchelCocoon House

Vicenza

Carlo Scarpa

20 21


11/93







Contents


12/93

COLORADO COURT

Location of Project: 502 ColoradoAvenue, Santa Monica, California,USAClient/Owner: Community Corpora-tion of Santa MonicaTotal Square Footage: 30,150square feetDesigned: 2000Completed: 2002Cost: $4,200,000.00(US)

Awards: 2003 National AIA DesignAward, 2003 AIACC Award, 2003 AIA/LA Award, 2003 Rudy Bruner Prize,2003 World Habitat Award Final-ist, 2003 AIA COTE Top Ten GreenBuilding Award, SCANPH Projectof the Year, 2002 Westside UrbanPrize, 2003 AIA PIA National Hous-ing Award

Architects: PUGH SCARPA KODAMAProject Team: Lawrence Scarpa,AIA - Principal- in-Charge, Angela

Brooks, AIA - Project Architects,Peter Borrego, Gwynne Pugh, AIA,Anne Marie Kaufman-Brunner, AnneMarie Burke, Byron Merritt, Heath-er Duncan, Vanessa Hardy, BettinaHermsen, Tim Peterson, Ching Luk,Bill Sarnecky, Jackson Butler,Steve Kodama, FAIAProject Energy Engineer: Dr. JohnG. Ingersoll of Helios Interna-tional Inc.-- Energy EfficiencyMeasures, and Distributed PowerGeneration - Solar PV Power and

Co-Generation - for SustainableDevelopment in the Built Environ-ment.Structural Engineering: YoussefAssociatesMechanical Electrical Plumbing En-gineering: Storms and Lowe

Program:The program for this single resi-dent occupancy housing projectincludes:o 44 single resident occupan-cy units (375 square feet max perunit)o Community Roomo Mail Roomo Outdoor common courtyardspaces @ ground level and 2ndlevelo On-grade covered parkingfor 20 carso Bike StorageColorado Court is one of the firstbuildings of its type in theUnited States that is 100% energy

independent. Colorado Court dis-tinguishes itself from most con-ventionally developed projects inthat it incorporates energy ef-ficient measures that exceed stan-dard practice, optimize buildingperformance, and ensure reducedenergy use during all phases ofconstruction and occupancy. Theplanning and design of ColoradoCourt emerged from close consid-eration and employment of passivesolar design strategies. These

Colorado Court

Colorado Court

100%

/

30%

85%

10

6000

24

Right: exterior view of

the Colorado court


13/93

strategies include: locating andorienting the building to controlsolar cooling loads; shaping andorienting the building for expo-sure to prevailing winds; shapingthe building to induce buoyancyfor natural ventilation; design-ing windows to maximize daylight-ing; shading south facing windowsand minimizing west-facing glaz-ing; designing windows to maximizenatural ventilation; shaping andplanning the interior to enhancedaylight and natural air flow dis-tribution.

Colorado Court features severalstate of the art technologies thatdistinguish it as a model dem-onstration building of sustain-able energy supply and utiliza-tion. These technologies include anatural gas powered turbine/heatrecovery system that generate thebase electrical load and hot waterdemands for the building and asolar electric panel system inte-

grated into the faade and roof ofthe building that supply most ofthe peak load electricity demand.The co-generation system convertsutility natural gas to electricityto meet the base load power needsof the building and captures wasteheat to produce hot water for thebuilding throughout the year aswell as space heating needs in thewinter. This system has a conver-sion efficiency of natural gas inexcess of 85% compared to a less

than 30% conversion efficiencyof primary energy delivered bythe utility grid at the build-ing site. The solar photovoltaicsystem produces green electricityat the building site that releasesno pollutants to the environment.The panels are integral to thebuilding envelope and unused solarelectricity is delivered to thegrid during the daytime and re-trieved from the grid at night asneeded. These systems will pay forthemselves in less than ten yearsand annual savings in electricityand natural gas bills are estimat-ed to be in excess of $6000.

Construction Materials include:

**Most materials exceed the Cityof Santa Monica Standards for Sus-tainable building and comply withthe U.S. Green Council BuildingStandards

o Concrete Masonry Unit:

structural walls @ ground levelo Building Wall InsulationSystem: Walls meet R23 value-plaster finish with blown-in re-cycled insulation.o Roofing/Insulation System:High density foam insulation andhigh performance SBS modified bitu-men membrane roofingo State-of-the-art solar pho-tovoltaic integrated wall panelsystemo Glazing: High Efficiency

Dual Glazing (low-e)o Exterior Finishes: ConcreteMasonry Unit (CMU) face block,recycled light gauge steel, galva-nized sheet metal

Special thanks:City Of Santa Monica - Construc-tion And Permanent FundingSanta Monica Redevelopment AgencySouthern California Edison - Fund-ing Assistance And EnvironmentalSystemsRobert C. Johnson - CaliforniaEnergy CoalitionCraig Perkins City Of Santa MonicaPublic Works DepartmentCity Of Santa Monica EnvironmentalDept

Colorado Court Colorado Court

@

R23

/

SBS

:

26 27

Below: exterior view of

the Colorado court

Above: rendering of

the Colorado court and

the porch view of thecompleted project


14/93

Interview with Lawrence Scarpa

Lawrence Scarpa, AIA, is a partner in the Santa Monica firm Pugh + Scar-pa. Pugh-Scarpa-Kodama is a partnership with Steve Kodama that createdthe Colorado Court housing that received a 2003 Merit Award.

Q: How did you get into affordable housing?

A: We always wanted to do it and one of our partners, AngelaBrooks, had won a PA award for her housing work. We tried veryhard for many years but it was a diffi cult market to get into.So in 1996 we formed a partnership with a San Francisco archi-tect, Steve Kodama, who has 35 years experience doing housing.Pugh-Scarpa-Kodama, is a separate firm that focuses on afford-able housing. Kodama grew up in LA and he wanted to be more

active here. We had a mutual friend who helps cities put to-gether housing programs and he introduced us. I think wevedone about 10 projects together.

Q: Do you worry about diluting or confusing the brand of your firm?

A: People in the affordable housing sector dont care about thebrand thing.

Q: What was your motivation?

A: We believe in giving something back, do something for thegreater good. We have a lot of film industry clientele. So,its a way to look at the other side of architecture, but Ithink they turn out to be one in the same. You can bring thesame ideas to affordable design as to offices for movie stars.I dont think tight budgets preclude good design.

Q: How did you get so much sustainability into Colorado Courts, an af-fordable housing project?

A: We have always been interested in sustainability. Six orseven years ago we designed the only totally solar poweredelectrical vehicle charging station in the U.S. next to SantaMonica City Hall. To do that we had to be pretty creativeabout our strategy for funding. We found public money nobody

knew about.

For Colorado Court, Santa Monica provided the land on a longterm lease and provided construction financing with the stipula-tion that the project would be green. However, there were noguidelines as to what that meant. We could do what we wantedas long as it didnt cost any more. Of course it did, but wehad to find the resources. Our strategy was two pronged.

In affordable housing there is no real resource for additionalfunds. In this case they set aside a larger than normal proj-ect contingency. Our strategy was to design a super simplebuilding, so simple that we would minimize potential changeorders that would eat into the contingency. Every unit stacksvertically. Variety is in the horizontal elements. We usedthe balance of the contingency for green items at the tail-end

like natural linoleum, formaldehyde free cabinets, paints with-out VOC, and recycled carpet.

The other strategy was to look for money like we did at theelectric vehicle charging station. We got some money from theState through DOE in a buy-down program most people are famil-iar with. We also found a little known source of funding thatis now called the Six Cities Program, which sets resources fromutility bills aside for clean air projects.

Q: How did you create an energy independent project?

A: A combination of tools. Solar PV panels, a micro turbine,breezeways, and cross ventilation. The south facades haveshade and the north facade has glazing. When we designed theproject we went under the assumption that we were going to makeit happen. We would subtract the element if we didnt. Wewere well into the process before we knew it was going to hap-pen.

Q: With the new technology did anything go wrong?

A: The solar panels were by Atlantis Energy, BP Solar. Theyquit producing the panels we wanted so we had to redesign thestructure in the middle of construction.

Q: What about some of the design elements. What do they do?

A: They are abstract patterns. It is not a machine. We dontlive in machines. Those facades are sculptural and also pro-vide shading. We are interested in place making, a space forpeople. We are not interested in making a machine that is 100percent efficient. The key is to make a new architecture, a newparadigm. We made some sacrifices in efficiency for how peopleuse and enjoy the building.

Q: Can this become a model for other affordable housing projects?

A: I think it can. This is the perfect scenario. Youve gota building type with long term ownership. That is how theseenergy strategies pay off. This is the tenant population thatneeds this savings the most. These are the people who canleast afford the utility bills. In low income families utility

Colorado Court Colorado Court

+

++

,

2003

PA

1 996

Steve Kodama

35++

10

,

VOC

DOE

.

BP

: ?

:

100%

,

28 29


15/93


16/93

bills might represent as much as 50% of a familys income.

We have to change the way we think. In our society we thinkabout the least possible amount that a project can cost incapital expenditures on day one. Not what does it cost three,five, ten years from now? These kinds of project are an invest-ment in the future. We cannot afford not to do it. We havewars over oil. We have to look at the long term damage of ourresource consumption. Interestingly enough, the strong energysavings have proven to be a marketing edge.

The State of California has changed some of the ways they fundprojects because of Colorado Court. They view environmentallyfriendly projects more favorably with points through tax cred-its. There is much you can do that costs little or nothingmore. For example, using polished concrete floors is less ex-

pensive because there is no need for carpet. High content flyash in the concrete is stronger and no more expensive. Waterrecycling is a minimal additional cost. Of course, the ori-entation of the building helps. [I changed the last sentenceslightly.] A huge thing is to scrutinize the engineering data.My partner is an engineer and an architect and so we questionedthe engineers closely. We get them to remove some things. Allof that saves money.

Q: What has been the reaction from the occupants?

A: They like it. The head of the housing dept in Santa Monicasaid, We have done a lot of housing, this is the first onethat everybody likes. I hear that and I get a little bit wor-ried. It must be too soft. They had 3000 people on their wait-ing list for 44 units. The clients are proud that it is anenvironmentally sensitive bldg. They were surprised how wellthe tenants like the building.

Q: What is going to happen to affordable housing?

A: We dont have enough. A few years ago I helped start anon-profit housing development corporation (www.livableplaces.org). I think well intentioned people sometimes lose sight oftheir vision. Livable Places wants to influence policy. Wewant people with creativity and commitment to have a chance todesign, even if they have not done this kind of work. We werefrustrated at how affordable housing was developed and how itlooked. I wanted to show that it does matter. Most afford-able housing developers dont want to do mixed use because howthese projects are funded. We are doing mixed use because itmakes sense. So we bring together different funding sourcesand dont use some of the typical sources that try and tell ushow to do things. I think this group has the potential forbecoming a new model for the development of affordable housing.It seems to be the only way to shake up some of the fundingsources. We did this because it seemed to be the only way tomake significant change in how we think about affordable hous-ing. Weve received almost $ million in grants so someone mustbe listening. [orig sentence: We got this way by designing theprojects.]

Colorado Court

50%

35

10

,

: ?

:

: ,

300044

: ?

:

( http://www.livable-

placesorg)

32


17/93


18/93

Colorado Court Colorado Court36 37

Opposite: render-

ings of the Colorado

court in the draw-

ings: ground floor

plan site map and

unit plan


19/93

Opposite: exterior

view of the Colorado

court

Next page: solar

panel detail

Contents


20/93







Contents

COoP


21/93

COoP Editorial

Projects Formal Name: COoP Edi-torialLocation of Project: SantaMonica, CaliforniaClient/Owner: Optimus Corporation

Total Square Footage: 4,700 sq.ft.Costs: $410,000.00 ($87/sq. ft.)Architects: PUGH + SCARPAPersonnel in Firm to be Credited:Lawrence Scarpa, AIA - Principal-in-Charge. Peter Borrego, AngelaBrooks, AIA, Silke Clemens, Mi-chael Hannah, Vanessa Hardy, AnneMarie Burke, Ching Luk, FredrikNilsson, Tim Petersen, GwynnePugh, AIA, Bill Sarnecky, LawrenceScarpa, Katrin Terstegen - ProjectDesign Team.

Engineering: Gordon PolonGeneral Contractor: Hinerfeld WardInc.Photography: Marvin Rand

The design of this 4700 squarefoot tenant improvement evolvedfrom the unique challenge to re-model an early 1963 Frank Gehrydesigned commercial structurelocated in the heart of downtownSanta Monica.

The client is a full servicepost-production facility based

in Chicago. They provide ev-ery aspect of the TV commercialmaking process, including cre-ative on and off line editing,film transfer, special, visualand audio effects.

Like much or our work, thisproject is a continuation ofan ongoing inquiry. It is anongoing research into materi-als and technologies as wellas a re-examination of knownconditions, accepted norms andestablished methods. This haslead us to an innovative solu-tion and stimulating new way ofapproaching interior architec-ture. Without predefining archi-tecture, we responded directlyand intuitively to the materialqualities of place.

The context and program for theproduction studio suggests anexperience ordered like a filmor freeway, framing and con-taining reality. The design en-gages the user, heightens theirsense of awareness, and bringsa deeper understanding and vi-tality to their experience.

The design examines the tensionbetween materials, form andexperience. The interior canbe viewed as a skin or sur-face wrapper that moves in andout alternately concealing andrevealing the building fabric.

COoP

COoP

4700

1963 Frank Gehry

42

Right: interior view

of the COop edito-

rial the wood wall

detail


22/93

The layering and sculpting of thenewly formed surfaces weave to-gether disparate and contrastingmaterials. Recalling film direc-tor Alfred Hitchcocks interest inopenings as metaphors, here, too,voids are as important as surfac-

es, revealing an earlier patternof materials or use.

Of particular interest is the ideaof transcending traditional craftand elevating humble materialswithout trying to make them intosomething other than what theyreally are. It is an attempt tofind and reveal the extraordinaryfrom within the ordinary. Theexploration encourages the user toforge a deeper and more meaningfulunderstanding of the fundamental,yet delicate relationships thatexist between themselves, the nat-ural world, its vital resources,and our collective cultures.

Two basic materials, wood andplastic are transformed frombenign surfaces into sculptedspace. The one hundred foot longwood wall was created by a directtransfer method. Computer modelswere sent directly from the archi-tect to a computerized CNC routerwhere 74 Glue laminated beams ofvarying thickness were sculptedby direct automation, virtuallyeliminating the traditional hand-craft. Several studio entry doorswere integrated into the pattern

of the wood and seamlessly dis-appear. The result is a surfacethat is spatial, has depth andcomes alive with movement. Theperception that wood is a staticdead material is ransacked. Itis, in fact, alive with energy and

moves through the space with itsoccupants and visitors.

In contrast to the carving methodof the wood construction, 1/8colored acrylic panels were lay-ered to a thickness of 1 for thefacades of the adjacent lead lined

COoP COoP

100

CNC, 74

1/8

1

Robert Venturi

44 45

Opposite: rendering

of the COop

Left: floor plan and

material detail


23/93

offices. The panels are backlitfrom large skylights located with-in the interior of their respec-tive offices and are transformedinto a material of considerablespatial dept and color. The move-ment of light and people engages

and activates the entire space,creating a quality of time andmovement. Light is also used asan ordering device: drawing youinto and through the space. It isa register of the passage of timeas well as a social connector. Asin the construction of the woodwall the acrylic panels reveal theextraordinary from within some-thing very ordinary.

In Complexity and Contradictionin Architecture, Robert Venturiwrites, A familiar thing seen inan unfamiliar context can becomeperceptually new as well as old.By placing objects and materialsoutside the frame, a new frameof reference deepens our sense ofperception. Art does not reproducewhat we see; rather it makes ussee.

COoP COoP46 47

Above: interior view

of COop

Below: wood detail

and construction se-

quence


24/93

Opposite: interior

view of COop the

wood wall detail


25/93


26/93

Opposite: interior view

of the COop


27/93

COoP55

Left and right: in-

terior view and the

section plan of the

COop

Contents


28/93

Introductionwith Article Review, page7.Project SurveyColorado Court, page23.COoP Editorial, page41.Nascent Ter-






Nascent Terrain


29/93

NASCENT TERRAIN

Projects Formal Name: NASCENTTERRAINLocation of Project: 10119Jefferson Blvd., Culver City,California

Client/Owner: DMC InvestmentsTotal Square Footage: 70,000 sq.ft.Costs: $7,600,000.00Architects: PUGH + SCARPA / Law-rence Scarpa

Personnel in Firm to be Cred-ited: Lawrence Scarpa - Princi-pal- in-Charge. Angela Brooks andClay Holden Project Architects.Kelly Bair, Peter Borrego, AngelaBrooks, Anne Burke, Michael Han-nah, Vanessa Hardy, Anne MarieKaufman Brunner, Ching Luk, Char-lie Morgan, Fredrik Niilsen, TimPeterson, Gwynne Pugh, Bill Sar-necky, Lawrence Scarpa, - ProjectDesign Team.

General Contractor: Brad Brown/DMCInvestments

Photography: Marvin Rand

Project Description: The Colonyproject was seized as an opportu-nity to develop and foster socialspace in a city characterizedby its desperate dearth of suchspace. The program for The Colonyinvolved creating a master plan

Nascent Terrain Nascent Terrain

,

91000

70000

58 59

Below: modelings of

the Nascent Terrian

Opposite: construc-

tion details of the

Nascent Terrain


30/93

for an existing industrial sitecomprised of a series of disparatewarehouse buildings and surfaceparking. The program called forthe conversion of 91,000 squarefeet of industrial brick buildingspace into 70,000 square feet of

creative office space and a smallcaf. The existing site is bor-dered by Jefferson Blvd. and Bal-lona Creek in Culver City.

With the resolute intention of re-vitalizing an urban space, designsevolved to transform the seriesof undistinguished industrialbuildings into a dynamic composi-tion that would contribute to theurban-scape both visually and as asocial gathering space. The Col-ony is organized around the con-cept of a Campus Green. ThisCampus Green spatially connectsthe existing buildings by creatinga central courtyard and architec-tural landscape. The new landscapeand site furniture act as markersto orient one in the campus. A

portion of the existing site wasdemolished to create this new cen-ter, provide for more parking andcreate more open space. The cen-ter of the complex is designed asan exterior courtyard; the groundplan is manipulated so that tilt-ing planes define space and providefor places to gather. A channelof water cuts through the court-yard and ties it into to the restof the site. A small caf opens


91000

/

60 61

Below: modelings of

the Nascent Terrain

Opposite: modeling

and rendering of the

Nascent Terrain


31/93

onto the courtyard.

The 91,000 square feet of ten-

ant improvements were approachedas basic shell and core remodelsthat included stripping the spacesdown to their most essential ele-ments and updating infrastructureand services. In essence, thesespaces were prepared as creativeoffice space theoretically al-lowing future tenant(s) maximumflexibility to adapt the spaces asneeded and/or desired.

Primary emphasis was given tomodifying the exterior buildingsand site conditions of The Colony.Critical points of interest werestrategically chosen as sitesthat would receive architecturalmodifications. These sites were

selected for their impact poten-tial and manipulated to createthresholds, markers, visual inter-est and movement. Each interven-tion, or architectural face-lift,to a building was carefully con-sidered and orchestrated with thesite. Each building receives anilluminated steel screen to acti-vate the adjacent space. A steelbutterfly wing forms the entranceto one building and also ends thecourtyard. A two-story steel windchime grows out of the corner ofanother building along JeffersonBlvd. and also frames the site en-try. A tower folly completes thesite and creates a gathering placeand connecting link between twodifferent levels.Even the surface parking is ex-

ploited as a site feature and wo-ven into the overall composition.

The Colony project, currentlyunder construction, strives to or-chestrate building, hardscape andlandscape to create continuity,movement, and variation within thesite.Careful attention was paid tomaximizing this projects poten-tial for urban regeneration and

the creation of a more interestingand enriching social space.


62 63

Above: renderings of

the Nascent Terrrain

Opposite: construc-

tion details of the

Nascent Terrain

I t d ti P j t S

Contents

Opposite: render-


32/93

Nascent Terrain


rain, page57.Diva, page65.Orande Grove, page75. North Point,





64

Opposite: render

ings of the Nascent

Terrain

Diva

Right: exterior view


33/93

Diva

Projects Formal Name: ABSOLUTECOURT REPORTING

Location of Project: 11846-40Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, Califor-

nia

Client/Owner: Leanna Green

Total Square Footage: 3100 sq.ft.

Costs: $279,000.00 ($87.00/sq.ft.)

Architects: Lawrence Scarpa ofPUGH + SCARPA

Personnel in Firm to be credited:Lawrence Scarpa and Gwynne Pugh- Principals - in-Charge, PeterBorrego, Angela Brooks, Anne MarieBurke, Heather Duncan, Anne MarieKaufman-Brunner, Charlie Morgan,Tim Petersen, Gwynne Pugh, andLawrence Scarpa - Project De-

sign Team. Gwynne Pugh of PUGH +SCARPA - Structural Engineering.

General Contractors: CWE Con-structionPhotography: Benny Chan - Foto-works

Program: A complete remodel andnew storefront faade for an ex-isting 1940s retail building.

The three existing retail storeswere converted into a trainingfacility for court reporting andan adjacent small dance studiofor Swedish Diva Productions. Theproject includes a state of theart mock training courtroom with

video conferencing capabilitiesand two-way viewing. All interiorfurnishings are custom designed byPugh + Scarpa.Solution:

The architectural response to thisproject emerged from the uniqueduality of its program. Containedwithin one shell are two disparatebusinesses managed by a singu-lar proprietor. One side of thebuilding is occupied by AbsoluteCourt Reporting, an establishmentthat trains court reporters in astate of the art simulated court-room environment. Directly adja-cent within the same shell residesthe dance rehearsal studio forSwedish Diva Productions, a per-formance group catering to private

parties and events. The archi-tecture directly addresses thisjuxtaposition in both its organi-zation and formal articulation.

Each space was strategicallyplanned so that the most criticalprogrammatic element of one wouldsit directly astride that of itsneighbor. Thus, sharing a divid-ing wall at the core of the spaceare the mock courtroom of Abso-

Diva

2040

3

+

66

g

of Absolute Court

Reporting house


34/93

lute Court Reporting and the dancestudio of Swedish Diva Produc-tions. Reception areas, officesand support spaces unfold alongthe respective perimeter walls ofeach business. A one-way mir-rored wall separating the court-

room and dance studio subverts therelationship between viewer andviewed. Performers accustomed toexhibiting themselves in theirwork become voyeurs gaining privi-leged views into the activities ofthe mock courtroom. Participantsin the mock courtroom unknowinglybecome viewed objecttheir role asinformation scrutinizer,inquisitorand truth seeker elegantly sub-verted. While considered criticalto the teaching process, state ofthe art video and audio monitoringdevices concealed in the lightingfixtures and surfaces of the court-room further challenge the role ofthe legal professional who becomesthe surveilled object.

The critical content of this

projects architectural responseis also evidenced in its publicfaade. A glass and aluminumstorefront creates a transpar-ent condition for Absolute CourtReporting while a corrugated sheetmetal and concrete wall create anopacity that blocks out any poten-tial voyeuristic views into Swed-ish Diva Productions. The formalresolution of the faade beliesthe reality of the relationship

between these two spaces. Apasser by would never know thatthey were actually intimatelyconnected and sharing the samecore space. An exposed tubularsteel support spanning both spacesprovides the only overt physical

clue that there is any connectionbetween the two operations. Sig-nificantly, this tubular steel ele-ment provides structural supportfor both businesses identifyingsignage.

Other distinct features of thisproject include a canted translu-cent metal stud wall that defines areception area and work stationsfor Absolute Court Reporting andleads the user visually and physi-cally down the main circulationcorridor to a kitchen and servicearea at the rear of the space.Additionally, custom designs wereprovided for the mock courtroomfurniture and much of the built incabinetry and office furniture.

Diva

69

Right: interior view

of the Absolute Court

Repoting house and

the section plan at

storefront


35/93

Left: exterior detail



36/93


Reporting house

Opposite: interior

detail and section

plan


37/93

Orange Grove

Right: rendering of

the Orange Grove


38/93

Orange Grove

Projects Formal Name: OrangeGroveLocation of Project: WestHollywood, CaliforniaClient/Owner: Chris DeBolt

Total Square Footage: 6,700 sq.ft.Costs: $1,110,000.00Architects: PUGH + SCARPAPersonnel in Firm to be Credited:Lawrence Scarpa, AIA - Principal-in-Charge. Angela Brooks, AIA,Silke Clemens, Leigh Taylor Ellis,Michael Hannah, Vanessa Hardy, Ch-ing Luk, Fredrik Nilsson, Tim Pe-tersen, Gwynne Pugh, AIA, LawrenceScarpa, Katrin Terstegen - ProjectDesign Team.

Engineering: Oxford Engineering

General Contractor: Becker GeneralContractors

Photography: Marvin Rand

Located in a neighborhood charac-terized by traditional bungalowstyle single family residences,Orange Grove is a new landmark forthe City of West Hollywood. Thebuilding is sensitively designedand compatible with the neighbor-hood, but differs in material pal-ette and scale from its neighbors.Referencing architectural conven-tions of modernism rather than the

pitched roof forms of traditionaldomesticity, the project presentsa characteristic that is consis-tent with the eclectic and oftenunconventional demographic of WestHollywood. Distinct from neigh-boring structures, the building

creates a strong relationship tothe street by virtue of its largeamount of highly usable balconyarea in the front faade.

While there are dramatic and larg-er scale elements that define thebuilding, it is also broken downinto comprehensible human scaleparts, and is itself broken downinto two different buildings. Or-ange Grove displays a similar kindof iconoclasm as the SchindlerHouse, an icon of California mod-ernism, located a short distanceaway. Like the Schindler House,the conventional architecturalelements of windows and porchesbecome part of an abstract sculp-tural ensemble. At the SchindlerHouse, windows are found in the

gaps between structural concretewall panels. At Orange Grove, win-dows are inserted in gaps betweendifferent sections of the build-ing.

The design of Orange Grove isgenerated by a subtle balance oftensions. Building volumes andthe placement of windows, doorsand balconies are not static butrather constitute an active three-

Orange Grove

77


39/93

dimensional composition in motion.Each piece of the building is astrong and clearly defined shape,such as the corrugated metal sur-round that encloses the secondstory balcony in the east andnorth facades. Another example of

this clear delineation is the useof two square profile balcony sur-rounds in the front faade thatset up a dialogue between themoneis small, the other large, one isopen at the front, the other isveiled with stainless steel slats.At the same time each balcony isbalanced and related to other ele-ments in the building, the smallerone to the driveway gate below andthe other to the roll-up door andfirst floor balcony. Each buildingelement is intended to read as anabstract form in itselfsuch as awindow becoming a slit or windowsbecoming a framed box, while alsobecoming part of a larger whole.Although this building may notmirror the status quo it answersto the desires of consumers in a

burgeoning niche market who wantlarge, simple interior volumes ofspace, and a paradigm based onspace, light and industrial mate-rials of the loft rather than thebungalow.

Orange Grove Orange Grove

78 79

Above and left:

rendering of Orange

Grove


40/93

Orange Grove81

Left and right:

rendering of Orange

Grove and section

floor plan

Introduction with Article Review page7 Project Survey

Contents

Opposite: rendering

of Orange Grove


41/93


rain, page57.Diva, page65. Orande Grove, page75.North Point,

page83.Jigsaw, page93. Solar Umbrella, page107. SM College Stu-





42/93


43/93

and well as material usage.

This type of approach achievesseveral important goals for thisproject:- It maximizes street life bymaking as many unit types as pos-

sible directly accessible to thesidewalk, making a richer urbanlifestyle. The lofts, townhouses,and the walk-ups, as well as thepublic access points to the apart-ment building all prominently ad-dress the city and adjacent streetlife.- It produces a wider varietyof units, offering a broader setof choices to a wider demographicprofile, diverging lifestyles, andeconomical choices. In turn, thismakes the building more market-able and economically viable. Theopen plans of the base units aredesigned with a maximum flexibil-ity, working well as lofts today,but easily transformable to retailof commercial spaces in a futurelife.

- Each unit offers differ-ent kinds (and dimensions) of openspace in association with itsliving areas: French door/Julietbalconies, conventional balconies,double height living decks, yardsand stoops, roof gardens, all ofwhich offer a distinct relation-ship between its inhabitants andthe unique perspectives they offertowards the city.

- It offers a variety ofscales for the buildings, withoutminiaturizing the scale of theproject to mimic the historic con-text.- It produces several kindsof public space that mediate be-

tween the scale of the individualunit and the scale of the city.- It enhances the ability toachieve maximum natural day-light-ing, ventilation, and indoor arequality

Urbansim: Mediation with Court-yardsFour urban spaces help to medi-ate the relationship between theindividual units, housing types,blocks, and the city. Site S andT are held together by a discreeturban garden we call South Park.South Park is composed of vari-ous stripings of hard and softlandscapes, connection the S andT sites on the ground level,while an alle of trees reinforcesthe broader sites connection to

East Cambridge and Central Park onthe north-south axis through theCharles Smith complex.

Site T is organized around twocourtyards, one of which is semi-public in nature at +4-0 (theWinter Garden) and the other whichis semi-private located at +30-8(the Summer Garden) in relation-ship to the spa, sauna and otherpublic amenities of the building.

While the Winter Court enjoys ahealthy dose of sunshine, it isprotected with trees, bamboo gar-dens, decks, and stoops, providingfor a smaller community of duplex-es, walk-ups and lofts to sharea common ground for relaxation,

gardening, and conversation. Serv-ing the entire building, the Sum-mer Garden enjoys an elevated andprivileged view of Central Park;shaded by the building, the spacebenefits from the cool breezes ofthe summer and provides some out-door space for exercise, yoga, andrelaxation.

Site S is organized around a thirdcourt (the Community Court) whosedistinct interiority is to cre-ate and common space for events,gatherings, and social occasions.Protected from the street, it isalso linked to Central and SouthPark through vertical cracks thathelp to create cross ventila-tion through the space. A Com-munity Space is located next to

the courtyard and opens into itfor events that require indoorand outdoor activities. The spaon the second and third levelsoverlooks the courtyard and hasexterior stairs and balconies ty-ing together the levels. At the4th, 6th and 8th floors bridgescut diagonally across the courtspace; these bridges are conceivedas open seasonal bridges. Thebridges transform a typical in-

terior corridor into an exteriorbalcony which allows the user tovisually participate in the courtspace. They also provide shadingto the court. The facade is fur-ther animated by window boxes andplanes articulated as volumes unto

themselves, which push and pullfrom the facades primary folds.The formal geometries and mate-rial richness of this facade havea dynamic effect on the in betweencourtyard space that now flourishesas a kind of piazza for itself andthe surrounding building.

Working from the Inside Out: ARoom with a ViewAs a basic methodology, we havedeveloped our unit types as a ve-hicle of optimizing the relation-ship between interior and exteri-ors spaces and their views, whiledeveloping a strategy for fenes-tration and the massing of thebuildings.

The live/work spaces at the base

of the buildings are organized assplit levels, so that the unitscan be used flexibly the levelsthat are flush with the sidewalkbeing used as work spaces, whilethe upper levels that are at theGarden level serving as the pri-vate areas of the living section.Some of these units have directaccess into the parking below. Thebase of the building is treated ascivic storefront conditions, whose

North Point North Point

/

4

ST

ST

T

LOFT

S3

23468

/

16

86 87

Left: interior ren-

dering of the North-

point


44/93

interiors can be selectively ex-posed or protected based on theiruse by its inhabitantsthroughfrosting, curtains, scrims orblinds. By organizing this in asplit-level condition, we createa 16 foot high space, which adds

to the feeling of openness in eachunit.

The townhouse duplexes are ac-cessible to the street by way ofstoops, as is customary in otherBoston neighborhoods. Some alsohave access to the Winter Gardenon the T site, and the CommunityCourt on the S site, while alsohaving direct access to the garageas walk ups.

The buildings fenestration isplanned to correspond to thevarious patterns of individualunit plans. The single bay verti-cal window corresponds to smallerrooms and its verticality estab-lishes a rapport with the hu-man body and totemic objects in

the city skyline. The double bayvertical window for medium sizedrooms (the French door Julietbalcony) operates as a hybrid,creating a flexible relationshipbetween the indoors and outdoors.The ribbon window, alternatingbetween larger and smaller rooms,establishes a more distinct rap-port with the horizon and theskyline as framed the longitudi-nal opening. At building corners,

the units have folding glass wallsthat open completely, eradicatingthe boundary between the interiorand exterior. At the street andcourtyard levels, curtain wall andstorefront conditions establish amore direct and privileged rela-

tionship with either the sidewalkor gardens. On the upper levels,where privacy is never compro-mised by proximity to other units,curtain walls provide for ampli-fied views of the park and naturallight. The resulting effect is aproject that possesses great vari-ety, richness of place essentialto human habitation and quality oflife.

The Building CirculationThe path of travel to building andunit entries are enhanced by cor-ridors that have views and naturallight. Whether single or doubleloaded, the corridors are a pleas-ant transition from the entry tothe individual units.

Sustainable StrategiesOur team is recognized as an ex-pert in the field. We are able toprovide long and short term costbenefit analysis, DOE 2 energy mod-eling, and building commissioning.We propose to explore options fordiscussion and possible implemen-tation; our basic strategy is asfollows:

Heating and Cooling:

North Point

TS

DOE 2

89


45/93


46/93

Jigsaw

Right: Interior de-

tail of jigsaw


47/93

Jigsaw

A film editor lives in a fictionalworld, represented by the computerscreen reflected upon them. Tocompletely dive into this world,distractions, like light reflec-

tions, need to be blocked out,and so, typically, a film editorsworld revolves around a hermeti-cally closed black box. What doesthat mean for an architect whois asked to design a stimulatingworkspace and create an environ-ment that allows for both socialinteraction and provides a placeof seclusion?

Confronted with this challengewhen they were commissioned to de-sign Jigsaw, a film editing companythe architects transformed thisrough 5,000 SF bow-truss warehouseinto a new and unexpectedly world.Located in an industrial part ofWest Los Angeles within a ratherfeatureless neighborhood the proj-ect incorporates independent forms

separating the building envelopefrom the interior space, reminis-cent of urban structures, as if tocompensate for Los Angeles lackof public space.

The interior is designed in thespirit of these hidden worlds.The program - offices, library,socializing zones and, most impor-tantly, the editing rooms areaccommodated within a variety of

volumes and spaces that relate toeach other, creating a balancein tension. The volumes do nottouch the ceiling and the originalwarehouse space can be read in itsentirety. The circulation zone be-tween them extends throughout theentire space, creating a constantnotion of movement.

The perimeter of two sides of theinterior is a belt of equallysized service spaces. An openkitchen and the reception areaare on the third side, while thefourth side is kept clear, al-lowing daylight to enter throughthe windows and passers-by to geta glimpse of the central space.Taking up the entire stage thatis surrounded by the ancillaryrooms, two curvaceous volumes aresuspended over a shallow pool ofwater. Their overwhelming pres-ence can be sensed throughoutthe space. With a skin of sleekgray lead, they resemble a pairof playing ocean mammals; their

heavy bodies in mid-air, escap-ing the pool, if not the build-ing. The paradox of the inversionof heavy & light is reinforced asthe mirror-like surface of thewater below reproduces their imageand even more so, when occasion-ally artificially produced steamsheathes the two volumes like fog,completely detaching them from theground.

Jigsaw

Jigsaw

+

Jigsaw 5

000

Jigsaw

94

Left: interior detail

of Jigsaw

Below: interior de-

tail of Jigsaw


48/93

The first thing that is visible ofthese volumes upon entering thespace is their cut-off end pieces;two white, pixilated screens thatconfront each visitor like two gi-ant eyes. Although the substanceof the screens conveys the impres-sion of transparency, one can not

look beyond their fuzzy surface.This gives a clue of what is con-tained within. Despite being themost dynamic elements within thespace, the most secluded and quietareas editing and producersrooms are placed here.

The screens are windows that filterthe light from the outside, cre-ating a fuzzy condition betweendarkness and light and thus en-

abling work on a computer screen.They act as an interface betweenthe private and the public zones,providing visual contact andsimultaneously guaranteeing pri-vacy. This way the often-isolatedwork on the computer is soothedby contact to the outside world.From a distance, it is hard totell what these screens are madeof. Only at a closer look doesthis ethereal, glittering and out-of-focus substance reveal itselfas quite ordinary materials: onewindow is filled bottom-to-top withping-pong balls while the otheris filled with acrylic beads. Froma distance the eye doesnt readthe details and instead connecteither the elements or the gapsto a whole picture, depending onthe direction of the light. Con-sequently, they appear solid fromthe outside, where the light proj-ects onto the screen. This vi-sual principle is inverted on theinterior of the studio as the eyereads the gaps between the filling.

As one comes closer, what is be-yond becomes sharper and the gapsmore apparent, much like an Arabicscreen, where the observer insideremains unseen.

This relationship between objectand space is also discovered at alarger scale of the overall space.While the volumes within thebuilding envelope have their owndistinct form, the space around

them is merely an in-between,residual space that takes on thenegative shape of the volumes.These interstitial spaces formniches for informal encounters,waiting zones for clients, andinterior terraces on the water,that offer views from a differentvantage point.

The variety of informal spacesincorporated in the design al-lows clients and staff to havespaces to relax and to socialize.In addition, the entire entrancezone acts as a caf that facili-tates informal meetings and clientinteraction. Social activity isthrown into the limelight. On theopposite side of the caf is thereception area, growing out of thelinoleum floor material. The recep-tion desk is deliberately movedfrom the entrance door, encour-aging the visitor to absorb thespace freely immediately.

Jigsaw Jigsaw

&

96 97


49/93


50/93

Jigsaw Jigsaw

100 101

Left and right: ren-

derings of Jigsaw

the drawing is sec-

tion plan interior

view of Jigsaw

Opposite: interior

view of the Jigsaw


51/93

Left: house detail

and the drawing is

house plan

Below: interior view

of Jigsaw and house


52/93

The design of Jigsaw attempts tocreate a series of balanced ten-sions between isolation andinteraction, movement and static,light and heavy and between lightand dark, generating a complexspatial experience, turning an of-fice space into an inspiring play-ground.

Jigsaw

plan

Introductionwith Article Review, page7.Project SurveyC l d C t CO P Edit i l N t T

Contents


53/93

Colorado Court, page23.COoP Editorial, page41. Nascent Ter-


page83. Jigsaw, page93.Solar Umbrella, page107.SM College Stu-


Grant House,page137.

The Firm,page147.

XAP,page155.

Reactor


Solar Umbrella

Below: rendering and

model of Solar Um-

brella

Below: rendering of

Solar Umbrella


54/93

SOLAR UMBRELLA

Projects Formal Name: SOLAR UM-BRELLALocation of Project: 616 Boccac-cio Ave., Venice, CaliforniaClient/Owner: Angela Brooks andLawrence ScarpaTotal Square Footage: 1,100 sq.ft.(new) 780 sq. ft.(remodeled)Costs: $160,000.00Architects: ANGELA BROOKS + LAW-RENCE SCARPA of Pugh + ScarpaPersonnel in Firm to be Cred-ited: Lawrence Scarpa and AngelaBrooks - Principals- in-Charge.Peter Borrego, Angela Brooks, AnneBurke, Michael Hannah, VanessaHardy, Anne Marie Kaufman Brunner,Ching Luk, Tim Peterson, GwynnePugh, Bill Sarnecky, LawrenceScarpa, - Project Design Team.General Contractor: LawrenceScarpa and Angela BrooksPhotography: Marvin Rand

Nestled amidst a neighborhood of

single story bungalows in Venice,California, the Brooks/Scarpa Res-idence boldly establishes a prec-edent for the next generation ofCalifornia modernist architecture.Located on a 41 wide x 100-0 long through lot, the BrooksScarpa addition transforms the ar-chitects existing 850 square footbungalow into a 2200 square footresidence equipped for responsibleliving in the twenty-first century.

Inspired by Paul Rudolphs Um-brella House of 1953, the SolarUmbrella provides a contemporaryreinvention of the solar canopyastrategy that provides thermalprotection in climates with in-tense exposures. In establishing

the program for their residence,which accommodates the couple andtheir one child chose to integrateinto the design, principles ofsustainability that they strive toachieve in their own practice. Thearchitects carefully consideredthe entire site, taking advan-tage of as many opportunities forsustainable living as possible.Passive and active solar designstrategies render the residence100% independent from the grid.Recycled, renewable, and highperformance materials and productsare specified throughout. Hard-scape and landscape treatments areconsidered for their aesthetic andactual impact on the land. TheBrooks Scarpa Residence elegantly

crafts each of these strategiesand materials, exploiting the po-tential for performance and sensi-bility while achieving a rich andinteresting sensory and aestheticexperience.

Taking advantage of the unusualthrough lot site condition, theaddition shifts the residence 180degrees from its original orienta-tion. What was formerly the front

and main entry at the north be-comes the back as the new designreorganizes the residence towardsthe south. This move allows thearchitects to create a more gra-cious introduction to their resi-dence and optimizes exposure toenergy rich southern sunlight. A

bold display of solar panels wrap-ping around the south elevationand roof becomes the defining for-mal expression of the residence.Conceived as a solar canopy, thesepanels protect the body of thebuilding from thermal heat gain byscreening large portions of thestructure from direct exposure tothe intense southern Californiasun. Rather than deflecting sun-light, this state of the art solarskin absorbs and tranforms thisrich resource into usable energy,providing the residence with 100%of its electricity. Like manydesign features at the Brooks/Scarpa Residence, the solar canopyis multivalent and rich with mean-ingperforming several roles for

both functional, formal and expe-riential effect.

By removing only one wall at thesouth, the architects maintain theprimary layout of the existingresidence. The original bunga-low, which was tightly packed withprogram (kitchen, dining, living,two bedrooms and a bath) is joinedby a sizable addition to the southwhich includes a new entry, living

Solar Umbrella Solar Umbrella

/

41 x 100

8502200

1 953

Um brella House

180

100%

108 109

Left: roof plan and

rendering of Solar

Umbrella

Below: rendering and

modelings of Solar

Umbrella


55/93

area, master suite accommodations,and utility room for laundry andstorage. The kitchen, which onceformed the back edge of the resi-dence, opens into a large livingarea, which in turn, opens out toa spacious front yard. An operablewall of glass at the living area

delicately defines the edge betweeninterior and exterior. An unbro-ken visual corridor is establishedfrom one end of the property tothe other. Taking cues from theCalifornia modernist tradition,the architects conceive of exte-rior spaces as outdoor rooms. Bycreating strong visual and physi-cal links between outside andinside, these outdoor rooms inter-lock with interior spaces, blur-ring the boundary and creating amore dynamic relationship betweenthe two. The entry sequence alongthe western edge of the propertyfurther demonstrates this concept.A cast in place concrete poolprovides a stong landscape elementand defines the path to the frontentry. Upon reaching the entry,the pool cascades into a lowertier of water that penetrates andinterlocks with the geometry andform of the residence. In a movethat reinvents the welcome mat,stepping stones immersed in thewater create an initiatory riteof passage into the residence asthe visitor is invited walk acrosswater. The distinction betweenoutside and inside is once again

Solar Umbrella

111

Umbrella

Below: rendering of

Solar Umbrella

Right: Site view and

floor plan


56/93

blurred.

The master suite on the secondlevel reiterates the strategy ofinterlocking space. Located di-rectly above the new living area,up a set of floating, folded platesteel stairs, the bedroom strate-

gically opens onto a deep coveredpatio which overlooks the garden.Conceptually reminiscent of R.M.Schindlers Kings Road Residence,this patio extends the bedroomarea outdoors, creating the sen-sation of a sleeping loft exposedto the exterior. This deep porchcarves out an exterior spacewithin the visual bounds of thebuilding envelope and provides thefront elevation with a distinc-tive character. What appears tobe a sigificant area of the secondfloor is actually never enclosedbut rather, it is protected by theplanes which wrap around it.

A dynamic composition of inter-locking solid and void creates arichly layered depth to the de-sign. Transparency through thehouse allows views to penetratefrom front to back. The structureappears to sit lightly upon theland. Formal elements along thesevisual corridorsi.e. stairs,bearing walls, structural columns,guardrails, built-in furniture andcabinetry vary in density, colorand texture. Light penetratesthe interior of the residence at

several locations. A series ofstepped roofs, glazed walls, andclerestory windows broadscastlight from multiple directions.Light and shadowephemeral andconstantly changing effectsbecomepalpable formal tools that enliventhe more permanent and fixed ele-

ments of the design. Together,all of these components establishan effectively layered compositionrich in visual and formal inter-est.

Throughout the residence, the ar-chitects resourcefully take mate-rials and contextually repositionthem as design elements. Solarpanels, conventionally relegatedto a one dimensional utilitarianapplication, define envelope, pro-vide shelter and establish a dis-tinctive architectural expression.Homosote, an acoustical panel madefrom recycled newspaper is palm-sanded and used as a finish materi-al for custom cabinets. OSB (ori-ented strand board) a structuralgrade building material composedof leftover wood chips compressedtogether with high strength adhe-sive, becomes the primary flooringmaterial where concrete is notused. Sanded, stained and sealed,the OSB floor paneling provides acost effective and materially re-sp

pugh scarpa book sm

Documents