Colony Square

DSC05870, originally uploaded by lightroomstudio.

architecture studio 05

EVENING STUDIO 05
ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT

School of Architecture, Civil Engineering Technology and Construction
Southern Polytechnic State University
Program Director: Dr. William Carpenter FAIA
Website: architecturestudio.blogspot.com
wcarpent@spsu.edu

Architecture Studio

Project: Beltline Transit Station; beltline.org

Students will work in teams to design a transit station at a selected site. The designer of the Beltline project (Ryan Gravel) is to be consulted on the project. The program will adapt to the selected site.

Grade Calculation
5% Site research/ Project Research Powerpoint 9/7
20% Midterm Jury
30% Final Jury
45% Class Participation—includes individual sketchbook/blog and 2xForum

2xForum:
Warmup exercise in design and tectonics. Transform a 2x4x8 into a functional artifact with no waste and use only hand tools.
Due 7pm 8/29

Presentation Requirements

20”x20” Boards
concept statement
Plans, Sections and Elevations to describe the project design—1/8” scale minimum
Enlarged Details—3 required
Hand drawn elevation at 1/4” scale—hand rendered with materials and context
3d study—2 required—sketch up or formZ
Museum Quality Wood Models
Detail Model at a minimum 1/2”=1’ scale

Project: Midtown Atlanta Urban Studio

The Advanced Studio will work in collaboration with the day fourth year Urban Studio on a project in midtown.

Course Description
In accordance with the course catalogue this course will focus on the design of a multi- use project with emphasis on the integration of construction technology and the application of knowledge acquired in the concurrent history theory course sequence. We will be emphasizing urban revitalization and mixed use design and development as an underlying studio thematic. We will approach this course in a three tier strategy:

1) Seminars- topics to include:
a) Urban Design Issues, Critiques & Theories
b) Mixed – Use as a Building Typology- Practical Issues and Precedents
2) Analyzing the Built Environment
3) Master Plan Charette
4) Mixed- Use Master Planning
5) Mixed- Use Building Design.

Course Requirements
This course will meet every Monday Wednesday and Friday from 2:00 until 6:00. Students are required to attend the studio hours and attendance is noted. In addition, students are expected to complete all assignments on schedule. Pin –ups and Juries are mandatory.
A significant portion of this course includes group or team work. All students are expected to fully participate in team projects and assignments and to do a fair share of the work required for the projects successful completion. Those students who fail to participate or do a relatively equal share of the work load will have their grade reduced from that of the rest of the team or group. Architecture is a team sport that requires the full participation of its players to produce success. Slackers are not tolerated in the profession and will not be tolerated in this course.
The requirements of this course includes the demonstration of; a critical design ability, development of design process relevant to the project, and an ability to convey architectural character and design in the form of both models and drawings. A proficiency in drawing that includes the following: study sketches, schematic plans, design development drawings, and presentation drawings, is essential. Student’s drawings and models must show an understanding of design and building constructability, sketches and hard line drawings are required as appropriate to the process. Students should also express ability in model building. The quality of execution of both models and drawings are key demonstrations of a student’s understanding of the actual design solution posed, and is therefore used in the evaluation of the students performance. Additionally, students may use computer modeling and graphics if their skills are such that they might achieve the same level of demonstrable proficiency as with drawings and models.

Textbooks
This course will not require the purchase of a ‘textbook’ per se, but we will be using several excerpts from prominent texts on Urban Planning Theory, Mixed- Use Design and Architectural Theory. These excerpts will be made available in a Reserve Reader at the library. The primary resources for these texts are as follows Additional texts will also be used):
Mixed- Use Development Handbook2nd Edit., Dean Schwanke, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 2003.
The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
Architecture Culture 1943- 1968 a Documentary Anthology, edit. Joan Ockman, Columbia Books of Architecture, Rizzoli New York, 1993.
Architecture Theory since 1968, edit. K. Michael Hays, Columbia Books of Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1998.
Reclaiming the City Mixed Use Development, edit. Andy Coupland, E&FN Spon, London, 1997.
Grading
Seminars- 10%
Master Planning-Group 40%
Class Participation- 10%
Documentation 10%
Analysis 10%
Project- 10%
Mixed- Use Project- Individual 50%
Midterm- 20%
Final- 30%

Total 100%

Course Synopsis
Urban design issues, theories & solutions

This course will include a seminar component in which we examine important historical texts on urbanism as a means of familiarizing ourselves with the contemporary issues and concerns facing the modern city. Hopefully, this will lead to frank discuss of the relationship between architecture and the city and the architects role in shaping the broader built context. We will use our discussion of the issues raised as a starting point and framework for the studio.
Of specific concern should be the relevance of this broader theoretical discourse to the urban condition of Atlanta and Midtown in particular. Next we will examine the city of Atlanta and how it exemplifies the issues raised. Is Atlanta an example of good city planning and design or poor city planning and design? What issues discussed pertain to Atlanta? Are the solutions or theories proposed viable for Atlanta? We will also examine the Blueprint Midtown as a document designed to address some of these concerns. Does it address the full contingency of issues? Are its goals realistic? Has its implementation been successful? If there are problems with its implementation why have they occurred? How might such problems be addressed or prevented? We will use this discussion to formulate an approach toward the city that will serve to guide us in developing principle strategies for the urban design part of the studio.

Analyzing the Built Environment
Once we have established a design framework and goals we can use the city of Atlanta as a case study analyzing the area around our site in light of the core issues raised in the texts. This will include documentation of existing streetscapes, analysis of their perceptual impact, and the development of analytic models. Our intention is to better understand the site in terms of such issues as activity, human scale, proportion, and way finding. In essence we are addressing the traditional idea of site analysis but from the perspective of urban renewal and design. This will also be compared to the Blueprint Midtown the current design criteria guideline for Midtown. The class will develop its own set of design guidelines and proceed to program a mixed- use site in Midtown Atlanta. We will also examine the mixed- use building as a typology. This will include research into design and planning strategies as well as precedent analysis. The intention here is to orient the student to the specific concerns and planning possibilities and limitation of large scale mixed used projects. These include the selection of appropriate functions, and their placement within the project, as well as, the concerns of access, entry and circulation in complex programmatic projects.

Master Plan Charette
We will begin the design process with a master plan charrette. Each individual student will be asked to develop a master plan for the designated area around our site based upon the classes previous Analysis of the Built Environment. The purpose here is to generate quick study ideas that pull together our previous thoughts and discoveries. We will use the charrette plans as a basis for further discussion. The intention is to formulate some general premises about how to treat the area.


Master Plan
With our general premises in place we will once again divide into teams. Each team will be responsible for developing a component strategy as part of the larger master plan. The site consists of a given series of city blocks in Midtown Atlanta. The teams will take several city blocks in Midtown that are currently under developed, and propose a master plan designed to meet the parameters of the Blueprint Midtown, while addressing the issues and concerns raised during our theoretical discussions of the city. We will be looking for ways to enhance the way finding between these two nodes while activating what is arguably a ‘dead zone’ within the urban fabric. The master plan is to include hardscape, as well as softscape design. It will also include proposed building massing and function. We will produce our own design criteria booklet modeled on the Blueprint Midtown model.

Mixed Use
After we have developed a clear master plan appropriate sites will be selected for a single mixed- use facility. Appropriate programming will be done for the site given the existing conditions and design guidelines established by the class in its research and analysis. We will begin design of a mixed- use project. This portion of the studio will be an individual design project and must satisfy the catalogue agenda of integration of building systems and detailing.

Studio statement
Throughout the course of modern urban development, one hallmark of a thriving inner city has been the existence of a strong residential community in close proximity to the central business district and commercial, civic and cultural centers. Flourishing cities have managed to maintain as mix of generations and incomes, often through a combination of policies and planning.

It is the mutual dependence of residences, businesses, civic and cultural institutions that form a strong and integrated community that is likely to endure. Without this integration disposable income migrates out the inner city core, depriving the city center of necessary resources and resulting in an ultimately unsustainable quality of life. At the same time, housing created independently of supporting infrastructure often lacks essential services, leading to untenable communities disconnected from the previously existing socio- economic network. As a result in many cities, real communities disappear, leaving the city devoid of social cohesion in their place. On the other hand, vibrant urban centers have housing opportunities for people of all incomes and land use plans that facilitate employment, education, culture, recreation, public transportation, and retail.

The city of Atlanta experienced this condition of urban flight during the 1970’s that left the inner core devoid of the vital high- density mixed income residential substructure so vital to its survival. The result was the full development of a suburban ring of satellite communities, or edge cities. These then competed with each other for residential and business dollars. The resultant suburban sprawl that developed has plagued and marked the Atlanta landscape over that last three decades resulting in the overall quality of life, once ranked number one in the country, to drop significantly. The resultant increase in traffic, travel time and pollution has been the source of much frustration by local residents. In fact recent research has shown that the average Atlantan now spends 25% of their gross annual income on their automobile and transportation costs.
In the last 3 years Atlanta has seen a turn around in population locations with a sharp increase in the number of people seeking to move or relocate to the inner city core. This has caused property values to soar as developers scramble to build housing to meet the demand. But despite the surge in residential construction and the requisite population it has brought, the Downtown and Midtown areas still lack a true sense of urbanity. This is true because despite the increase in residential stock there remains a dearth of support facilities, most notably retail, that support a vibrant pedestrian friendly cityscape. Most midtown and Downtown residents still have to travel to Buckhead for most of their shopping. The lack of a vibrant, and intriguing streetscape has also left residents with the sense that it is easier to drive the three or four blocks to basic services, such as grocery stores or hardware stores, than it is to walk.
This studio will focus therefore, on developing an awareness and understanding of both the planning and design concerns that help to support a vibrant and successful urban environment. This includes mixed use master planning designed to fill in existing gaps in the urban fabric and the design of individual mixed use structures that act as supportive components within the larger urban context.
To accomplish this we will begin with research into what constitutes the urban context and a livable city. We will then pursue research into the concepts and realities of mixed use development and architecture. Our goal is to first propose a mixed use master plan for an area of midtown that will be a live work neighborhood that adds to the Midtown urban experience. Second we will design a mixed use project within that master plan that contributes to its success. The project will contain Housing as well as Retail and or Business space as dictated by the master plan.

Defining mixed use development and architecture in the urban context
Mixed use development is defined loosely as any project that mixes traditional functions such as residential, office, retail, and entertainment. This mixing of functions can take almost any form or combination and often comes in the widest range of possible scales from a small 200,000 square foot project utilizing ground floor retail with residential above, to the largest as yet proposed the AOL Time Warner project on Columbus Circle in New York. These projects are often found in large cities where the various functions are often stacked vertically in the form of a high-rise tower or in suburban areas where they often take the form of new town squares or centers. Additionally mixed use projects have incorporated existing regional shopping malls adding hotel facilities, office or residential space (think of Lenox mall and the recent addition of the Hotel and office tower to the southern end).
The mixed use project has gained in popularity over the last few decades. The surge in popularity is owing to the belief that increased density in urban areas produces and increase in the quality of living factored as decreases in travel time to and from work, a lessened dependence on the automobile, reduced pollution, and a greater enhancement of the sense of community. Often marketed as a potential live, work, play, environment, they promise the possibilities of convenient urban living where residents can find all of the necessary amenities of life within a short walking distance and at great convenience. The largest example in Atlanta is Atlantic Station itself marketed as the new ‘live, work, play, neighborhood’ in town.
The mixed use project is not without its potential problems. Often individuals believe that the inclusion of residential space in close proximity will guarantee the success of retail establishments. This is not really true the volume necessary to sustain multiple retail outlets would certainly be beyond the scope of any reasonable development. The truth is that the mixed use project must be conceptualized as a component within a larger urban fabric. Therefore, careful attention to the needs of the larger surrounding context is vital. Careful planning and the right mix of retail and entertainment are necessary to produce a viable project. Grocery stores, pharmacies, and fitness centers are usually highly sustainable in mixed- use projects, when mixed with some entertainment, shopping and restaurants they can be successful. A mixed use project that includes a string of high end restaurants will probably have problems.
There is a growing interest in locating such projects near or on mass transit lines increasing the ability of the local population to traverse the city and get what they need without the use of the automobile. This strategy also increases the viability of the retail component. Recently MARTA embarked on just such a strategy encouraging mixed use development on top of its existing stations, the midtown and Lindburg stations are prime examples of this trend. While this strategy doe decrease the overall necessity of city residents to utilize the automobile exclusively it should not be seen as a substitute for sufficient parking. Believing that residents and shoppers will not need their cars, many mixed use projects opt for significantly reduced parking. Not all individuals using the facilities on site will be residents this is also important to realize they often need a place to park and since the retail establishments need outside traffic you cannot assume that everyone will be coming via mass transit. With the exception of s small number of large cities such as New York, Boston or Chicago, residents in most cities still feel it necessary to have a car, and hence need a place to keep them. Not taking this very American cultural reality into consideration often leads to parking problems and overcrowding on city streets.
Mixed- use projects are also usually more expensive than single- use projects to build. This is due to several factors such as the necessity of amenities such as defensible private, or semi- private, outdoor space, a higher level of detail and finish, and the complexities of providing the necessary services for all functions. Such increases in cost though do not diminish the profitability of mixed- use projects, in reality they often command higher retail and office rental prices, as well as residential costs for condos and rentals for apartments.






For more information on Mixed – use projects see the following:

Mixed- Use Developments: New Ways of Land Use,Robert E. Witherspoon, Jon P. Abbett, & Robert M. Gladastone, Washington, urban Land Institute, 1976.
Mixed Use Architecture in the Urban Context, Eberhard H. Zeidler, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985.
Mixed- Use Development Handbook, Dean Schwanke, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 2003.
Mixed Use Development Projects in North America: Project Profiles, J. Thomas Black, et al. Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1983
Practicing Universal Design, William L. Wilkoff and Laura W. Abed, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994.
The Best in Mixed- Use Development Design, Alan Phillips, Rotovision, Mies Switzerland, 1993.
Reclaiming the City Mixed Use Development, Andy Coupland, E&FN Spon, London, 1997

For information on Housing see the following:

Housing, John Macsai- University of Illinois at Chicago, et al., New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
Modern Housing Prototypes, Roger Sherwood- University of Southern California, Cambridge MA and London, Harvard University Press, 1978.
History of Housing, Norbert Schoenauer- McGill University, Montreal, McGill University, 1992.
Modernity and Housing, Peter G. Rowe- Harvard University, Cambridge MA MIT Press, 1993.
Site Planning, Kevin Lynch- Cambridge MA MIT Press, 1971.
Housing Development: New Concepts in Architecture and Design, Tokyo, Meisei Publications, 1994.

For information from Periodicals See the Following:

Abitare:
Public Housing, March 1994
Architectural Record:
Social Housing, July 1992
Housing, July 1993
Housing, January, 1994
Multi-Family Housing, January 1995
Affordable Housing, January 1996
Affordable Housing, July 1997
Architecture Review:
Urban Interventions, January 1996
Architecture:
Housing Innovation, October 1994
Rebuilding America’s Cities, April 1995
New Urbanism- Old Urbanism, April 1996
Housing Re Forms, August 1997
Architektur + Wettbewerbe:
Wohnquartiere und Wohnsiedlungen, September 1996


Bouw:
Grensverleggend Grondbeleid, June 1996
Daidalos:
Urban Habitation, June 1996
Metropolis:
Maintaining the Mix, March 1995
Progressive Architecture:
Affordable Housing, June 1991
Housing a Diverse Population, August 1992
Cohousing, March 1993
Low Income Housing, May 1994
Techniques et Architecture:
Logement en Ville, April –May 1996

Werk, Bauen + Wohnen:
Housing Accommodation, June 1991
World Architecture:
Housing the World, October 1996


Additional information can be found on the web

For general information on Mixed- use projects consult the following websites:

www.ric-foundation.org
www.odpm.gov.uk
Studio Calendar

Week 1 Aug 22- 26 Analyzing the Built Environment

Monday- Introduction
We will begin with an introduction to the studio and desk assignments. Reading assignments will be given at this time for discussion on Friday as well as research assignments. We will also watch a film by William White documenting his research on urban analysis.

Site Documentation Assignment
We will break down into teams of 5 to 8 individuals. These teams will document and analyze the site area. The class will be broken down in to the following teams that will document the following components of the urban fabric:

1) Visual documentation - Photography of area, collection of topography and aerial maps.
2) Vehicular Traffic Patterns- primary, secondary, and tertiary streets, parking traffic lights.
3) Pedestrian Traffic Patterns- primary, secondary, and tertiary, meeting locations, hangouts etc.
4) Functional Programs- documentation of building purpose and use.
5) Vegetation and Sun- identification of major existing vegetation patterns, sun angles etc.

Site Documentation will be due at the beginning of class on Wednesday Sept. 7

Note 1:
Students should visit other areas of the city to explore and experience that area in light of the concerns raised in our introduction. This means recognizing the streetscapes that you believe are good examples of urban form and those that you believe are less successful. This will broaden your understanding and perceptions of the city. The goal here is to enhance our ability to ‘read’ the city, to fine turn our understanding of the relationship of form, proportion, materiality and light on our perceptual experience, and to grasp a better perceptual ability to ‘see’ how space is used. This broader experience will assist you in our master planning. A good list of city districts to visit is as follows:
1) Downtown/ Fairlie Poplar District
2) Little Five Points
3) Buckhead Triangle
4) Buckhead Lenox

Site Documentation Team Task descriptions
We will be doing our site documentation in a manner more conducive to that of a professional office or planning organization. Our intention here is to document as completely as possible the existing urban conditions and to translate that information into a usable graphic format. The graphic format is both for us to help decipher and incorporate the information into our design strategy as well as to communicate our findings to others.

1) Visual documentation - Photography of area, collection of topography and aerial maps.
This team will be responsible for the collection of all topography and aerial maps and to maintain a standard from which the class as a whole will work from. This team is also responsible for the photographic and video documentation of the area to be used as a basis for both research and presentation. Perspectival views of the midtown skyline, views down main thoroughfares, examples of street signage, and major urban elements are all part of this project.
The purpose here is not only to set the standard base maps from which we will be working but to document the district of midtown so that work can continue in the studio unhindered and to provide a base of graphic documentation to use in future presentations.

2) Vehicular Traffic Patterns- primary, secondary, and tertiary streets, parking traffic lights.
This team will break down into groups and not only identify which streets are primary, secondary and tertiary but also make quantitative studies of traffic density and speed at various times of the day and days of the week.
The purpose here is to develop a better understanding of the traffic flow in the district of midtown. We will want to determine the effects of traffic both on development possibilities as well as on pedestrian sense of comfort. This team will also have to determine how the traffic patterns intersect with the larger traffic patterns of the city. Any proposal to alter traffic flow either in terms of speed direction or density will also have impacts outside the district. This information will be used in the master plan phase and will effect our design criteria for the streetscapes and pedestrian movement corridors.

3) Pedestrian Traffic Patterns- primary, secondary, and tertiary, meeting locations, hangouts etc.
This team will break down into groups and not only identify which sidewalks and pathways are primary, secondary and tertiary pedestrian paths but also make quantitative studies of pedestrian density at various times of the day and days of the week. This group will also document public spaces and their use.
The purpose here is to understand specifically how the midtown community uses or does not use its space. Spatial use is both general and culturally specific. Such specificity can become quite localized. The development of a healthy pedestrian streetscape and well used public plazas and green spaces is determined by how well one understands the user and plans for their needs. Successful design at the urban level only comes from an understanding of the deep structure of spatial usage. What we are looking for is the underlying fabric of how space is used in the district.

5) Functional Programs- documentation of building purpose and use.
This team will document the functional use of each building on each site in the district. This also includes vertical stratification of multiple functions when they occur.
The purpose here is to understand how the land is currently being used and how it could be better developed to accomplish our design criteria. For example an increase in housing would require an increase in convenience retail such as groceries and cleaners etc. These functions are part of the necessary functional infrastructure of any residential neighborhood understanding where these functions exist and where they may need to be added is crucial to the planning and future success of any mixed use project.

6) Vegetation and Sun- identification of major existing vegetation patterns, sun angles etc.
This team will document the existing and planed vegetation including open green space and parkscape. The team will also note major sun angles that may help in the later design of sun screening devices as well as the impact of existing tall buildings on sunlight hitting the streets. Greenspace is important to the urban fabric and it does not only consist of parkland. Small patches of grass or scrub and flower plantings can help to make the urban experience rich and calming. Overhead canopies of trees provide a sense of scale to the urban street while also providing shade and improved air conditions.
The purpose here is to develop an understanding of the existing pattern of vegetation and green space so that we can successfully add to it. We want to develop patterns of green space development to ensure adequate coverage of the district in our masterplans.


Wednesday- Site Visit.
We will make our first visit to the site today. Our intentions are to document the immediate area of midtown. We are interested in familiarizing ourselves with the basic infrastructure, as well as the deeper social and civic structure of the area.

Friday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.
Seminar #1 Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part 1
We will spend part of the day in seminar reviewing the issues raised in the articles. Our goal here is to better understand the relationship between architecture and the city and how this informs the design process. The articles selected are important works that began the critique of modern urban planning strategies. They essentially began the contemporary Post-Modern concern with the city defining a new relationship between architecture and the city. We will be paying particular attention to how these issues relate to Atlanta’s own urban condition.

Required Reading list- Introduction to Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part One

‘Authors Introduction’, ‘The Relationship between Buildings, Monuments, and Public Squares’ and ‘The Enclosed Character of the Public Square’, from The Art of Building Cities, Camillo Sitte 1889, reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
‘What is a City’, Lewis Mumford, Architectural Record 1937. reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
‘The City Image and its Elements’ from The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch 1960, reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
Excerpt from The Death and life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs, 1961, reprinted in Architecture Culture 1943- 1968 a Documentary Anthology, edit. Joan Ockman, Columbia Books of Architecture, Rizzoli New York, 1993.
‘The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety’, from The Dealth and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs, 1961, reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
‘The City as a Work of Art’, O.M. Ungers, 1963, reprinted in Architecture Culture 1943- 1968 a Documentary Anthology, edit. Joan Ockman, Columbia Books of Architecture, Rizzoli New York, 1993.
‘A City is not a Tree’, Christopher Alexander, 1965, reprinted in Architecture Culture 1943- 1968 a Documentary Anthology, edit. Joan Ockman, Columbia Books of Architecture, Rizzoli New York, 1993.






Week 2- Aug. 29- Sept. 2 Site Analysis & Site Models

Monday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.

Wednesday- Site Research- We will be using this day to further collect and check our field research.

Friday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.
Seminar #2- Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part 2
We will continue our seminar on urban design issues. This weeks readings include works by famous architects whose ideas shaped contemporary attitudes toward the city. Each has been influential over the last 30 years in framing a theory about architecture and city. Our intention here is not to select a single one but come to understand the varied visions of the city and urban design strategies for it. This is intended to serve as an introduction to urban design form from the perspective of contemporary discourse.

Required Reading-
Introduction to Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part Two
Excerpt from The Architecture of the City, Aldo Rossi 1966, reprinted in Architecture Culture 1943- 1968 a Documentary Anthology, edit. Joan Ockman, Columbia Books of Architecture, Rizzoli New York, 1993.
‘The Only Path for Architecture’, Maurice Culot and Leon Krier, originally published in Archives d’Architecture Moderne 14, Translated into English in Opposition 14, Fall 1978, reprinted in Architecture Theory since 1968, edit. K. Michael Hays, Columbia Books of Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1998.
‘Contextualism: Urban Ideals and Deformations’, Thomas Schumacher, reprinted in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture and Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965- 1995, Edit. Kate Nesbitt, Princeton Architectural Press New York,
‘What Ever Happened to Urbanism?’, Rem Koolhaas, 1994, reprinted in Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, edit Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Academy Editions, 1997.
‘Postscript: Introduction for New Research ‘The Contemporary City’’, Rem Koolhaas, from Architecture and Urbanism no. 217 1988, reprinted in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture and Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965- 1995, Edit. Kate Nesbitt, Princeton Architectural Press New York, 1996
‘Toward the Contemporary City’ Rem Koolhaas, from Design Book Review no. 17 1989, reprinted in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture and Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965- 1995, Edit. Kate Nesbitt, Princeton Architectural Press New York, 1996.
‘’Beyond Delirious’, Rem Koolhaas, from Canadian Architect no. 39, 1994, reprinted in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture and Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965- 1995, Edit. Kate Nesbitt, Princeton Architectural Press New York, 1996.


Week 3- Sept. 5- 9 Precedent and Analysis Studies

Monday- Labor Day Holiday

Wednesday- Site Documentation Due- We will engage in an informal presentation of research data collected to date.
1) The teams will first present their documentation of the existing midtown site and surrounding area. We will discuss our findings and begin to organize our thoughts on how to proceed and what is needed. We will also have to discuss how to present this data in a usable graphic form and is helpful in the design process and in presentation to others.
2) This will lead to a discussion session. Our aim here will be to establish guidelines for what we believe is needed in the immediate area, and how it will enhance the overall Midtown experience. These guidelines should be in keeping with the existing Midtown design guidelines outline in the Blueprint Midtown. We must be careful not to simply accept the Blueprint but examine how it has been implemented where it worked well and were it did not and find solutions to existing problems. Blueprint Midtown can be found at the following web address:

www.blueprintmidtown.org

3) The class will break down into teams again to document our findings as follows:

1) Site Model- This team will construct an ‘as is’ model of site and surrounding area.
2) Midtown Plan- This team will construct a comprehensive plan of midtown that shows all existing structures.
3) Analysis Boards- This team will construct presentation boards of research data collected
4) Design Guidelines Booklet- This team will construct a booklet documenting our research and findings.
5) Mixed-use Precedent Analysis – This team will develop a series of presentation boards showing Organizational Diagramming of key mixed use projects similar in type form to the ones we will be doing.
6) Urban Strategies Analysis- This team will develop a presentation outlining three recent approaches to developing urban form; Collage City, Dialectic City, and New Urbanism. The intent is to demonstrate that there are various ways of approaching the idea of form and image in the design of urban space.

Analysis Constructions are due Friday Sept. 16

Site Analysis Team Task descriptions
We will be doing our site Analysis in a manner more conducive to that of a professional office or planning organization. Our intention here is to produce a set of documents that graphically depict our research and conclusions regarding the Midtown district. This will be part of our formal presentations both for the masterplans and the individual projects and represents a significant portion of the course. The graphic format is both for us to help decipher and incorporate the information into our design strategy as well as to communicate our findings to others.

1) Site Model- This team will construct an ‘as is’ model of site and surrounding area.
This model will show all of the existing built conditions in the midtown district. It will be used to orient both ourselves and jurors and serve as a before model for our masterplans. The model should be constructed on a wooden base with wood structures. Topography should be included. Please not that this model should conform to the graphic standard set for the analysis boards as well such that it reads as a continuous element in the overall presentation.

2) Midtown Plan- This team will construct a comprehensive plan of midtown that shows all existing structures.
This team will produce not only the master document for each masterplan team to use but will also construct a digital model of the midtown district. We will use this plan and digital model for any necessary fly threw and for the construction of perspectives in presentations of the masterplans and individual mixed use projects.

3) Analysis Boards- This team will construct presentation boards of research data collected.
This team will construct presentation boards that present in graphic format the documentation, analysis and general conclusions from our research. This should include but is not limited to boards showing function maps, bus routes and mass transit stops, pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns, green space, public art and civic use accessibility charts. These will be used during our presentations and should serve to graphically make evident our conclusions from our research and our eventual guidelines for the masterplan.

4) Design Guidelines Booklet- This team will construct a booklet documenting our research and findings.
This team will construct a booklet containing essentially all of the work of the other teams in an easily accessible format. While the Analysis team will have to be selective about which graphic information is presented this team will be able to include much of the raw data collected as well to serve as back up and support of our findings.

5) Urban Strategies Analysis- This team will develop a presentation outlining three recent approaches to developing urban form; Collage City, Dialectic City, and New Urbanism as well as a studio project from UCLA that garnered a P/A Award. The intent is to demonstrate that there are various ways of approaching the idea of form and image in the design of urban space.
We are looking for innovative ways to conceptualize the city and rather than use a single model of urban form we want to examine how contemporary architects have envisioned urban interventions. This team will do a presentation of three well known models out there. The idea here is to realize that there are many ways to address the concerns of urban form again like the precedent studies we are looking at examples not models, we will want to develop our own strategy for midtown based upon our research. Outlines of these strategies can be found in the following readings:

Excerpt from Collage City, Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter, 1973, reprinted in Architecture Theory since 1968, edit. K. Michael Hays, Columbia Books of Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1998.
‘The Dialectic City’, O.M. Ungers & Stefan Vieths, from The Dialectic City, Skira Editore, Milan, 1997.
‘Traditional Neighbourhood Development Ordinance’, Duany +Plater-Zyberk, 1989, reprinted in Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture edit Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Academy Editions, 1997.
‘Dilemmas for our time: Understanding LA Now’ printed in Architecture- The 52nd Annual P/A Awards January 2005, pg. 24- 32.


6) Precedent Analysis- Organizational Diagramming of key mixed use projects similar in type form to the ones we will be doing.
The purpose of the precedent analysis is to diagram how various mixed- use functions are integrated into a complete and unified project. In large scale mixed-use projects it is often necessary to ‘layer’ building cores and separate lobbies by function as a result path sequence and way finding can become more complex. The precedent study is designed to help familiarize the student with how this is done.
We will use a 3-dimetional exploded axonometric drawing format that depicts; entries, public lobbies, main vertical and horizontal circulation, zoning, service and public space. We will use the presentation method from the article on AOL Time Warner Center, New York, NY, USA in Architecture Record as our format to present the information for this precedent analysis study.
The list is by no means complete only a sampling of some projects that address the primary concerns that we will be dealing with in this class for this reason the list contains work representative of the 4th phase of Mixed- use development and not earlier works from say the 70’s whose attitudes toward the urban environment have since been rejected. The projects are mostly urban context projects several city blocks in scope others are single building towers.

Mixed- Use Precedents:
Jin Mao tower, Shanghai, China
JR Central Towers and Station, Nagoya, Japan
Sony Center am Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, Germany
900 North Michigan Ave., Chicago Ill., USA
Rockefeller Center, New York NY, USA
Rowes Wharf, Boston, Mass, USA
Water Tower Place, Chicago, Ill., USA

Note 2:
Students may wish to look at the following mixed use projects on their own:
University Park at MIT, Cambridge Mass, USA
Canary Wharf, London, UK
Quincy Market, Boston, Mass, USA
Bryant St. Pier Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA, USA
Peabody Place Memphis, Tenn., USA
Addison Circle, Addison, Texas, USA
City Place, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
Phillips Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Valencia Town Center Drive, Valencia, CA, USA
West End City Center, Budapest, Hungary
Yerba Buena Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
Easton Town Center, Columbus Ohio, USA
Mizner Park, Boca Raton Fla., USA


Friday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.
Seminar #3 Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part 3
We will continue our weekly seminar in urban design issues. This weeks readings are from two urban designers and one architect. They deal with their ideas about how to approach the urban condition. Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard propose a series of guidelines that they hope will encourage the development of a livable urban fabric. William Whyte on the other hand provides an analysis of the theater that is public space in the city. His conclusions from his research indicate that we need to observe more closely how public space is used. His article challenges stereotypical assumptions of who utilizes what space. Last the introduction to The Dialectic City by German Architect O.M. Ungers, in which he challenges the Modernist idea of the big design arguing that the city is a dialectical experience and that calls for a dialectical approach to urban design. His call is for smaller interventions on the neighborhood scale that take their formal cues from the existing localized strategies.

Required Reading-
Introduction to Urban Design Issues Critiques and Theories Part 3

‘Toward and Urban Design Manifesto’ in American Planning Association Journal, 1987, Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard, reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
‘The Design of Spaces’ from City: Rediscovering the Center, William Whyte, 1988, reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd edit, edit. R. T. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
‘Urban Villages’, The Urban Villages Group, 1992, reprinted in Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, edit Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Academy Editions, 1997.

Week 4- Sept. 12- 16 Typology Study and Programming

Monday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.

Wednesday- In Class work day

Friday- Site Analysis Due

Week 5- Sept. 19- 23 Master Planning

Monday- Master Plan Programming
We will spend the day programming the master plan for our site in midtown. This will include making decisions regarding what functions are needed in the area, what would be needed on the site to make it viable and what

Master Plan Charette
We will end the week with the assignment of a design charette. Each student will be asked individually to design a master plan for the site based upon our analysis of the site, our design guidelines, and our precedent study and our programming. Presentations should include:

Master Plan with new buildings plantings and paving textures
Perspectives- vignettes of public streets or spaces
Elevations- Main streets

Master Plan Charette is due Wednesday Sept. 21

Wednesday- Master Plan Charette Due-
These presentations will be in house and informal. They will be followed by a discussion session.

Setting goals for master planning-
Based on our discussion of the charrette projects we will select 5 to 6 key thematics that the class agrees are viable solutions to the problem. Breaking down into two or three design teams, we will then use these thematics as the basis for our master plans.


Begin work on Master Plans
Teams should begin design work on master plan. Final presentations should include the following:

Master Plan- including new building forms, plantings and paving textures
Elevations- Main streets
Perspectives- vignettes of public spaces or streets
Model-site model of the area this should have the building site cut out so that it can be used later on.

Master Plans will be due Wednesday Oct. 5

Friday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.
Guest Speaker TBA

Week 6- Sept. 26- 30 Master Planning

Monday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.

Wednesday- Site Visit

Friday- Team Meetings- Scheduled meetings between faculty and Site Documentation
Teams.
Guest Speaker TBA

Week 7- Oct. 3- 7 Master Plan Jury / Programming Mixed- Use Project

Monday- In class work day

Wednesday- Master Plan Jury
This will be a formal jury. Teams should present the following:

Master Plan- including new building forms, plantings and paving textures
Elevations- Main streets
Perspectives- vignettes of public spaces or streets
Model-site model of the area this should have the building site cut out so that it can be used later on.

Friday- Mixed- Use Project Programming
We will spend the day programming the single structure mixed –use project in the master plan. This will include making decisions regarding what functions are needed on the site to make it a viable building and support the over all goals of the larger project while making a significant contribution to the Midtown experience.

Seminar #4 Mixed- Use Projects: Concepts and Realities

Required Reading- Mixed-Use Projects: Concepts and Realities
‘Introduction and History’, in Mixed- Use Development Handbook2nd Edit., Dean Schwanke, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 2003, pp. 4-30.
‘Mixed Uses and Urban Design’, in Reclaiming the City Mixed Use Development, Edit. Andy Coupland, E & FN Spon, London, 1997.
‘Planning and Design’ in Mixed- Use Development Handbook2nd Edit., Dean Schwanke, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 2003, pp. 168-210.
Begin work on Schematic Design
Students should be working on bubble diagramming and parti studies.

Schematic Designs due Monday Oct 17
Presentations should include the following:

Schematic plans
Schematic elevations
Schematic sections
Mass model


Week 8- Oct. 10- 14 Mixed use- Schematic Design

Monday- Desk Crits- Parti and Organizational Studies should be complete

Wednesday- Desk Crits- Work on schematic floor plans, section and elevations should begin.

Friday- Desk Crits- Students should be refining their schematic ideas.


Week 9- Oct. 17- 21 Mixed use/ Renovation-Design Development- Refinement of Basic Design

Monday Schematic Design Jury-
This will be an in house jury designed to give you feedback on your project. Presentation should include:

Schematic plans
Schematic elevations
Schematic sections
Mass model

Wednesday Desk Crits- using feedback from your jury students should begin to develop and refine the schematic design.

Friday Desk Crits-Refinement of overall design intentions should be finished by this weekend.

Week 10- Oct. 24-28 Mixed use- Design Development- Refinement of Main Elements

Monday Desk Crits- Students should have refined their design and be working on refining the main public spaces both interior and exterior. This should include interior elevations and sections.

Wednesday Desk Crits- Students should continue in the development of the main interior and exterior elements of their design.

Friday Design Development Jury-
This will be a formal jury. Presentation should include:

Plans
Sections
Elevations
Mass Model


Week 11- Oct. 31- Nov. 4 Mixed use- Structural System Refinement

Monday Desk Crits- Students should begin to refine and develop the structural system of their design. The intention is to demonstration and understanding of the structural needs of your design along with an ability to demonstrate that you understand the interrelationship between the structural system, design intentions and space.

Wednesday Desk Crits-

Friday Desk Crits-


Week 12- Nov. 7- 11 Mixed use- Systems integration and Detail Development

Monday Desk Crits- Students should begin to develop an understanding of the way in which building systems (in particular the mechanical systems) interact with their design. This is basically a schematic understanding of how these systems interact with both structure and spatial elements.

Wednesday Desk Crits-.

Friday Desk Crits- Students should select a significant detail from their building this detail should not be a standard detail but one that holds the potentiality of contributing to the artistry of the building. It is expected that the student will develop this detail in full.

Week 13- Nov. 14- 18 Mixed use- The Significant Detail

Monday Desk Crits- This week you should be working on the significant detail in both model and drawing form. For the final it is expected that the student will have a model of this detail.

Wednesday Desk Crits-

Friday Jury- Review of Design before Final-
This will be an in house jury presentation should include:

Plans
Sections
Elevation
Mass Model
Parti Diagram
Organizational Diagram
Structrual Diagram
Systems Diagram

Week 14-Nov. 21- 25 Mixed use - Begin Final Presentations

Monday Desk Crits-. Schematic layout of presentation, and presentation materials and techniques should be available for review.

Wednesday Thanksgiving Holiday

Friday Thanksgiving Holiday


Week 15 Nov. 28- Dec. 2 Mixed use- Presentations & Thanksgiving Holiday

Monday Students should be working on their final presentations.

Wednesday students should begin to work on the final presentation of their projects.

Friday Desk Crits on request-


Sunday- Boards will be collected on Sunday Dec. 5 at 10:00pm.
Final Presentations should include the following:

Conceptual Statement
Parti Diagram
Organizational Diagram
Structrual Diagram
Systems Diagram
Plans
Sections
Elevation
Mass Model
Significant Detail Drawings & Model
Perspective


Week 16 Dec. 5- 9 Mixed use - Final Jury

Monday- Final Jury Presentations- 2:00 pm

Wednesday- Dec 8th Last day of Class- 5th year jury

Friday- 5th year jury

Saturday- Dec. 9th - Finals begin

Week 17 Dec. 13- 17 Finals Week

Monday- Finals

Wednesday- Dec 14th last day of Finals
Saturday- Dec 17th Graduation

Norman Jaffe: The Parrish Art Museum

DSC06210, originally uploaded by lightroomstudio.

Thesis Studio

Beginning the Diploma Project

The fifth-year Diploma Studio Project is divided into two distinct semesters, but ultimately seamless design and presentation of a project chosen by the student. The project must be relevant to the student's interest, the Architecture Department’s Mission Statement, and the Architecture Department’s commitment to NAAB criteria.
The Fall Semester effort is dedicated to defining the Thesis, Research, Programming and Preliminary Site and Building Design.
The Spring Semester effort is dedicated to: Detailed Site and Building Design.
The following information is intended as a guide and overview for the seamless effort of the Diploma Studio Project.
Part I : The Diploma Project Process
Part II : The Faculty’s Concerns as to Thesis and Typology (i.e. “interface with the published SOA Mission and NAAB criteria)
Part III : Diploma Project Proposal
Part IV : Organization of Diploma Studio Work and Documentation
Part V : Diploma Project Scholarship
Part VI : Diploma Project Book Layout and Documentation Guide
Part I: The Diploma Project Process
Four Crucial Steps for a Successful Beginning of the Diploma Studio Project
1. Establish a Thesis.
2. Determine a Building or Project Typology (the building or project type is the “vehicle” to advance the position taken in the Thesis).
3. Secure timely faculty approval and support of the Thesis and Typology.
4. After faculty approval and before beginning Schematic Design, formulate an architectural Concept (the concept is project-specific, and therefore is formulated after the selection of the typology (building or project).
Before establishing a Thesis , first, understand the fundamental difference in Thesis and Concept.
Thesis: Literally Greek for the act of laying down . The thesis is an intellectual position laid down or to be advanced. It is the first stage of the dialectic – discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation. In architectural design , our method of reasoning and dialogue is physical design .
Concept: The generic definition of “concept” is similar to thesis in that concept is an intellectual idea generated from particular circumstances, but an architectural concept is embraced and interpreted within the discipline of architecture . The architectural concept is an architectonic interpreter of the thesis. It is the conceptualized physical design precepts, ideas, and principles that will support the investigation of the thesis.
A very simple example : Suppose a thesis as simple as continuous perception of the natural world is critically important to the workplace . That is an intellectual, albeit simple, position to be advanced. An architectural concept to support this thesis might simply be the organization of all workspaces to face the sun and absorb prevailing winds at all times of the workday . Again, simple, but the concept says something about physical design, whereas the thesis states an intellectual position.
By identifying an intellectual architectural thesis (a position to be advanced) and a supporting architectural concept, we clarify the subtle, but important, differences in the two types of ideas. An intellectual investigation based upon a position taken (thesis) generally needs another layer of interpretation – the architectural concept – since architects design with form and space, not with literature. If we designed with literature, we probably could deal with a thesis directly, since it is a word to word translation. Yet in the discipline of architecture, the Concept facilitates the articulation of a thesis to physical design.
The following are some examples of Thesis Statements and Concepts from an earlier studio. The project was an Architectural Office in Midtown Atlanta.
Example 1
Thesis : There can be a positive coexistence of formalism (objectivity) and the best qualities of street architecture in the urban context.
Concept : One aspect of the architect’s making of an object, often is, objectivity itself – or formalism. The investigation here concerns the apparent paradox of the civic responsibility of designing good street architecture, as in the Jane Jacobs tradition of nourishing the street , while satisfying the desire for object-making. A guiding principle of the design must be that all form and space-making must, of course, facilitate the program, yet be fully informed by the street architecture. In turn, the forms and space at the street should inform the objects.
Example 2
Thesis : The imposition of an implied kinetic architecture can create an interactive civic focus .
Concept : This project focuses on the potential of structure as an attractor to a civic space and mid-block pedestrian passage. Natural world phenomenon such as sun, shade, and shadow are utilized to imply a motion, dynamic, or kinetic aspect in order to intrigue, please, and attract civic patrons. Building forms are arranged in a manner sensitive to the orthographic order of the existing context, with major emphasis on the order of the street. The building’s structure – both primary and secondary – are certainly coordinated with the building massing, yet is organized in such a way to allow a degree of separation from the massing in order to facilitate this kinetic effect and focus on the civic space of the site.
Example 3
Thesis : The vernacular and regional device of the “porch,” used in the modernist tradition, can be a facilitator of form-making, space-making, and socialization.
Concept : The idea of the porch (specifically, the southern porch) was investigated not only as to its form, but also its meaning and relationship to the street. The design challenge here is to incorporate/translate the regional qualities of the porch in a meaningful way to this project type in order to evoke the feeling, memories, and meanings of “porch” – both at the project’s exterior and, as importantly, the interior. Spatial arrangements and form-making of the regional porch were analytically considered, yet much of the “feeling” of porch is more ethereal. For example, the “membrane” between “porch” exterior and interior was discovered to be crucial, yet difficult to define analytically. This membrane becomes an important project design feature and its “diffusion” between exterior and interior is consistent with the “idea of porch”. This “diffusion” is implemented by utilizing filtering, screening, and other design devices that reduce the opacity of the form and provide for interesting and less abrupt transitions between interior and exterior.
Example 4
Thesis : The normative zoning precept of “mixed use” can be utilized as a primary form-giver, space-generator, and most importantly, can be a statement of sustainability.
Concept : Three factors were instrumental in the conceptualization of this project. 1) The virtues of mixed-use zoning at both the urban scale and the individual project scale, 2) the use of a variety of visual and spatial experiences to positively impact the urban patron, and 3) the emerging ideology that a building may be more sustainable if it is, in effect, less “use-specific” in terms of design. Concerning these factors, this design not only acknowledges the traditional precept of a building form responding to function, but stimulates another level of investigation. Specifically, the site context – the buildings, streets, patron activity, and natural world phenomenon – as “shapers” of the building aesthetic and site development. These factors will likely have a longer relationship with the building than the general short life of any particular occupancy. The project design, in fact, supports a kind of “controlled ambiguity” consistent with the context of the area.
Part II: The Faculty’s Concerns as to Thesis and Typology
School of Architecture Mission Statement and NAAB Criteria
The faculty must be certain there is an interface with the published SOA Mission and NAAB criteria.
MISSION (NAAB Criteria states that individual programs of Architecture must have a clear mission and projects must be in accordance with that mission).
The Mission Statement of the Architecture Program of Southern Polytechnic:
The Architecture program fosters invention, creativity, and craft through hands-on exploration, the foundation of technology. Moreover, the knowledge of cultural diversity, communication, history, and criticism is inseparable from the application of technology. This process is the making of architecture .
Therefore, the SOA faculty must assure that the student must demonstrate:
• the realization that materials, technical systems, and methods of construction of a design project should be as unique and intrinsic to the project as their subjective aesthetic solution.
• the ability to constantly search for new potential for existing building materials and push forward the frontiers of technology as well as being involved in the very physical nature of prototyping and construction.
• the ability to create an architecture that is shaped not just by function and technology but also by the people and their behavior, by the place and its traditions, and by an urge to settle into, and integrate with, the surroundings and the natural environment.
• the ability to create beauty through meticulous studies into the potential of each “piece” to realize the potential of the whole.
• the ability to craft meticulous studies of each “piece” in the form of large scale models.
• an understanding and concern for sustainable architecture.
• through attentive listening, the ability to create an architecture that clearly demonstrates the client or user and the community’s participation in determining design goals rather than an architecture that alone imposes a distinctive personal idiom.
• the realization that architecture is the making of things, it requires a balance of science and craft, head and hand, experiment and memory; and that it is not necessary for technology to be incompatible with history or nature.
The Faculty strongly believes the design of habitable space is the most effective vehicle for demonstration of our program’s mission.