This is the Route through EUR that is directed by different types of views.
These views are created by different types of fragments.
Right now I am literally making the physical models and trying to be specific in describing what these new views of EUR are. The physical models are taking a bit I have to say. Have been doing sketch models on site then translating in Rhino and making new ones.
These views are created by different types of fragments.
Right now I am literally making the physical models and trying to be specific in describing what these new views of EUR are. The physical models are taking a bit I have to say. Have been doing sketch models on site then translating in Rhino and making new ones.
okay, so there are 3 areas that are linked and need to be developed:
1. overall composition. 2. How the spaces are inhabited 3. The sequence of views.
These last couple of days I've been building the model where I will be rehearsing my scenarios.
As brought up from preview, there is a need to: establish a hierarchy of views, bring back fragment behaviours from 1st term model, make the intervention less of a literal pictorial translation and more spatial, make a more extreme change or intervention to the site and that the space of the viewer is to be activated by the intervention. So, Monia and I were discussing how both the hierarchy of views and the way the fragments are to be inhabited are based on the scale of the spaces. The scale of EURs Fascistic space renders the individual and their actions invisible. The programmes that Im introducing have specific spatial scales. E.g the galleries have more dense sequence of spaces, as opposed to the music hall that has an open, wider sense of scale.
These types of spaces match with how the fragment is performing structurally also. FOr example, the space of the gallery fragments are narrow and more like inhabitable building cladding where as the music hall fragment is a solid chunk of space that sits currently stands on the existing traffic island.
SO later this weekend, I will blog this drawn up logic whcih will inform me when making the scenarios on the physcial model.
Secondly, I am currently making the intervention as a folded out pattern that is marked with the sections so that it will be simple to update the pattern with info from the scenarios. Once areas or fragments become more fixed, i will replace the pattern with the structural frame work.
1. overall composition. 2. How the spaces are inhabited 3. The sequence of views.
These last couple of days I've been building the model where I will be rehearsing my scenarios.
As brought up from preview, there is a need to: establish a hierarchy of views, bring back fragment behaviours from 1st term model, make the intervention less of a literal pictorial translation and more spatial, make a more extreme change or intervention to the site and that the space of the viewer is to be activated by the intervention. So, Monia and I were discussing how both the hierarchy of views and the way the fragments are to be inhabited are based on the scale of the spaces. The scale of EURs Fascistic space renders the individual and their actions invisible. The programmes that Im introducing have specific spatial scales. E.g the galleries have more dense sequence of spaces, as opposed to the music hall that has an open, wider sense of scale.
These types of spaces match with how the fragment is performing structurally also. FOr example, the space of the gallery fragments are narrow and more like inhabitable building cladding where as the music hall fragment is a solid chunk of space that sits currently stands on the existing traffic island.
SO later this weekend, I will blog this drawn up logic whcih will inform me when making the scenarios on the physcial model.
Secondly, I am currently making the intervention as a folded out pattern that is marked with the sections so that it will be simple to update the pattern with info from the scenarios. Once areas or fragments become more fixed, i will replace the pattern with the structural frame work.
hey, has been a LONG time. These drawings show what I am focusing on now.
1. AXO The overall landscape of fragments. Hmm need to find a better way of describing the overall scheme. Monia and I discussed how its not 1 continuous surface - its actually a composition of fragments that are inhabitable. Here, I am looking at instances within the overall to develop them spatially. I have to be more extreme.Will talk more about this after I blog the 2 other important drawings
1. AXO The overall landscape of fragments. Hmm need to find a better way of describing the overall scheme. Monia and I discussed how its not 1 continuous surface - its actually a composition of fragments that are inhabitable. Here, I am looking at instances within the overall to develop them spatially. I have to be more extreme.Will talk more about this after I blog the 2 other important drawings
Sorry, my computer decided to stop working last night and is now being repaired so could I please have an afternoon tutorial so i can print etc.
The overall grande vista is composed of inhabitable fragments that are defined by local vistas that occur along the circulatory path. The overall perspective lines create a continuous surface. I need to cut the continuous proposal into cross sections that are connected by the perspective lines. The perspective lines basically define the whole image yet also expand and contract the spaces that occur between them and the existing buildings. I am working on an axo of the model (the cross sections and persepctive lines) that will explain a strategy more. I can already see the types of spaces that do and dont work.
Below
1.the image seen from the view point of the person just entering the space.
2 and 3. Relationship between modifications of the image and the construction of the space itself.
Back to the overall model now.
Im happy that I am working out how the image can be used as a spatial organisational tool however I think that the relationship between perception and actual distance needs to be utilised in a much more richer way. E.g the constraint of making a restricted space seem expansive.
Im thinking : scale, density.
1.the image seen from the view point of the person just entering the space.
2 and 3. Relationship between modifications of the image and the construction of the space itself.
Back to the overall model now.
Im happy that I am working out how the image can be used as a spatial organisational tool however I think that the relationship between perception and actual distance needs to be utilised in a much more richer way. E.g the constraint of making a restricted space seem expansive.
Im thinking : scale, density.
This is a quick example that shows the set up: how the spaces will be organised. The axo view shows how the spaces are modelled in relation to an image.
The cladding is deliberately kept off some areas so that the build up of frames can be seen. This model has smaller pre cast panel sizes 1.5m x 3m. However, at the area where they become too small to be individual panels, large scale panels with a pattern grooved into the surface will be placed there instead.
I havent resolved how to make the spanning strut inhabitable but it means moving the control points that support it at its back. I am drawing up these problems and strategies now.
I havent resolved how to make the spanning strut inhabitable but it means moving the control points that support it at its back. I am drawing up these problems and strategies now.
The primary frame is supporting the overall form:
The corners and the vertical struts between the corners are the weakest parts. The planes are rotating around these struts. The horizontal beams at the top edge act as ties for these struts. Although the strut creats a path for the load to be carried directly to the ground, the trusses within the planes also carry some of the load of the struts across the surface of the plane. The most important force seems to be the lateral force that the floor plates need to be active in. They tie back the tipping planes.
The secondary frame supports the cladding panels only. This frame is structurally supported by the primary frame. It is susceptible to shearing if it is supported only at its corners as it bends out of its plane. This plane needs to keep flat.
There needs to be a specially made panel for the corner situations to create continuity across the surfaces. I think that the panels could act to support the strut at these corners and help to hold back the rotation of the planes around this line. I need to diagram and notate this more but its a start. These models are at 1:100 scale.
The corners and the vertical struts between the corners are the weakest parts. The planes are rotating around these struts. The horizontal beams at the top edge act as ties for these struts. Although the strut creats a path for the load to be carried directly to the ground, the trusses within the planes also carry some of the load of the struts across the surface of the plane. The most important force seems to be the lateral force that the floor plates need to be active in. They tie back the tipping planes.
The secondary frame supports the cladding panels only. This frame is structurally supported by the primary frame. It is susceptible to shearing if it is supported only at its corners as it bends out of its plane. This plane needs to keep flat.
There needs to be a specially made panel for the corner situations to create continuity across the surfaces. I think that the panels could act to support the strut at these corners and help to hold back the rotation of the planes around this line. I need to diagram and notate this more but its a start. These models are at 1:100 scale.
