Thomas.EinspahrFourth Year Portfolio

Contents.

1_Resume 2_Reflective Essay 3_Arch 420 Contemporary Debates in Architectural TheorySpring 2010

4_Arch 452-453 Interdiciplinary StudioWinter-Spring 2010ACSA Steel CompetitionMixed Use High Rise

6_San Francisco Internship Diaplodi LampMasysFall 2009

1_R

esum

e

Thomas.Einspahr

572 Foothill Blvd. Apt 13, San Luis Obispo, Ca | 507.269.2954 | thomas.einspahr@gmail.com

Education.

Skills.

Work Experience.

Extracurricular.

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Rhino 3dRhinoCamVRay RenderAutoCadPhotoshopIllustratorInDesignLaser Cutter Setup3d Digitizer

Bachelor of ArchitectureDean’s List_ F.07, S.08, F.08, S.09, F.09, W.09, S. 09President’s List_09-10 Academic YearExpected Graduation: June 2011

Computer.

Hand.DraftingModel Building

Design Intern_ 10.26.2009-12.04.2009Model AssemblyDigital and Parametric ModellingArchitectural Research

Matsys_San Francisco, CA.

Design Intern_ 07.01.2006-09.10.2006Adaptive Reuse DesignAs Built Drawings

The Urban Studio_Rochester, MN.

3rd Year Representative_ Fall 2008-Spring 2009Technology Committee Chair_ Fall 2008-Spring 2009Helped University Acquire Digital Fabrication Equipment

Architecture Student Affairs - College Based Fees [CBF].

References.Upon Request.

San Francisco Urban Design ProgramFall_ 2009

3_R

eflec

tive

Essa

y

In my architectural education I believe my greatest progress is in my understanding the tectonics of a building and the ability to conceptualize ideas architecturally. My experience in the San Francisco off campus program helped me gain of greater understanding of some of the pragmatic aspects of the profession.

The studios I took during my fourth year helped to increase my knowledge of building systems I had acquired from the practice lecture courses. Via my designs I worked to integrate ideas of building systems into the architecture. Working in San Francisco allowed me to apply knowledge from both lecture courses and design studios. The design studio project combined the challenges of an urban site and the desire to create an architecture, which was unique, appealing to local neighborhood group and economically viable.

Another area where I improved was working with other architects and other disciplines via participating in an interdisciplinary studio. The course was a new experience for me in both working within a group environment and with engineers. The multi-disciplinary approach was much different than working in the normal studio and functioned somewhat like a practice. The studio helped me to integrate group thinking and structural concepts early in my design process.

While I have a good understanding of theory, tectonics, program, and structure, I need to work more on syn-thesizing these ideas together. I learned a lot of things in my theory class but I was unable to put any of these lessons into my studio projects. Looking back I wish I had taken my theory course earlier on in my education so I could apply the courses more to my work in studio. One of my issues is I have many different ideas for the design, but I struggle putting them together in a polished way. The interdisciplinary project was developed in the building cladding, structure, and conceptual ideas. However, these ideas were not as integrated with the program and the building planning as they should have been.

Next year as part of thesis, I want to work to create a project, which is able to synthesize my knowledge together into on cohesive project. I need to use my architectural thesis to produce a project, which incorpo-rates my knowledge of theory, building systems, planning, and program together in a singular project.

3_A

rch

420

3_S

yllab

us

Kahn, Louis I.. “1973: Brooklyn, New York.” Perspecta 19: The Yale Architectural Journal 19, no. 19 (1982): 93.

“It’s important, you see, that you honor the material that you use. You don’t bandy it around as though to say, ‘Well, we have a lot of material around. We can do it one way. We can do it another way.’ It’s not true. You can only do it if you honor the brick and glorify the brick instead of just shortchanging it or giving it an inferior job to do, where it loses its character.”

Summary:

Louis Kahn writes about the brick to illustrate the importance of a material’s history when deciding its use. In support of the importance of a material’s history, the author discusses how honoring the material is de-pendent on the intuition of the individual designer. Kahn speaks of how knowledge of material, such as its history is not something taken from others but must be developed from ones own inner intuition. There are many forces the architect uses hierarchically with one another to form the city as a whole. Materials are like the city, an architect must use their own intuition to determine a hierarchy to material use. Kahn writes this to prove the point that materials must be used with the utmost care. There is a proper situation and order in which they are used. For Kahn each material is ingrained with a knowledge of its history and use. The way we use materials does not change. Kahn writes, “I believe it that what was, has always been, and what is has always been.” Time may change but for Kahn materials don’t.

Critique:

Kahn’s writings on materials show how important architectural history can be for the use of material. The his-tory of material is as important to the nature of a material as its chemical make up. This history is becoming increasingly more important with the onslaught of new materials finding there way into architecture today. This historical nature is particularly relevant in Kahn’s example of brick. Reading Kahn’s statement about glorifying brick, it seems odd for a material most associate with historical building types such as warehouses, which are not glorified in their function. Kahn’s discussion with the brick is interesting because, while Kahn asserts that the brick wants to be an arch, many architects might suggest that a brick would like to be a wall. When looking to the form of a material, Kahn shows the importance of looking deeper into the historical use and context of a material rather then just its most recent use in history.

Kahn brings up the importance of the architect’s intuition for the selection and use of material. Materials will always be used differently depending on their perception in the eyes of the architect. The author points out there is one specific way to use the brick in his opinion. This singular use of material is rare architecture today. Most architects try to minimize the variety of materials, using a single material for many different expressions and forms. Kahn instead pushes not to use many materials as a collage, but instead to uses materials both for certain accents and to create specific connection to the past. In in age of information overload, architects can take many lessons from Kahn.

3_W

eekly

Rea

ding

Res

pons

es

Greg Lynn. “Blob Tectonics or Why Tectonics are Square and Topology is Groovy.” Folds, Bodies and Blobs. 173-174.

“A rigorous theorization of diversity and difference within the discipline of architecture requires an alternative system of complexity in form - a complex formalism that is in essence freely differentiated.”

Summary:

In his paper Lynn argues for a new architecture of complex forms, different from the complex forms of previ-ous architecture of the past. This new architecture is determined not by tectonics of traditional form, but by free flowing blobs. For Lynn the form is alien to the current architecture while at the same time able to blend in with all contexts. He suggests while tectonic architecture has its own local identity, the blob does not. Early he argues that these forms are not single or multiple in nature but rather made of what he terms as a “series of continuous multiplicities and singularities.”

These forms are not different or the same but rather they are a similar in there make up and related to one another. Many components work together creating a singular form. Later on in the essay Lynn asserts ar-chitectural complexity is created not by contrasting forms but through the difference in their interactions with other forms and the way complexity changes according to time. According to Lynn blobs are also complex because they can be read as a singular shape from the exterior however the items which make them up are comprised of different components related in a complex manner.

Critique:

I agree with Lynn’s assertion of the need to separate architecture of the present from architecture of the past. This architecture however is not necessarily a complete shift from the tectonic complexity Lynn distances himself from. Although methods of fabrication have changed, architecture must still provide Vitruvius’ basic three elements of firmitas, utilitas, venustas. Lynn does not address the pragmatic qualities of how a blob is able keep out the elements. No where in his writing does Lynn address materials ideal for the realization of the blob. When discussing the systems of assemblage of blobs he does not mention waterproofing or enclosure, but only systems of structural support. However, his description of structural systems of the blob gives a believability to his argument. While explaining the structural systems of Shoei Yoh, comparing the different yet similar prefabricated components to existing structural components supports his assertion technology is not the limitation for the construction of blobs. However, he does not account for the human factor in the assembly of the blob. The essay could expand on how processes of assembly for blobs differ from current construction practices. Lynn’s use of the Reiser and Umemoto project points out the blob is extremely advantageous due to its ability to morph and transform a roof structure to conform to changing programmatic conditions. The author should expand on how the structure of blobs can add to the complex-ity and experience of architecture.

Frampton, Kenneth. “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism” Perspecta 20: The Yale Architecture Journal 20, no. 20 (1983): 149.

“On the other hand, Critical Regionalism is a dialectical expression. It self consciously seeks to construct uni-versal modernism in terms of values and images which are locally cultivated, while at the same time adulter-ating these autochthonous elements with paradigms drawn from alien sources. After the disjunctive cultural approach practised by Adolf Loos, Critical Regionalism recognizes that no living tradition remains available to modern man other than the subtle procedures of synthetic contradiction. Any attempt to circumvent the dialectics of this creative process through the eclectic procedures of historicism can only result in consumer-ist iconography masquerading as culture.”

Summary:

In his article “Prospects for a Critical Regionalism,” Kenneth Frampton argues for what he terms “critical re-gionalism”. For the author critical regionalism describes an architecture which is neither conceptually modern or vernacular. He describes a theory guided by the central principle architecture is a commitment to “place rather than space.” Frampton separates place, critical regionalism, from what he calls the popular culture driven vernacular, an architecture concerned with architecture as an “instrumental sign”. The theory he presents is instead based on reincorporating cultural moments from a region into the conceptual ideas of modern architecture. In the essay, Frampton writes about the difficulty of achieving critical regionalism. He describes how Ricardo Bofill’s Walden 7 project has essential elements of Catalonian architecture but instead becomes what the author terms as an ineffective popular vernacular which does not contain the essence of Catalonian culture. Frampton points to several architects who he believes are close to achieving a regionalist sense of architecture, in particular, Tadao Ando. He points out how Ando’s architecture works with light in a way that is uniquely Japanese. The writing cites Ando’s own description of his work as “a restoration of the Unity between house and nature that Japanese houses have lost in the process of modernization”. Framp-ton describes how Ando uses light to create a Japanese connection to nature within a modernist concrete vocabulary. The author argues critical regionalism has a dense “differentiation of culture” in opposition to the cultural empty nature of greedy capitalist modern development.

Critique:

Frampton makes an interesting point about the nature of regionalism. I agree with the notion that place is more than just a style or architectural elements. Many architects simply associate place with a certain style, this thinking is found in the work of architects such as Michael Graves, in his Portland Office Building, featuring historical architectural elements such as keystone. Architecture is deeper than simply style, but is rooted in the cultural identity from which it was conceived. The work of Ando is an architecture which fits with a notion of critical regionalism because it has an atmosphere which is uniquely Japanese. In particular the quality of light at the Koshino Residence creates this atmosphere. One of the questions critical regionalism raises is how to preserve cultural identity in an increasingly global profession. How can architecture remain unique to place in an era where architects and builders work all around the world? Architects, such as Ando now work around the world in areas where they presumably have little knowledge of the culture or place. Can cultural research, like that of Harry Wolf in Fort Lauderdale, create an architecture equal to work created by an architect with years of knowledge working within a region? How can architecture represent place when clients seek the brand and prestige of an international architect, instead of choosing architecture rooted in their own region. The architects who Frampton argues are excellent at representing place now work in areas outside of the regions whose qualities they supposedly represent.

Philip Johnson and Henry Russel Hitchcock, The International Style (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), 56.

“The effect of mass, of static solidity, hitherto the prime quality of architecture, has all but disappeared; in its place there is an effect of volume, or more accurately, of plane surfaces bounding a volume. The prime architectural symbol is no longer the dense brick but the open box. Indeed, the great majority of buildings are in reality, as well as in effect, mere planes surrounding a volume.” Summary:

Johnson argues for a new style of architecture. He points out that in the past each period of architecture was defined by a single style. One of the defining elements of this new style is the idea of architecture as volume. Johnson argues while previous architectural styles were about mass, this new architecture style is about volume. Volume is different from mass in that is not clearly defined by massive walls. Volume is instead defined by planes, which are light in appearance, and are non-load bearing. The detailing of this architecture is not ornamental like styles of the past. Detail is instead used as an element to reinforce the idea of surface as volume. Johnson describes Volume as “Immaterial and weightless, a geometrically bounded space.” The sense of weightless is created by separating the means of support from the building from the wall. Johnson describes several projects, which follow the principle of architecture as volume. In particular, he mentions Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion. Johnson notes how the walls of the Pavilion function as screens dividing a volume, which is not fixed. In addition the roof creates a volume below it defined not by the screens but by the roof plane. The transparent glass of the pavilion helps to reinforce the idea of architecture not as mass but as volume.

Critique:

Johnson’s assessment of calling the new modern architecture an international style is questionable. The architects he discusses like Corbusier and Mies sought to separate themselves from the idea of style. Style suggests there are fixed sets of rules one can use to generate the “perfect” architecture. Many modern architects such as Mies produced architecture that while modern, did not follow Johnson’s fixed set of rules. The Barcelona Pavilion, which Johnson praises as an example of architecture as volume does not restrain from the use of color but rather makes of use of the beautiful colors within the Travertine Marble. The Villa Savoye by Corbusier was also quite colorful on the interior. In addition Mies’ glass skyscraper project of 1922 also conflicts with the principle of regularity. It is curvilinear and fluid with no perceived regularity of structure and instead becomes more monolithic in nature. Their curved or angular facades are not regular. The ideals of modern architecture sought not to create a new style but rather a new idea of architectural thinking. For Corbusier architecture was about creating a machine for living, not just a new style, but also an entirely new lifestyle. Modern architecture was about expressing a new age of science and technology. Architecture is about more then just aesthetic considerations such as style, architecture is also about meaning. In breaking down modern architecture into simply a style Johnson trivialities it.

K. Michael Hays, “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,” Perspecta 21, no. 21 (1984): 27.

“Rather we must understand it as actively and continually occupying a cultural place-as an architectural inten-tion with ascertainable political and intellectual consequences. Criticism delimits a field of values within which architecture can develop cultural knowledge.”

Summary:

Michael Hays proposes the idea of an architecture, which is not exclusively dependent on cultural context or purely formal. He argues architecture, purely cultural in nature, is dependent on something else. If ar-chitecture is to “see what is does for itself,” then it must separate itself from a dependency on being purely cultural, and look at matters such as form. It is the combination of both relevant cultural perspectives and formal considerations, which form the basis of a critical architecture. The author uses the architecture of Mies van der Rohe as an exemplar of critical architecture. For Hays, one of the most interesting models of Mies van der Rohe’s critical architecture is the Barcelona Pavilion. At first glimpse the materials used in the pavilion’s construction allow the architecture to be perceived as a traditional architectural object. Hays points out, how-ever, the architect shatters expectations of the materials via the transforming the way they are experientially perceived. The space becomes more fluid and has no definitive order for the pavilion to be experienced in. The article argues the experience of the Barcelona Pavilion is not result of either form or culture, but is a con-sequence of both working in combination with each other. Hays suggests that all architecture is in between cultural reality and formal consideration, owing to the fact that a work of architecture produces both cultural and architectural knowledge. Architecture will always be representative of a culture in some way while at the same time, deal in some way with formal issues unrelated to culture.

Critique:

Hays’ idea of critical architecture is very appealing. Architecture has always been interdependent with cul-ture. Architects today sometimes look at architecture as a field outside of cultural influence; they focus on the production of unbuilt projects or architectural installations. However, most of these projects can be identified with a specific time or a place. While the focus of culture may have shifted from local to global, culture is still a part of architecture. Projects such as the Prada stores by OMA illustrate the deep connection between architecture and modern consumerist culture. Hays use of Mies van der Rohe as an example critical is in-teresting. While his early projects work very as an example of critical architecture, his later projects in America such as the Seagram Building do not appear to be as critical as the earlier ones. It appears as if Mies van der Rohe’s projects became more formal in nature than reflecting a cultural perspective. Are his later projects still as critical as his early projects? Hays’ presents the idea of a critical architecture very vaguely. If critical architecture is between culture and form, is critical architecture simply any combination of culture and form? Is it simply to be between culture and form or is it to integrate contemporary culture into architecture? According to Hays, the idea cultural meaning is constantly changing, so if meaning is always changing, who determines which meaning of a critical architecture is current and correct?

Speaks, Michael. “After Theory; Debate in architectural schools rages about the value of theory and its effect on innovation in design.” Architectural Record 193, no. 6 (June 2005): 72.

“I would argue that theory is not just irrelevant but was and continues to be an impediment to the develop-ment of a culture of innovation in architecture. Posing as a youthful alternative to Enlightenment certainty, theory was instead old-fashioned enlightened critique turned on itself – unremitting critique chasing its own tail, without purpose or end.”

Summary:

In his essay Michael Speaks discusses how architecture theory has become increasingly separate from the real world of architectural practice. Theory has hindered the evolution of architecture as a profession be-cause it prohibits architectural academia from being truly innovative. Speaks proposes architecture schools should teach what Jeff Kipnis terms as architectural expertise, in order to increase innovation. The author argues that in fact practice is more innovative than academia. Architectural innovation is based on something Speaks terms design intelligence. One of the primary elements of design intelligence is the idea of thinking by doing. Architectural knowledge is acquired not through architectural theory but rather is obtained via mak-ing. For Speaks the design process is about using the iterations of the design process in the creation of an architectural knowledge. Although architecture has always been the product of iteration the author argues advances in technology have allowed greater iteration. The advent of digital fabrication means architects can now quickly fabricate designs faster than ever before. In addition to the production of models digital technol-ogy allows architects to produce one to one prototypes of their designs. Another component of the new design intelligence is the idea architecture is about collaboration and is not the product of a single individual. Speaks cites Foreign Office Architects’ Yokohama Port Terminal as an architecture which is the result of col-laboration not between architects but between many distinctive professions. He concludes stating rather than looking to the architectural theory of established architects; architecture schools should look to small innovative practices led by younger individuals.

Critique:

Speaks’ proposal is provocative. In many ways theory has limited the impact of architecture to an extent. Architects do not have as much impact within the built environment as they have had in the past. Design in-telligence in many ways invites architects to increase their influence within the realm of the construction indus-try. New technologies such as digital fabrication and BIM are allowing architects greater control of the entire building process then has been possible in the past. In many ways the impact of these technologies appears to supersede any theoretical thinking in importance to architectural practice. In addition to technology and the idea of collaboration have become significant within the discipline. Collaboration allows architecture, which is generally not possible under the traditional design methods. While Speaks reasoning is solid, it is difficult to imagine a complete abandonment of architectural theory in the academic environment. Although theory may not always be the most important aspect of architectural education or practice it will still remain part of it. However correct Speaks assertion may be architecture has always been more than simply pragmatic. Architecture always reflects the culture, which created it whether intentional, or not. It is hard to see for the foreseeable future that architecture will ever be free of any sort of theory whether historical or critical.

Wigley, Mark. “The Architecture of Atmosphere.” Daidalos, no. 68 (1998): 18-27.

“Since the physical context has its own ambience, the building is a kind of device for producing a particular atmosphere within another one. To enter it is to pass from one atmosphere to another. Architecture is to be found in the relationship between atmospheres, the play between microclimates.”

Summary:

In the article Mark Wigley argues atmosphere is important to architecture. He argues architecture always has atmosphere; he cites the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright as an example of atmosphere within discipline. Wright argued atmosphere is as integral to architecture as soil is to a plant. Wigley suggests no architect is immune to atmosphere. According to the author, architecture is always portrayed in good weather, never is it shown with clouds or rain. This absence of weather in itself creates a sense of atmosphere. Architectural representation may avoid the weather but architects such as Tadao Ando draw architecture with a sort of glowing atmosphere. The architecture becomes more the just the building but its surroundings as well. Architects such as LeCorbusier argued for architecture without atmosphere. However, LeCorbusier in at-tempting to avoid architecture of atmosphere he creates an atmosphere. This atmosphere is formed by a removal of architecture from the elements. Wigley argues while atmosphere is a part of architecture, it cannot be controlled by architects. Focusing radically on atmospherics for Wigley removes the architect from the architecture. He points out Constant Nieuwenhuys’ New Babylon as an example of this radical atmospheric. Constant sought to create what he termed “complete décors” which are not just applied but effect life as a whole. New Babylon was conceived as a device using these “complete décors” to create a separate and ever changing atmosphere. Wigley concludes the article stating any architecture, which is concerned with atmosphere as its absolute focus, evaporates the figure of the architect.

Critique:

Architects have long ignored atmosphere in general. Architectural representation used in the academic realm often removes the architecture from an atmospheric climate. As Wigley points out architecture should actu-ally consider what surrounds it. Atmosphere is as important as any other element to consider as part of the design process. On the other hand, the focus of architecture should not be creating a particular atmosphere. Architects often focus on atmosphere at the expense of other architectural considerations. Projects such as New Babylon focus too much on atmosphere reducing the architecture to a device to creating effects rather then creating any sort of meaningful architecture. The problem with affect, as described by Wigley, is this type of architecture can quickly become little more than ornament masquerading as a device for producing effects. Little appears to separate Constant’s “complete décors” from historical architectural ornament. Good architecture should be about more than ornament. A purely affective architecture reduces architecture to something purely aesthetic. Too often today, affect is used as an excuse to produce some sort of ‘cool’ purely aesthetic digitally fabricated architecture. Affect should be included as part of architecture but should not define the architectural experience. The focus of architecture should be on other things such as being critical or enhancing the way we view the world.

Vesely, Dalibor. “On the Relevance of Phenomenology.” Form; Being; Absence: Architecture and Philosophy, Pratt Journal of Architecture II (1988): 59-62.

“Phenomenology is an attempt to understand from the inside – and not to dismiss or criticize from the outside – the whole spectrum of the current experience which we generally call ‘reality.’”

Summary:

Vesely argues architecture should incorporate the philosophical idea of phenomenology. He argues archi-tecture should address the nature of being, of reality, within a culture. The author argues architecture cannot escape the questions of meaning, symbolism and culture. Vesely asks how can architecture serve to create a metaphorical ground allowing individuals with different perceptions of the reality to communicate with one another. He argues phenomenology allows people to understand their reality via architecture. For Vesely, Architecture always exists in reference to something else, as opposed to science, which separates itself from the way humans perceive reality. He references Heidegger’s definition of architecture as a fabric, a physical phenomenon intimately situated within its context and reality. Vesely cautions that the fabric to which Heide-gger refers to is separate from a comparison to architecture as clothing as proposed by Gottfried Semper and others. Heidegger’s fabric is a situational context which architects are involved with, not separate from. For Vesely architects are not the only discipline operating within a situational context, but also art and literature. Architecture is always related to dwelling, which is not simply habitation but inhabiting in relation to human perception of the world. Vesely argues the use of phenomenology in architecture creates an architecture, which is more than aesthetic but enhances human perception of the world.

Critique:

The architecture proposed by Vesely is a very different approach to architecture than approaches advocated within the discourse of affect. Architecture should appeal to individuals challenging their perceptions of reality. While clearly architecture should effect human perception in relation to a situation, how an architect relates to a situation is very subjective. What it may be situated for the architect the occupant of the space may perceive it another way. It is impossible to incorporate every different perception of space, because every person perceives reality in a slightly different manner. The danger in incorporating other angles of perceptions is in the attempt to incorporate them all the architecture becomes so broad it has no effect on the individual at all. In addition, if the phenomenological is always in reference to a situation context how is the quality of the design established? Or does good architecture simply become any architecture, which is rooted within a situ-ational context? Another question raised by Vesely is the role of technology in architecture. New methods of construction often come into conflict with traditional techniques and make traditional methods of construction extremely expensive. Traditional tectonic methods such as bricklaying are replaced by methods not rooted in any tradition. In New York, masonry facades are now constructed as precast masonry elements reducing cost at the same time losing tectonic fidelity and any connection to previous methods of construction. By attempting to incorporate technology while relating to situation does architecture simply become a reinterpre-tation of vernacular elements using new materials.

3_Po

sitio

n Pa

per

4_A

rch

451-

452

Col

labo

ratio

n W

ith_G

eorg

e Fo

rman

. Dag

o D

e La

Ros

a. K

alen

Tur

ner

4_C

ours

e S

yllab

us

The project is conceptualized as the public areas being pulled from a structural diagrid, which acts as the private areas. This gesture encour¬ages the intermingling of public and private elements creating greater human interaction within the program with public areas identi-fied as growths emerging from the private diagrid. The diagrid then hits ground creating a new type urban space inspired by the urban layers of the city of Chicago. We contributed a park to allow for a taller building height that emerges from the base of the tower. The park is a combination of tradition of parks found in the Burnham plan and the urban layers found within the city, i.e. Wacker Drive where there are three layers of streets. The public space is cantilevered from the structural diagrid and is com-posed of a double screen metal mesh in order to appear more singular in its fluidity. The floor plates fin to indicate that the floor is no longer load bearing. By using this choice of material, the public space will not appear to be attached on, but appear to be an intermediate state in the public and private areas. This is also used to accommodate the pro-gram and allow uses to identify the separation of public and private.The diagrid encloses the main volume of the towers. It houses the hotel and the residencies. As opposed to making a singular tower, two were created to move people throughout the structures and utilize the public space that lies in between and around. The private diagrid is formally rigid similar to the programs which it contains. When the diagrid hits the ground, it forms the faceted ground plane extending itself out toward the Chicago River. The structure of the diagrid lowers in density and becomes a growth out of the ground. There is a green roof attached to the ground plane so that maximum usability is obtained throughout the structure while also promoting sustainability.

Gravity loads from the bridge (including a pool), are transferred to the cores of the towers through a funicular arch. The arch allows the bridge to have an open plan while using steel more efficiently. Lateral loads in the north and south direction are resisted by special cores that have shear walls with two columns on each end to increase their stiffness. The buildings are slender in the north and south direction so the bridge diaphragms will be used as struts to transfer some of the lateral loads between the two buildings. The bridge decks have steel horizontal trusses that help to accommodate the separate drifts by the two buildings. The diagonal grid at the east and west ends of the tow-ers will help to reduce torsion in the towers.

4_Pu

lling

Stru

ture

: Skin

and

Bon

e

Steel Private Cladding

Facated Private Glazing System

Pulled Public Space Cladding

Public Parkat Ground Plane

Exploded Axonometric

Urban Park

Urban Street Layers Chicago Tradition of Parks

+

Layered Urban Space

Bridge Structure

Cladding DetailNon-StructuralStructural Diaphragm

W14x390 Diagrid Member

Diagrid Fireproofing

Steel Diagrid Cladding

Glazing System Integrated Within Diagrid

Steel Non-Structural Cladding Helps To Reinforce Private Conceptual Nature of the Diagrid

Steel Cladding Fin

Steel Cladding Fin Upper Support HSS Section

Exterior Double Skin Steel Mesh

Faceted Double Skin Glazing System

Glazing and Steel Fin Support HSS Section

Double Skin Mesh Support HSS Section

Mesh Cladding Support Flange

W22x? Diaphragm Member

Floorplate Thins To Reinforce Non-Load Bearing Pulled Steel Skin

Cladding Wall Section

Tapering Steel Sections Reinforcce Cantileaver

Bridge Level 3Scale: 1/16”=1’

Typic

al Res

ident

ial L

evel

Scale

: 1/1

6”=1

’

Typical Hotel LevelScale: 1/16”=1’

Cladding Wall Section

The diaploid was a designed based on a Grasshopper definition written by Andrew Kudless of Matsys Design. As part of my work with Matsys I was asked to assist in the Fab-rication of the lamp as well as the production of the a series of drawings which described the processes which generated the lamp it-self. Using grasshopper to generate a series of circles which creates a set of curves used to produce the geometry of the lamp. The diagrams illustrate how a simple set of pa-rameters can generate a large variety of lamp designs allowing each client to have a design which is unique but related to the overall se-ries. The parametric geometry is then used to create a skin made of faceted tiles which diffuses the light generated from the bulb.

4_D

iapl

oid

Lam

p

Final Section and Plan

Lamp Geometry Variations