ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN II PORTFOLIO

JACKY HOANGFALL 2011. CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO. INSTRUCTOR, ANDREW CHANDLER.

RESEARCH - THE EDUCATION

Researching the architectural education model of the United States have shown some unknown aspect of the system that I did not understand or know: -The structure of the A.R.E. exam -How the system is very linear with not much flexibility -Both the general schooling system and the architectural system -How students are forced to follow the system

RESEARCH - THE SUMMIT

The overall program of the summit follows a strict order according to the dialogue. For instance, the beginning of the event will focus on the problem: -Introduces the problem -Why is it a problem -EXPOSING THE PROBLEMAs the event unfolds, the dialogue changes towards a solution: -How to find a solution -A debate -An argument -SOLVING THE PROBLEM

Instead of being a dialogue that consist of professionals (architects, designers, etc) students are heavily involved too: -Students’ videos -Students’ works or projects

Breaks are made to reflect the space or place the summit is held

This research influenced the way I processed my gesture models; the concept of the organization of the program or dialogue.

GESTURE MODELS - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

The development of the above gesture models are based on the notion that today’s education, especially architectural education, is constructed and followed by many students in a linear fashion. In a very systematic method, education has not only taught students how to perceive education, but also the way they creatively and critically think. As a result, students of today have been oppressed into a system of standardization, linearity and constraints

JACKY HOANG

A response to the dialogue of the summit portrays a debate, of which two sides, even though seemingly chaotic, follows a general path to find a solution to a problem

THE

EDU

CA

TIO

N

TH

E SU

MM

IT

Intimacy and nature, playing a role in the summit’s site, responds to the notion that two or more things working together. In this case, the dependent of the organic material to the wire to foam a shape

The combination of the dialogue and site conveys the overall project, being that the site binds and holds the dialogue of the summit

RESEARCH - JOURNEY

Both of my ideas were vague, but both had the same principles:

A journey is a path to place and a path can be given or self-guided.

IDEA1.0 is a self-guided path for the people, where these individual structures along the ravine will give a general direction towards the summit. People will have the privilege to explore.

IDEA 2.0 is a directed path designed by an architect (or me) and forces the people to follow a given direction. People are forces to explore certain aspect of the surroundings.

In the end, the path are designed with structures that PREPARES the audience to the MAIN SITE. Just like Eisenman’s Memorial site.

This research reminded me of Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. I began to use that place as a case study because it was such a powerful place that represented a journey, an emotional one. I begin to realize that an architectural journey is an emotional preparation to the main site. As for Eisenman’s work, the path (tall columns, promoting a sense of uneasiness and entrapment) to the museum (located underground) sets the mood for the main site. I thought of how I can use this same principle with this journey (from parking lot to the summit).

JACKY HOANGGESTURE MODEL - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 2.Continuing to develop the gesture models, the response to the place was the organization of the usage or program of the site. The organization depends on the concentration of the summit’s dialogue, broken into three squares:

1. The most dense of the dialogue, where the gathering is consist of a large group. Located in the lower terrain

2. The least dense of the dialogue, which conveys a sense of openness and self-gathering. Located in the highest level; looking outwards

3. The middle; the ravine. A period of transition between the two sides. Response to the flow of the river below.

THE

SITE

1 3 2

1 2

JACKY HOANGGESTURE MODEL - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 3.

This next iteration, personally, was the least successful for number of reasons:

-The development was weak from the previous gesture -Stick were only added -Nothing gesturally changed with the wires

-The idea of the organization of the dialogue (dense to less dense, group to individual) was not conveyed: -The sticks distracted that idea and conveyed another idea

-The site is still like a pedestal -Never considered the manipulation of the site

This iteration did have one attribute:

-Acknowledgment to new material (wood) -How its physical characteristic work with other material (wire)

GESTURE MODEL - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 4.The concept that drives my gesture models begins to become more expressive in this gesture model than the previous models.

-The organization of the dialogue is significantly stronger -The lower terrain is dense with multiply sticks grouped together -The upper terrain represents isolation and individualism; sticks begin to separate

The site begins to be manipulated, even though with no intentional purpose. -In this case, holes were drilled to support the model and wires were punctured in the site to support the woods’ curvature.

New material was introduce: -Thin balsa wood for flexibility

JACKY HOANG

GESTURE DRAWINGS - EXPLORING THE UNEXPECTED, DEVELOPMENT 4.5.

Drawing the exact gesture to use as a “starting point” or reference point

-Intersecting of lines became a potential tool

Began to connect point on lines and where lines intersect

-Surfaces began to develop

This is a clarity of the previous drawing

-Layers and complexity of the top surface becomes more expressive

Tangent lines were used to expand the complexity of the surfaces

-The notion of isolation and individualism presents itself with the surfaces

-This became the premise for the next iteration

JACKY HOANG

GESTURE MODEL - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 5.A translation from the gesture drawings of the surfaces is the focus on this gesture model, but was a weak development from the last gesture model: -Complexity is gone -Density is gone -Elements from previous models gone

Still maintained the group to isolation notion

Introduced a new material and structural technique: -Using tracing paper as a surface -with sticks as a frame

JACKY HOANG

GESTURE MODEL - ITERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 6.Learning from the critique, complexity was the main concern and the need to incorporate old elements and materials from previous models: -Development (model) #4 was incorporated The site is now beginning to be manipulated and altered -Adding to the site to mimic the gesture -Underdeveloped

Some elements are still weak in this development: -The surface -Maybe even the sticks

JACKY HOANG

COMPLETE

JACKY HOANG