C Fazio Portfolio

C H R I S T I N A FA Z I O

M A S T E R S O F A R C H I T E C T U R E P R O F E S S I O N A L D E G R E E

C O R N E L L U N I V E R S I T Y T H E S I S S E M E S T E R F A L L 2 0 1 0

J O B S E A R C H D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0

W R I T I N G S A M P L ER E G U L A T I N G G L O B A L O Z O N E D E P L E T I O N A N D I N D U S T R I A L C F C S

1 . H A N O I , V I E T N A M : D E V E L O P M E N T T Y P O L O G Y F O R A G L O B A L I Z I N G C I T Y

2 . A N A L Y S I S + F A B R I C A T I O N : S E A T T L E P U B L I C L I B R A R Y B Y O M A + A N A L Y S I S + F A B R I C A T I O N : C A I X A F O R U M B Y H E R Z O G + d e M E U R O N

3 . B R O O K L Y N , N E W Y O R K , U S A : L I V I N G A R C H I V E

4 . B A R C E L O N A , S PA I N : A R T I F I C I A L L A N D S C A P E A S A N E N A B L I N G A R M A T U R E

5 . N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K , U S A : A E R I A L P E R F O R M A N C E T H E A T E R

6 . M A T E R I A L E X P L O R A T I O N : C U R R E N T S T U D I O +F I N I S H A R T W O R K W I T H T H E S U R F A C E A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E W O R K S H O P

C H R I S T I N A FA Z I O P O R T F O L I O 2 0 1 0

Christina FazioSustainable Architecture: The Science and Politics of Green Building

Case Study: Regulating Global Ozone Depletion and Industrial CFCs

Tracing the complexity of potential negative impacts due to chemical reactions in the stratosphere caused by industrially produced, manmade chlorofl uorocarbons in reaction to the presence of aerosols or ice particles begins under the umbrella of atmospheric chemical research in 1973 (Taubes, p. 1580-1583). Mario Molina, a researcher from MIT and his associate, chemist Sherwood Rowland from University of California, Irvine develop a hypothesis that manmade chlorofl uorocarbons are insoluble and inert chlorinated compounds (as opposed to soluble naturally produced chlorinated compounds) that are hearty enough to reach the stratosphere located fi fteen to thirty kilometers above the earth’s surface, gaining access to and depleting ozone gas 03, which is sensitive to chlorine due to a weakening of a natural protective system in place to immunize ozone gas against chlorine in the atmosphere (Brasseur, p.1239). This protective system usually functions by allowing the oxides of nitrogen to swiftly convert reactive chlorine radicals into “less reactive compounds such as HCL and CLONO2”, but the conversion of nitrogen oxides to nitric acid on the surface of either aerosols or “ice particles in polar stratospheric clouds” changes the capabilities of the nitrogen compounds, ultimately resulting in the greater sensitivity of ozone gas to manmade chlorofl uorocarbons (Brasseur, p. 1239). Thus two simultaneous events must be at hand in the stratosphere in order to result in the depletion of ozone gas, the fi rst is a presence of manmade chlorofl uorocarbons with the innate ability to reach the stratosphere due to its heartiness and the second is the presence of aerosols or ice particles where a conversion of nitrogen oxides to nitric acid on the surface of aerosols or ice particles results in ozone sensitivity to chlorinated compounds.

Of these two events that must be simultaneously at hand, only one can be controlled by humankind, the pres-ence of manmade chlorofl uorocarbons in the stratosphere. The second event, the presence of aerosols or ice particles in the stratosphere is not only produced by manmade sources but is also the outcome of biological and geological processes. For example, “Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines…injected 15 to 30 MT of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere in mid-June 1991. In about a month the SO2 was converted into sulfuric acid, which in the stratosphere condenses into small particles (called aerosols) (Brasseur, p. 1239)”. Geological happenings account for a far greater magnitude of aerosols or ice particles in the stratosphere than anthropogenic or bio-logical sources. Although humankind should limit sulfuric acid emissions, this variable is out of human control because human pollution is not the leading cause of the presence of aerosols or ice particles in the stratosphere. It is logical that the human effort to stop ozone depletion is tied to the elimination of manmade chlorofl uorocar-bons.

Although the danger of chlorofl uorocarbons present in the stratosphere is theorized as early as 1973, it wasn’t until 1985 that researchers would confi rm a fi fty percent depletion of the ozone gas protecting a large area of the Antarctic, a depletion occurring cyclically every Antarctic spring, an occurrence having to do with the low temperatures of the season (Bickel, p. 493). It is interesting to note that the Antarctic and Arctic regions were affected by ozone depletion fi rst, a fact that pointes to the presence of a high concentration of enabling ice par-ticles in the polar air present in the stratosphere over these areas. It would be easy to assume that the chlorofl uo-rocarbon contamination in these polar areas (a place where chlorofl uorocarbons aren’t even produced) generat-ing ozone depletion speak to a stratosphere-wide saturation. The missing ingredient needed for a mass ozone depletion scenario is the concentration of a vehicle for the conversion of nitrogen oxides into nitric acid (like the polar air over the Antarctic and Arctic regions). Such a vehicle could be found in the creation of sulfuric acid during natural disasters or with exponential human pollution. At this time it is hypothesized that the continua-tion of unchecked chlorofl uorocarbon production can lead to ozone depletion akin to that predicted after an “all-out nuclear war” (Bickel, p. 493). This outcome could drastically shape and limit the global lifestyle.

In a worst-case scenario developed by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States a seventy percent ozone depletion “would cause blistering sunburn after 10 minutes exposure in temperate latitudes…This leads to the conclusion that outside daytime work in the northern hemisphere would require complete covering by protective clothing…It would be very diffi cult to grow many (if any) food crops, and livestock would have to graze at dusk if there were any grass to eat.” This sort of prediction placed the regulation of manmade chlorofl u-orocarbons on the immediate international political agenda. A National Academy of Sciences report created in 1979 describes the factors necessary for international response to the CFC threat as “confi dence in the scientifi c evidence of the danger, assessment of the economic and social impact of control measures, and national atti-tudes toward risk” (Downing, p. 269). A transnational contingent of scientists tilted the scales in favor of strin-gent international CFC controls. Members of this community included offi cials of the United Nations Environ-ment Programme (UNEP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientifi c Affairs (OES) and international atmospheric scientists (Haas, p. 190). The complexity of the ozone threat was not fully scientifi cally known, but this special-ized group advocated error on the side of caution in relationship to CFC regulations through recommendations for immediate cuts in chlorofl uorocarbon production rationalized by reports, data projections, atmospheric mod-eling, and scientifi c panels. This diverse group, unifi ed by a common urgency for political change in the face of ozone depletion, would prove to be the liaison between science and policy, interpreting new controls for policy implementation.

On the corporate level, American CFC producers want either no action toward CFCs or the assurance of a global treaty, wherein competition over CFC would be negated, leveling the international market. In order to force a global treaty in 1986-7, the U.S. threatens unilateral action, proposing stringent domestic regulations on CFC that would affect imported and exported goods. The scope of the treaty comes under discussion as different countries support divergent target CFCs, strictness, type, timing, form, and enforcement of control methods. Britain, France, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, Mexico, and Venezuela demanded exemptions from all controls in order to meet economic demands for products containing chlorofl uorocarbons while the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden advocate a global treaty regulating CFC (Haas, p. 206). Chlorofl uorocarbons “as a class of chemicals were discovered by General Mo-tors in 1931 and soon became widely used for refrigeration, air conditioning, and insulation (Haas, p. 196). In the United States, with the realization of the danger of chlorofl uorocarbons in 1973 until 1987 when the interna-tional Montreal Protocol was signed in order to limit globally released CFCs, “due to a weak regulatory regime (the FDA tries to regulate CFCs in 1978), companies did not give importance to development of alternatives [to chlorofl uorocarbons] (Srinivas, p. 3303). Corporate self-regulation was not at all effective and “it seems clear that corporations did not internalize even minimally the social and economic costs of the harm done by their products, until governmental regulations and citizen pressure forced them to do so” (Srinivas, p. 3303). One no-table exception to this corporate attitude is revealed in a statement given in 1986 by DuPont, the world leader in CFC production, favoring a protocol to limit CFC emissions and urging government incentives for the smooth transition from CFCs to alternative technologies. Therefore, the power of the Montreal Protocol lies in its ability to provide a regulatory incentive for the diversion of corporate cash fl ow toward alternative technologies in the phasing out of chlorofl uorocarbons and in the elimination of competition in the CFC market.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is signed before conclusive scientifi c evidence can explain the complexity of cause and effect of ozone depletion. What is known at the time of the protocol is that CFCs and chlorine levels rise simultaneously and evidence shows “that the Antarctic ozone hole

W R I T I N G S A M P L E


is caused by chemical reactions in which chlorine plays a key role” (Taubes, p. 1583). What remains unknown is “whether ozone depletion in the Northern Hemisphere is due to natural variation and changes in atmospheric circulation, chlorine from CFCs, or some combination of both. Another crucial unknown is whether ozone depletion has led to a measurable increase in the fl ux of ultraviolet light at Earth’s surface” (Taubes, p. 1583). These unknowns have caused and continue to cause great political controversy. During 1987, the year the Mon-treal Protocol is signed, the Regan Administration backpedals about CFC controls due to an aversion toward regulation. An exhaustive cost-benefi t analysis is conducted by the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) in which “conservative economic estimates of human health effects from ozone depletion is drawn from the EPA’s extensive 1986 risk assessment study, [concluding] that stringent regulations to prevent depletion of the ozone layer would be highly cost-effective” allowing full cooperation with the Montreal Protocol (Haas, p. 219). Without this necessary rationalization, it would have been impossible to convince a republican administra-tion of the social/ethical benefi ts of extensive transnational government regulations.

Under the Montreal Protocol fi ve CFCs: CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, Methyl Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride and two halons: Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 are submitted to control measures. Two cuts in consumption are mandated leading to a fi fty percent reduction in the baseline levels of 1986. Ultimately, the threat posed to the ozone by chlorofl uorocarbons is not resolved but mediated; the agreement allows wiggle room in the method of attaining cutbacks directed by the protocol which refl ects necessary compromise and political complexity between thirty-one countries. Within this compromise, the Montreal Protocol accounts for an acceptable long-term depletion of two percent of ozone, an amount of collateral damage agreed to by all participating countries. The contingency built into the protocol can be exemplifi ed through the fact that “the protocol merely speci-fi es the total percentage of cuts, thereby allowing Japan to concentrate on using CFC-113 for computer chip manufacture while reducing the use of the other chemicals” (Haas, p. 212). Additionally, two Soviet CFC plants under construction are grandfathered into the 1986 baseline and companies are allowed to reallocate production among plants sited in different countries permitting the most effi cient CFC production. Following the signing of the treaty, during the beginning of treaty enforcement in 1989, many participating and non-participating coun-tries conclude that the agreed upon restrictions are too loose and implement strict domestic policies surpassing that of the Montreal Protocol standards, calling for an accelerated implementation plan. The original thirty one countries that signed the protocol, along with “123 other countries were now advocating full elimination of CFCs by the end of the century” an exponential increase in ozone protection measures (Haas, p. 213). The long incubation period between the emission of chlorofl uorocarbons and measured health risk has made the argu-ment for CFC regulation slow in coming. A follow-up to the original Montreal Protocol is signed in London by ninety-three countries expanding the scope of the treaty. In 1996 the production of ozone depleting substances is banned in developing countries. With the acknowledgement of the danger associated with chlorofl uorocarbon use, the fl exibility of the Montreal Protocol edging toward more strict regulations and phase-outs, and the inven-tion of chlorofl uorocarbon substitutions, the resolution of the problem of ozone depletion with the Montreal Protocol is an international success in the defense of the public common.

Bibliography

Andersen, Stephen O., John S. Daniel, David W. Fahey, Mack McFarland, and Guus J. M. Velders. “The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 12 (Mar. 20, 2007), pp. 4814-4819 Published by: National Academy of Sciences

Bickel, Amanda, Arjun Makhijani, Annie Makhijani. “Ozone Depletion: Cause and Effects” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 10 (Mar. 10, 1990), pp. 493-496 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Brasseur, Guy and Claire Granier. “Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofl uorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion” Science, New Series, Vol. 257, No. 5074 (Aug. 28, 1992), pp. 1239-1242 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Downing, Thomas E. and Robert W. Kates. “The International Response to the Threat of Chlorofl uorocarbons to Atmospheric Ozone” The American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety- Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1982), pp. 267-272 Published by: American Economic Association

Haas, Peter M. “Banning Chlorofl uorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1, Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination (Winter, 1992), pp. 187-224 Published by: The MIT Press

Mullin, Richard P. “What Can Be Learned from DuPont and the Freon Ban: A Case Study” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Oct., 2002), pp. 207-218 Published by: Springer

Rowland, F. Sherwood. “Stratospheric Ozone Depletion by Chlorofl uorocarbons” Ambio, Vol. 19, No. 6/7, CFCs and Stratospheric Ozone (Oct., 1990), pp. 281-292 Published by: Allen Press on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Srinivas, K. Ravi. “Review: Responses to Ozone Depletion” Reviewed work: Mending the Ozone Hole: Science, Technology and Policy by Arjun Makhijani ;Kavin R. Gurney Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No. 51 (Dec. 21, 1996), pp. 3302-3303 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Taubes, Gary. “The Ozone Backlash” Science, New Series, Vol. 260, No. 5114 (Jun. 11, 1993), pp. 1580-1583 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science


N

N

H A N O I , V I E T N A M : H Y B R I D I Z E D D E V E L O P M E N T T Y P O L O G Y F O R A G L O B A L I Z I N G C I T YI N F O R M A L L O W I N C O M E H O U S I N G P R O J E C T + F O R M A L M A L L S H E L L

T r a v e l i n g M e r c h a n t P a t h

M E D I A T I N G B E T W E E N G O V E R N M E N T I N I T I A T E D R E V I TA L I Z A T I O N + S U S TA I N I N G L O C A L C U L T U R EA t t h e c i t y s c a l e , m y i n t e r v e n t i o n a c t s t y p o l o g i c a l l y a s a l i n e r f o r a n u p s c a l e , d e s t i n a t i o n s h o p p i n g m a l l p l a n n e d f o r t h i s c u r r e n t l y e m p t y s i t e . T h e g e n t r i f i e d m a l l w i l l b e c r e a t e d f o r t h e 1 0 0 0 y e a r a n n i v e r s a r y o f H a n o i i n p l a c e o f a l o c a l i n f o r m a l m a r k e t , H a n g D a , w h i c h w a s d e m o l i s h e d . T h e g o v e r n m e n t h a s a c l e a r a g e n d a f o r t h e s i t e , p u s h i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s i t e t o w a r d t h e f o r m a l i t y f o u n d i n a F r e n c h b o u l e v a r d a c r o s s t h e l a k e w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g s i t e c o n d i t i o n s .

T h e i n t e r v e n t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e s t h r e e u n u s e d f a c a d e w a l l s o f t h e g i v e n i n w a r d l o o k i n g m a l l t y p o l o g y f o r l o w i n c o m e h o u s i n g r e n t a l s c r e a t e d f o r m e r c h a n t s d i s p l a c e d b y g e n t r i f i c a t i o n . W i t h i n t h i s t h i c k e n e d w a l l c o n d i t i o n a l i n e a r m a r k e t i s i n s e r t e d o n t h e g r o u n d f l o o r t o r e i n s t a t e l o c a l c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y . I n t h i s w a y , t h e i n f o r m a l l o c a l l i f e i n t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t e x t s u r r o u n d i n g t h e m a l l r e m a i n s u n d i s t u r b e d b y t h e f o r m a l i t y o f t h e m a l l , w h i c h h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l t o n e g a t e t h e r h y t h m o f t h e i n f o r m a l .

T R A V E L I N G M E R C H A N T S A R E R E L E G A T E D T O A P P R O P R I A T E D F A C A D E S P A C E , S I D E W A L K + C O M M U N A L C I V I C S P A C E R E V E A L I N G T H E I R S H A L L O W U R B A N C O N T E X T .

B U I L D I N G A S L I N E R I N A F A S T S T R E E T N E T W O R K

B U I L D I N G A S P O R O U S S K I N

T H E I N S E R T I O N I N T H E O L D 3 6 S T R E E T Q U A R T E R O F T H E C I T Y M U S T M E D I A T E B E T W E E N T H E T I N Y L O C A L N E I G H B O R H O O D G R A I N A N D T H E G R A N D S C A L E O F D E S T I N A T I O N S H O P P I N G .

L A Y E R E D E P I D E R M I S

S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n


A T T H E A R C H I T E C T O N I C S C A L E , T H E B U I L D I N G A C T S A S U R B A N F U R N I T U R E F O R D O M E S T I C A P P R O P R I A T I O N , V E N D I N G , A N D A R E S P I T E F O R T H E T R A V E L I N G M E R C H A N T S . I T I S A C O N T R I B U T I O N T O T H E T R I B U T A R Y F L O W S O F T H E S T R E E T .

A T T H E S C A L E O F T H E A G E N T , T H E S K I N A C T S A S A P O R O U S I N T E R F A C E , S U S T A I N I N G T H E T R A V E L I N G M E R C H A N T S A S A C T I V E P A R T I C I P A N T S I N S T R E E T L I F E E V E N D U R I N G B R I E F T I M E S P E N T I N T H E D O R M I T O R Y .

S y n t h e t i c S e c t i o n

C o n t e x t V i s u a l i z a t i o n - R h i n o


A N A L Y S I S + FA B R I C A T I O N :M O D E L O F S E A T T L E P U B L I C L I B R A RY B Y O M AC I R C U L A T I O N A S R H I Z O M E

H a n d m a d e P e n + I n k D r a w i n g s S h o w i n g C i r c u l a t i o n + S p a t i a l F o l d i n g

P h y s i c a l M o d e l - B a s s Wo o d

T H I S A N A L Y S I S S O L I D I F I E S V O I D S + E R A S E S S O L I D M A S S R E V E A L I N G A N O V E R A B U N D A N C E O F C I R C U L A T I O N . T H I S I M P L I E S A R H I Z O M A T I C I N T E N T I O N I N T H E D E S I G N E D N A V I G A T I O N O F V E R T I C A L H I E R A R C H Y .

A N A L Y S I S + FA B R I C A T I O N : M O D E L O F T H E C A I X A F O R U M I N M A D R I D B Y H E R Z O G + D E M E U R O ND I A P H R A G M S Y S T E M

D i g i t a l M o d e l - R h i n o

P h y s i c a l M o d e l - M i x e d M e d i a

T H E S A L V A G E D P O W E R S T A T I O N W A L L S A R E C O N V E R T E D I N T O A D I A P H R A G M T H A T A C T S A S A C O M P R E S S I O N R I N G A R O U N D T H E M U S E U M . T H I S I S T I E D T O T H E C O R E S T H R O U G H A N I N T E R I O R C O N C R E T E L I N E R .

3 C o r e s +L a t e r a l B r a c i n g Wa l l s


B R O O K L Y N , N E W Y O R K , U S A : P E R F O R M A T I V E A R C H I V E L I B R A RY F O R V I S U A L + P E R F O R M I N G A R T S : A R C H I V E , E X H I B I T I O N S PA C E , A R T I S T S - I N - R E S I D E N C E S H E L L

R E T H I N K I N G T H E S U P E R B L O C KC o n c e p t u a l l y , t h e v i s u a l a n d P e r f o r m i n g A r t s L i b r a r y i s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e m o c r a t i z e c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . T h e s i t e i s o n e o f m a n y s u p e r b l o c k s i n B r o o k l y n . I n l i e u o f m e r e l y f i l l i n g t h e w h o l e z o n i n g e n v e l o p e , a s i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s u p e r b l o c k , I c h o o s e t o i m p l y t h e s u p e r b l o c k t h r o u g h a s t r u c t u r a l g r i d o f 1 5 f e e t b y 1 5 f e e t .

T h i s s t r u c t u r e h o u s e s a n a r t i s t - i n -r e s i d e n c e f a c i l i t y , a s w e l l a s a v i s u a l a n d p e r f o r m i n g a r t s l i b r a r y . T h e g r i d d e d a r m a t u r e l i t e r a l l y s u p p o r t s a r t i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n , a n d i s m e a n t t o b e e p h e m e r a l a n d n o t p r e c i o u s . T h e g r i d ’ s a l l u s i o n t o i c o n i c 1 9 6 0 s a r t w o r k l e n d s a p r e c e d e n t t o t h e s i t e w h i c h c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t i s t s c a n a l t e r .

A R T I S T I C I N T E R V E N T I O N E A T S A W A Y A T R E D U N D A N T S T R U C T U R E , L E A V I N G A D Y N A M I C , P E R F O R M A T I V E M E M O R Y O F E V E N T S . T H I S I S A L I V I N G A R C H I V E .

C o n t e x t V i s u a l i z a t i o n - 3 D M a x P h y s i c a l M o d e l - L a s e r c u t C h i p b o a r d

H a n d m a d e 3 r d F l o o r P l a n - C h a r c o a l + I n k

P h y s i c a l M o d e l - S t e e l + C o n c r e t e


0-2.6M Non-Walkable Slope 2.6-4M Walkable but Steep Slope 4-6M 6-8M 6-8M

Run:

10M-Longer

The non-walkable slope becomes a programatic weave between interior and exterior space.

B A R C E L O N A , S PA I N : A R T I F I C I A L L A N D S C A P E A S A N E N A B L I N G A R M A T U R EE X P E R I M E N TA L A R T H U B + F I L M I N S T I T U T EC o l l a b o r a t i v e P r o j e c t

C E R DA’ S S Y S T E M A N O M A L Y E x p l o i t i n g a n a n o m a l y f o u n d i n C e r d a ’ s c i t y p l a n f o r B a r c e l o n a , t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e c h a m f e r e d s t r e e t g r i d n e g o t i a t e s a s l o p e w i t h d i s t o r t e d g e o m e t r y , l e a d t o a p r o j e c t d e s i g n e d t h r o u g h a n i n d e x e d t o p o g r a p h i c a l s y s t e m . T h i s a r t i f i c i a l l a n d s c a p e a c t s a s a n e n a b l i n g a r m a t u r e o f i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , i r r i g a t i n g f l e x i b l e p r o g r a m a b o v e t h e s p a c e f r a m e s t r u c t u r e d f a b r i c . T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l o w s m i x e d - m e d i a a r t i s t s t o p l u g i n i n s t a l l a t i o n s w h e r e d e s i r e d o n t h e n e w d e m o c r a t i z e d g r o u n d t h a t b l u r s t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e s p a c e .

T h e h o r i z o n t a l w e b b e d e n v e l o p e , w h i c h i s a l l i e d w i t h t h e s u s t a i n a b i l i t y m o v e m e n t d u e t o e a s y a c c e s s t o l i g h t a n d a i r , i s t h e p r o d u c t o f s e v e r a l a c t i o n s : t h e p l a c e m e n t o f p e r m a n e n t p r o g r a m o n s i t e a c c o r d i n g t o s o u n d a n d s i z e n e e d s , t h e d r a p i n g o f p r o g r a m w i t h a c o n t i n u o u s f a b r i c , t h e c u t t i n g o f c o n t o u r s w i t h i n t h e f a b r i c t o c r e a t e a n e w t o p o g r a p h y , t h e l a y i n g o f i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a c c o r d i n g t o w a t e r r u n o f f l i n e s , a n d t h e p i x i l a t i o n o f t h e s l o p e i n t o a g r a d i e n t o f w a l k a b l e p a t h s . -S l o p e R a n g e :

0 - 2 . 6 m N o n - Wa l k a b l e S l o p e - 1 0 m o r L o n g e r Wa l k a b l e S l o p e

º5

8 @ '

31

º0

8 @ '

31

º5

7 @ '

31

º0

7 @ '

31

º5

6 @ '

31

º0

6 @ '

31

º5

5 @ '

31

º0

5 @ '

31

º5

4 @ '

31

º0

4 @ '

31

º5

3 @ '

31

º0

3 @ '

31

º5

2 @ '

31

º0

2 @ '

31

º5

1 @ '

31

º0

1 @ '

31

º5

@ '3

1

13’ @ 75º TILE1' : 13' SLOPE

150º


S u r f a c e M a n i p u l a t i o n s : R a d i a l , S p l i n e , P l a n a r C o n n e c t i o n s

5 º I n c r e m e n t T i l e s : S e c t i o n D i a g r a m , 1 ' : 1 3 ' S l o p e

S o u n d , S u r f a c e + To p o g r a p h y P a r a m e t e r s

P h y s i c a l M o d e l o f A r t i f i c i a l To p o g r a p h y - B a s s Wo o d


LANDSCAPE FABRIC SUPPORTING FLEXIBLE PROGRAM PLUG-INS, ARTIST COLLABORATION SPACE, AND PUBLIC PARK SPACE

NETWORK OF PERMANENT PROGRAM BENEATH THE FABRIC STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO INFORM THE SHAPE OF THE FABRIC

T H E L A N D S C A P E F A B R I C S U P P O R T S F L E X I B L E P L U G -I N S , A R T I S T C O L L A B O R A T I O N S P A C E + P U B L I C P A R K S P A C E T H R O U G H I N F R A S T R U C T U R A L I R R I G A T I O N A L O N G W A T E R R U N - O F F L I N E S .

E x p l o d e d A x o n - R h i n o

C U T S I N T H E F A B R I C A L L O W O R G A N I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N B E T W E E N T H E T O P O G R A P H Y A N D P E R M A N E N T S H E L T E R E D P R O G R A M .

T H E S P A C E F R A M E S T R U C T U R E A L L O W S A F L E X I B L E I N T E R I O R P A R T I T I O N S Y S T E M M A D E T O A C C O M M O D A T E S H I F T I N G P E R M A N E N T P R O G R A M .

PLAN ABOVE FABRIC

N

A A'

B B'

P l a n A b o v e F a b r i c

S e c t i o n s


N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K , U S A L I N C O L N C E N T E R C A M P U S :B R E A K I N G T H E F O U R T H W A L L T H R O U G H A E R I A L P E R F O R M A N C E T H E A T E R P E R M A N E N T H O M E F O R T E M P O R A RY P R O G R A M S - C O M P R E H E N S I V E D E S I G NC o l l a b o r a t i v e P r o j e c t

R E A C H O U T P L A T F O R M T h e r e a r e v a r i o u s w a y s L i n c o l n C e n t e r r e a c h e s o u t t o a b r o a d e r a u d i e n c e . F a s h i o n We e k , S c o p e A r t F a i r , a n d L i n c o l n C e n t e r O u t - o f - D o o r s a l l o c c u r o n D a m r o s c h P a r k , w h i c h c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d L i n c o l n C e n t e r ’ s u n o f f i c i a l r e a c h o u t p l a t f o r m . W i t h a n e w p e r m a n e n t s t r u c t u r e o n D a m r o s c h P a r k , L i n c o l n C e n t e r c a n e a s i l y h o s t t h e s e t e m p o r a l e v e n t s a n d d r a w a d i v e r s e a u d i e n c e w i t h a n e w a e r i a l p e r f o r m a n c e t h e a t e r , a p r o g r a m t h a t a p p e a l s t o p o p u l a r c u l t u r e .

A e r i a l p e r f o r m a n c e i s a c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r a c t i c e w h e r e i n g r a c e f u l , s e e m i n g l y e f f o r t l e s s m o v e m e n t i s s u p p o r t e d b y m a s s i v e t r u s s i n g i n t h e a t e r f l y t o w e r s b e h i n d t h e s c e n e s . T h i s a e r i a l p e r f o r m a n c e t h e a t e r i s d e s i g n e d a r o u n d t h e f l y t o w e r, w h e r e h e a v y s t r u c t u r e i s c e l e b r a t e d . T h e p e r m a n e n t t h e a t e r m a c h i n e e x i s t s w i t h i n a g r a c e f u l i n f l a t a b l e s k i n .

T H E T R A D I T I O N A L P R O S C E N I U M T H E A T E R R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N A U D I E N C E A N D P E R F O R M E R I S C H A L L E N G E D T H R O U G H T H I S 3 6 0 º A E R I A L P E R F O R M A N C E T H E A T E R . T H E E V E N T O C C U R S I N T H E V O I D A T T H E C E N T E R O F A T O W E R O F S E A T I N G .

S I T E

P h y s i c a l M o d e l - B a s s Wo o d , S t e e l , F a b r i c , P l a s t i c T u b i n gT h e a t e r S e c t i o n


L i n c o l n C e n t e r C a m p u s : P r o g r a m m a t i c I n t e r s e c t i o n

L i n c o l n C e n t e r D e s i r e t o A d a p t t h e P r o s c e n i u m T h e a t e r



I T H A C A , N E W Y O R K , U S A : C U R R E N T S T U D I O P R O J E C T POST OCCUPANCY INDEX: HEAT, MOISTURE, + LOAD DISTORTING THE IDEAL GRID W E AV E O F S Y N T H E T I C A N D N A T U R A L F I B E R S

I N S T A L L A T I O N F R A G M E N T : N Y L O N A N D J U T E T W I N EG O T T F R I E D S E M P E R I S A N I N S P I R A T I O N A L F I G U R E I N R E L A T I O N T O T H I S E X P L O R A T I O N W I T H K N O T S . H E B E L I E V E S T H A T T H E K N O T A N D W O V E N T E X T I L E S A R E T H E O R I G I N A L T E C T O N I C E L E M E N T S .

symmetrical slip knot:

REVERSIBLE SLIP-KNOT

net is lashed together in a grid


P O S T - O C C U PA N C Y I N D E XC u r r e n t l y , i n s t u d i o r e s e a r c h I a m i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i d e a l g e o m e t r y o v e r t i m e i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a 1 : 1 s c a l e m a t e r i a l e x p l o r a t i o n a n d a t m o s p h e r i c c o n d i t i o n s . T h e i n s t a l l a t i o n i s c o m p r i s e d o f a h a n d m a d e w e a v e o f n a t u r a l a n d s y n t h e t i c f i b e r s w h i c h a c t s a s a g r a d i e n t t h a t a l t e r n a t e l y a b s o r b s a n d c h a n n e l s w a t e r a n d e x p a n d s a n d c o n t r a c t s w i t h h e a t , c r e a t i n g d i s t o r t i o n w i t h i n t h e c o m p o s i t e g r i d . T h i s f u l l s c a l e i n s t a l l a t i o n , t o b e c o m p l e t e d t h i s M a y , i s a s y n t h e s i s o f t w o d e s i g n i d e a s t h a t I h a v e b e e n r e s e a r c h i n g d u r i n g t h e f u l l c o u r s e o f m y s t u d i e s a t C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y : t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f a f i e l d c o n d i t i o n w i t h o s c i l l a t i n g n o d e s o f i n t e n s i t y a n d t h e i d e a o f a n i d e a l f o r m d e g r a d i n g w i t h u s e t h r o u g h a s y s t e m t h a t i n d e x e s c h a n g e .

J U T E : h e a t e x p a n d s

J U T E : m o s i t u r e c o n t r a c t s

S Y N T H E T I C : m o i s t u r e e x p a n d s

S Y N T H E T I C : m o i s t u r e c o n t r a c t s / m e l t s

P r o c e s s Wo r k

F I N I S H A R T W O R K E X A M P L E S O F A R T W O R K I P E R S O N A L L Y FA B R I C A T E D S I T E A N D A R C H I T E C T U R E W O R K S H O P, S U B C O N T R A C T O R F O R A N T H R O P O L O G I EC O R T E M A D E R A , C A + C H I C A G O, I L , U S A

P L A S T E R , S E A L A N T , P I G M E N T , B O T A N Y B L U E

C A N VA S , PA P E R , S E A L A N T , P I G M E N T , PA P E R S U N S E T