Mid-Sem Design Process P3 | Consolidate, Scrap and Rework

Consolidating our vision

Once we had established the Rotini + Planes Concept, my group and I split our efforts to consolidate the Digital Library; in theory, polemic, and response. The first stage in this process was an abstract. Written by fellow group member Ethan Chung, his draft abstract outlines the key points that have arisen in our discussions; summarising our most important ideas thus far and consolidating those we moved forward with.

Next, my group and I continued their explorations into the planar fields. They focus on the functions that our Digital Library would facilitate, and how they implement into the existing language of the field. For how we organise these functions, we drew upon precedents like ARCHIZOOM’s No-Stop City, Home-Office’s Model Homes, SAANA’s 21st Century Museum, and Jean Nouvel’s Louvre Abu Dhabi.

No Stop City by ARCHIZOOM – Envisioning an urban framework that allows inhabitation elements to be freely shifted anywhere under a regulated field. We believed this visionary project to be a strong precedent for how a collaborative learning environment may function: How may a flexible space encourage/discourage people to interact and collaborate? What similarities do homogenous ‘fields’ share with modern learning environment theories like ILE? Do they share any differences?

Home-Office’s Model Homes – Similarly to No-Stop City, Model Homes organises its inhabitation elements under a fixed field. What distinguishes this project is its component design; the architects set out to create a complex vocabulary of co-housing/office spaces that are freely organised under the field. While more rigid than No-Stop City, I found this project to be more compelling for its paradoxical coherency; non hierarchal, yet organised.

SAANA’s 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art – A variety of gallery spaces organised under a piloti supported superstructure. This project is distinguished by its omni-directional entry condition, and its flexible interior layout under fixed conditions.

Jean Nouvel’s Louvre Abu Dhabi – Another museum space housed under a field-defining superstructure, my group and I were interested in the building’s radial street hierarchy. According to fellow group member Jien Lim (who had recently visited the building), this allowed people to easily orientate themselves in complex spaces; easily returning to the center.

Programme to Components

From these studies, we decided to create a list of components/contents for our digital library’s “micro-typologies”:

Rigid:

- Soho

- Makerspace

o Fabrics

o Mannequins

o Robotics

o Fabrication

o Craft

- Labs

o Computer

o Projected

- Classroom

o Multi-functional

Flexible:

- Exhibition Spaces

o Open Field

o Booths

o Installation Works

- Conchiglioni (Immersive Reality Pods)

- Study

o Group

o Self

Services

- Toilet

- Maintenance

From this list, we developed these elements in plan; creating a catalogue of components that implement into the planar field (of which both Ethan and Jien comprehensively outlined in his own blog).

I then extruded some of these components into 3D elements; analysing their spatial qualities, in addition to how they may realistically function:

Maker 1 – A collaborative makerspace comprising of two workstation components grounded by a plane and storage unit. Sliding along rails, the extrusion process led the rail unit (originally positioned on the floor) to be repositioned to the top due to conflicts with furniture.

Group Study – Study Space for up to 6 people

Exhibition Space – An open field supported by Pilotis; flexible enough to be reorganised for a variety of exhibitions.

Pinwheel Tablet Shelf – An omni-directional tablet-shelf opens the concept to kiosk-like organisations.

Classroom/Exhibition 2 – An enclosed space with both fixed and rotating planes; creating a flexible space within a smaller framework. During this process however, I misinterpreted this component as an enclosed exhibition space; creating transparent planes that allow people to view any exhibitions inside. As a result, this mistake broadened the functional possibilities of this component.

Scrap and Rework

During this process however, my group and I concluded that the digital library does not need to be multi-storey. Because our design had already broken the Commerce A/Elam B site boundaries, we were already capable to expand our design horizontally. In conjunction with the library’s spatial necessities, we felt adding additional floors was no longer necessary.

Because of this, the Rotini concept had been scrapped. No longer serving as a convincing hub/circulation center, the rotini + planes concept has now transformed into a three field + courtyard design. To maintain the orientating qualities of the rotini towers, we applied three major gestures to the design:

Firstly, the new central courtyard acts as the new ‘social hub’ in our library. Drawing upon our site as the core of Sector 100, we believed this central courtyard to be a more provocative gesture than our tower ‘hubs’. By creating a large congregation point at the core of Sector 100, the Digital Library becomes a more effective learning hub.

Secondly, we divided the planar field into three smaller ‘fields’. This gesture was articulated to create three ‘streets’ that align with three major circulation routes within Sector 100. In doing so, we open the central courtyard to the wider Sector 100; reinforcing the space as a core congregation point in the university.

Thirdly, we lifted the roof planes of the three ‘fields’ along the courtyard. This gesture creates two effects. For one, it increases the roof height of the field near the courtyard, creating a welcoming entry point into the Digital Library. In addition, it creates a new ‘orientating tower’ element within the planar field; allowing people to navigate through the space by reading the rise and drop of the roof.

Both Jien and Ethan elaborated further on the process that led to this scheme on their own blogs.

Three Fields + Courtyard Design – The three ‘field-defining’ roofs fold up to a point at the courtyard; reinforcing the library as a learning hub, whilst acting as a pleasing ‘orientating tower’ element.

Ethan was also tasked with creating a draft interior layout; organising our components within the new planar fields.

Plan Draft – Exhibition and informal study spaces are orientated closer to the courtyard, whilst more specialised facilities were focussed towards the far ends of the fields. Ethan found the divide between these two ‘zones’ to be especially challenging to resolve with the planar language, of which we felt was unfulfilled in this iteration.

Personal Thoughts

Throughout this entire Mid-Semester design process, I found there to be some ups and downs to how we approached the design. For one, I have found that our group’s tendency to dismiss key elements out of the blue (so fast sometimes I wasn’t even aware of the developments) to have been both compelling and frustrating. The way we functioned as a group was unsentimental to our gestures; investing in testing the limits of one idea, only for it to be axed the next day if unsatisfactory. In many ways, this process has consolidated our discourse accumulatively. However, it also led to many conflicts between productivity and time management; which I have felt impacted idea-building during this period. In the end however, this entire process created a strong foundation for moving forward. Overall, I am satisfied with the developments we made with our design.