booklet research p4

8/13/2019 Booklet Research p4

1/15

Basis cycle for a methodical approach

Phase 1Exp lo ra t ion

: ;

i t iPhase 2 Def in i t ive s ta rt ing po in ts ,Cri t ica l re f lect ion de f in i t iono f the p rob lemsand goals

Provisional analyses,p rov is iona l s ta rt ing po in tsand goals

Phase 3Divergence

Phase 4Convergence

Genera t ing a d ive rs i ty o fp r inc ip le so lu t ions

Predicting the consequencesof the so lu t ions

Phase 5Decision Decide the best solution

tg

Second line of worldngThe a t t i tude in the second l ine o fworl ing is one o f re f lect ion fo r theexperimenta l work ing methods.

Cri t ica l re f lect ion on s ta rt ingpoints and goals

t t

Formu la t ing cr i te r ia ou t o f thegoals

Test ing the mode ls to themost importan t cr i te r ia


2/15

REPORT FOR A R C H I T E C TU R E IVSC-DEGREESunday 25 Sep tem ber 2011 TUDelft etftUniversityofechnology

esign processcritical reflection on the design development of S DD

Facultyof Architecture,DelftUniversityofTechnologyStrategicArchitecturalDesignDevelopment SADD)

MSc4/5 chairofMaterialization

Department of Building Technology:1st tutor Prof,dr.ing.P.Teuffel [Patrick)2ndtutor ir .F.R.Schnater (Frank)3rdtutor Dipl.ing.F. Heinzelmann [Florian)

Department ofArchitecture:ir .M.C.Korpershoek [Maarten)ir .J.A.van de Voort [Jan)Dipl.ing.F. Heinzelmann [Florian)

External examiner:Dr.ir .J.C.Hubers [Hans)

Chair coordinator:r,H.A.van Bennekom [Henri)


3/15

PREFACE . f SADD acombinedArchitecturalstudyw i thasmdyofTltisreportisparto fthe graduationlabofSADD acorn . . (âng f a designBuildingTechnologies. Aim of the Sdu a 0 lab s ge ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ 3,,,,3development The combined graduahon ^ ^ ^^^ 2 Delft .The buddinghouses differentcentre CSBC) at the Innovation Park3 ; , ew.ydesigned masterplanfuncdoussuch as auditoria, a museum j ; ^ ^ ^ ^ , , , ^ ^êbudding design ispresentedofthecampusarea,the Technicai - - ^^^^ ^ , , .Lbnologypart concernsa projert

ismoreorlessreal. ^. f the SADD studio, the architectural design and theThe fol lowing report is a reflection H^ J^^l^^^ ' ^ g , , ^ . This required document onarchitectural development at the end ^ ^ ^ f ^ J report in the last phase of my

prescribed intbe newrequirement,foragradnatmnprojert.

*:relSrnfbrb:ren~ontSdioaudthesubS lV . : : e dicaUineof approa*rr ^îrbirb-een the projert and the wider social context.


4/15

LE O ONTENT

PREFACET BLE OFCONTENTINTRODUCTIONMETHODOLOGY

Studio smethodologyStudent smethodology _

SETUPDesign DevelopmentResearchand design

REFLECTIONSMethodology.Development .Design .

BIBLIOGR PHYAPPE NDIXAPPENDIXBAPPENDIXC _APPENDIXD


5/15

INTRODUCTIONMy educational careeris the effect for my love ofbuildings.They are an object of designwhichhas a tremendous influence on people. It is yourhome,a school or an office.It is a manifestationof cultural,economics and personalneeds. It can be a prestigious representation ofa socialityorjust a simple house to protect you f r om the outdoor environment. Function, meaning andtechnology are combined in architecture.Becauseof this mixture and my love for buildings anarchitectural degree is my personal goal. And w i t h my technical background I f ind thecombination of technology and design intriguing.And the simulations design development ofSADDstudio is therefore the reasonI choosethis graduation lab. The reasonsfor my choice canbe found in the studio s title itspeaks about a design development which suggests more focuson the process. Personal growth is, in myopinion, better served by learning more about thedesign development as aprocess then the object of design itself. My main expectation of thegraduation lab is thereforegainingmore insightin the designprocess.


6/15

/M E T H O O L O G Y

Studio s methodotOgV rhnn.wn the riaht design input te e o .e.t s e.ne for ^ ZZZl aOen . car^

critic lorstrategic moments is tke mam / ^ f f , , iramm. sketches

of allfunctionsof the SBC comb.n d ^^^^^^l^ anddetaiUedapproach ,of officesmdy), Contignons methods of J lk like.The blackThesemethods are nsed forthef ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ , f sattached. The detailed

open f o rfnturedesign alternatives.H w i i - h amass stndyof differentmodelseries,eachw i t h inthe

Thepreliminarydesign ,s connnedw i tha mass y f requirementssurroimdingarea.Themassestavetorepre entth^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^(AppendixC, example of modelsenes . wly scaled bigger intodesign. The SBC program is f i r s t d-P ^ ,,a,e and provide insight onbuddingplaus. Simultaneously,be develop slowly into a minternal spaces and firnctional ^^---^J^^^^^^^ ^^p er models and sketches arer - de^gn (Appendix examp. fthe useo fcomputermodels].

[Chairo fMaterialisation,25-09-2011,tudelft.nl]


7/15

SBC contribute toitsairet nrogram of requirements was analysed

Functions thatneededspecific technical or operational attention where hrghhghted

animations and simple handsketcheswhile foUowingthe mam approach ofthe tntor


8/15

S T U PDesign DevelopmentX,e SAOOs.a,o.eacess.de . towo*oo.o,yon ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

D e s , : developmentasthe enginetorthe design process.Researchand design, j , o; between resenrc.od , C e TH;:research s general Unowlege f?* ' JX y,rmaynotf,eoppeddescriptmnof existing realit ortratk belongjng to t ^ j ^ . . / if.es Wprncse.T/ eprno.prodnctof*.,n^^^^

0well defined pressure [..y ^s t e . provides good.sideffr ^ ^ * ^ ^r::rwr neX' ^^^^^^^^^^- t . on.come smere, one ot thepossibilities.

3(]on&2005,p.2S} 6


9/15

R E F L E T I O N SMethodologyThe main conceptual development was postponed t i l l the latest moment becauseofdifferentidea thatneededto be worked out. A t f i r s t thisgavea lot ofstress becauseI almost lacked thetime to work them all out. But reflection upon the entire design development it had itsadvantages in a later phase. You are not stuck in your ideas as much as when only onepreliminaryidea is thought out. It is easier to make a fundamentalswitch in your design whenyou already considered alternatives.The design development of the BuildingTechnology result w i l l endorse this theory. For thedesign ofbuildingenvelope Imadea lot of variants but they were fundamentally all thesame.Later in the entire design development Igot stuck between the two ideaswithoutroom to alterthem.evelopment

Reflecting upon the design development of the graduationproject I can state the f o l l o w i n g . The hardest part was tointegrate two subjects intoOneproject.Namely the subject ofthe Building Technology [Future Fief^} project w i t h that ofArchitectural project [SBC). In the beginning of the SADDprogram to two subjects developed simultaneous. Inthe secondsemester the Building Technology subject required scientificresearch that resulted in a thesis. The thesiswas basedon apreliminary design for the SBC. The subject of BuildingTechnology, abuildingenvelope, developed much further thanbuildingdesign it wouldbe equipped too. In the t h i r dsemesterproblems acquired when architectural alterations wouldcontradictw i t htheBuildingTechnologythesis. Either the thesiswas based on wrong information or the architecture of thebuildingwas one ofmajorcompromise.During this development the two subjects conflictedand the buildingdesign suffered. For thesake of completing the graduation project successfully the integration of the two subjects isdropped. Forsake o fcontinuingthe design development ofthe architectural subject theBuildingTechnologic subject is disregard. This inaccurate development as described in the SADD-program and my realisation of the project has actually resulted in a better awareness andunderstanding of the design development as a hole. When focusing on the main theme of theSADD program and reflecting upon my personal design process the result can be namedsuccessful. Ihavelearned more of the design development then on the design of a buildingorthat of abuildingenvelope self.


10/15

DesignAsstated in theintroductiononresearchand design would l iketorepeatthe f o l l o w i n gbeforereflectingthe SBC design.CJThe primary product of designing is therepresentation of a possibility;also if itis not likely one[.. *A design fo r a technology museum can look l ike anything. But somehow this design reallycharacterises a public museum for technology. Due to the aesthetics of the building it is notsurprising tohearitsfunction.Therefore the primary design for the SBC is a representation of apossibilityand even a l ike ly one.The building design i tse lf has an appearance which can be identified w i t h the client whomrequested a Science and Business Centre, the TUDe l f t Thebuildingdesign is inlineor traditionof eariier designs for the TUDe l f t l ike the Aula (van den Broek and Bakema) or the CentralLibrary (MECANOO). Withoutw anting to compare myselfw i t h architects l ikeVan den Broek andBakema or theofficeofMECANOO. 1amonlya student w i t h animaginarybu i l d ing^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^The SBC as designed wouldte considered to be theheart of the innovation park, Techn ol is . 1wouldargue that the open character as w e l l as theorganisation w i l l lead to multifunctional use.Therefore businesses would consider rentingfacilities for presentation, brainstorm sessions orother activities. Space that would otherwise berequiredelsewhere on Technopolis.

Besides savingunnecessarybuildings orspacesin the restofTechnopohsthe SBC is no t one ofredundant sustainable characteristics. Thefunctionand organisationhaveplayed a major role mthe design next to the effect on the surroundingarea.Afterthe concept was clear, thebuildingisequipped w i t h sufficient technical features to reduce energy loss without taken energyproduction in consideration. Maybe the design could be equipped w i t h more sustainablefeatures l ikehigh-tech installations or more environmentalfriendly approach to the design as ahole But in my opinion this would only serve as an inspirat ion for sustainable design or asymbolicrole model. I do notthinkarchitects shouldengagein symbolic design. Symbolism mayor may not acquire over time.One oftheearher thoughts on the design oftheSBC was to st imulate innovation. But reflectingupon this ambition1canstatethat is did notsucceed.Itfailedbecause,in myopinion,this cannotbe done As I found out, innovation cannot be stimulated by abuilding design. Abuilding canfacilitate activities,increase meetings and even inspire people, innovation is something else.There is no way to facil itate innovation just l ike a design cannot stimulate creation. In thiscaseyoucan compare designing a SBCw i t hdesigning anateher.Perfect conditions for certam atelieractivitiescan be designed but the creation alwayscomes f r o m itsuser,which is in thiscasetheartist.

[Jong, 2005,p.25)8


11/15

B I B L I O G R P H Y

Chair ofIVIaterialisation,F.o. (2010).Ma terialisation Grad uation Studio: Strategic ArchitecturalDesign Development AR3MA030Opgeroepenop 09 25, 2011, vanDigitalStudy Guide Information:http://www.studiegids.tudelft.nl/bbDefault.do?SIS_SwitchLang=en

Jong,T.d. (2005).Waystostudyandresearch Delft:DUPScience.O S Faculteit Bouwkunde, T. (2011). Toelatingsvoorwaarden P en P4;Changes Graduation

Project Opgeroepen op 09 25, 2011, van Website of TUDelft:https://intranet.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=967fe06c-7ccf-47c5-86dd-4aee75e555ea lang=nl


12/15

PPEN IXThisserves as anexample of one of the precedent studies The studywasconductedtoprovidean openview of the possibilities for designingtheSBC Inthe case theUnilever Headofficewasexaminedbecauseo fi ts open plan andofficespace

SuKgicArAlun urel Oeifgi ^ l o p m c m MSt 3 . K a i lofMMtri ili^

.Sthiteglc rchitEcttirepesfgir

S T R U C T U R E

10


13/15

APPENDIXBThisserves as an example oftw o of the simultaneous approaches as prescribed by the tutor.Thisis acombination ofthe black box and the detailed approach . There among the first ideasoftheSBCthat differfundamentally


14/15

APPENDIXCThisservesas an example ofmassstudies that where conductedduringthe early designphaseThedifferentseriesandspecificmodels reveal an evaluationo the design

iviodelS S Model3 512


15/15

/

^^.^ APPENDIXTh'diff'IlompuTerr^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^ ^ V ^ ^ ^ -e of the computer.Polderlandscape. ^P* ' ^ toconnect thebuilding withthe

Computermode]

booklet research p4

Documents