final learning portfolio: richard vallejos
DESCRIPTION
Richard Vallejos - Arch 101 - Final Project Learning Portfolio, Professor Jerry Lum, Tuesdays and Thurdays. Spring, 2012.TRANSCRIPT
Architecture 101 Final Project Learning Portfolio
Richard VallejosMay 25th, 2012
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
1'-0"
4'-7 3/4"
R32'-8"
10'-8
"
15'-7
"
9'-7 3
/4"45.00°
132.73°
24.77°
22.49°
6"
17'-6"6'-0"
9"
14'-0 1/4"
2'-0"
7'-0
"18'-0"
1'-0
"
8"
18'-1 1/4" 32'-8"
7'-0"
11'-0
"6"
8'-0 1/2"7'-0"
24'-0"
9"12
'-2"
12'-0
"12
'-0"
12'-0
"17
'-2"
6'-0"
6'-0"
6'-0" R32'-8"
Ø2'-4"
9'-3 1/2"
12'-9
"
10'-1
1 1/
2"
1st threaded hole
10th threaded hole
28th threaded hole
beginning of 1st slope
beginning of 2nd slope
end of 2nd slope
end of 1st slope
0
Courtyard Plan 1/2” = 1’1’ 2’ 5’ 10’
Richard VallejosApril 23, 2012
N Initial ObservationsDuring our first meeting we discussed the site in terms of what was given. Our site was the northwestern half of the courtyard, defined by a retaining wall and the edges of a planter square.
Within the bare site we observed five salient intrinsic features (listed in order of interest):
1. Face panels: Six, four-foot square panels with the faces of former students cast in concrete.
2. Planter square: A six-foot planter square. Surrounded by a 1/2’ wide, 1/2’ inch tall concrete barrier.
3. Threaded-holes: A four by fifteen array of 3/4” threaded-holes, spaced two feet apart in both directions. The array is broken up by the face panels.
4. Rain gutter: A rain gutter with a round, eight-inch wide curb, offset from the wall by one foot.
5. Grid lines: Grid lines marked into to the floor, made up of six by six foot squares. The planter square is aligned within one of the squares defined by the grid lines.
We also to took into account other issues:
1. The sun2. The wind3. Budget4. Coverage of area5. The brief
Framing as a jumping off-pointAs Patrik Shumacher describes in his Autopoeisis of Architecture: “Every society needs to utilize articulated spatial rela-tions to frame, order and stabilize social communica-tion.”
On the most basic level our task became to frame the salient features of the site, enticing a passerby with a fresh response to a commonly overlooked sculptural landmark. We wanted the space to be enclosed and redefine the viewing of the face panels in a more inti-mate experience.
We felt that the planter square could also be cleaned up and given tectonic intention.
The Site
Lightweight and Adaptable Structure Tensile CavernIt was perhaps half way through the construction pro-cess that we realized that we had been approximating the idea of grotto. When we first discussed the path that would bring a visitor into the central node, our ideas were very funhouse like. I recall getting excited about the idea of building a staircase leading to a bent plywood slide which would be the only point of entry. My early drawings were very much like the digestive tract.
Though the symbolism of caves and caverns is alive and well in the popular imagination, its architectural imitation, the grotto, is a somewhat forgotten trope in landscaping and garden design. Grottoes in ancient times were natural caves which were built into and ascribed spiritual significance. In the renaissance, they were reinterpreted as places to counterpoise to the beauty of the rest of the landscape, enshrining the mysterious aspects of nature, permitting murkier forces a space to revel in. Through the many transformations of the grotto throughout history, a couple features re-mained consistent: Grottoes usually housed sculptural relics from the past and there was usually a real or im-plied source of water.If the retaining walls were imagined as a sheer cliff face, a cave could be created by either digging into the wall or adding an extension of the wall outward to-ward the center of the courtyard. We built outwardly.In choosing for our cavern to begin with a tunnel, nar-row and forbidding in appearance, the passage way would force those entering to slow their pace and con-sider their next step.
“The search for the minimal in architecture is simulta-neously a search for the essence of material form.”-Frei Otto
From a purely practical perspective my task was to figure out how to span an area of 303 square feet, and potentially enclose a volume of as much as 4667 cu-bic feet. All, under the following constraints:
The material had to portable, lightweight and compact enough for one person to carry using public transportation. If I were to be the one lead-ing the erection of the structural grid, I wanted to be sure to be as self-sufficient as possible, so as to allow for a nimble testing process and to begin de-ployment at the drop of a hat.
The design system had to be adaptable to different spatial configurations. This implies the need for the grid to be developable. In the early stages of the de-sign process the exact shape of the path that would lead to the central node was not fully defined. The form had to be easily re-sizable, to conform to even-tual placement of the vertical cardboard strips.
Due to the temporary nature of the project, the building components had to be reusable after dis-mantlement. To allow for this, I felt it was important to use the fewest number of screws, staples, nails, bolts, adhesives or any other fasteners extraneous to the flow of forces. This would also keep waste to a minimum.
Tensile Space Grid Rope NetOne of our design objectives was to provide a large, open space at the central node to evoke a feeling of magical awakening after navigating a threatening pas-sage. We all thought it would be important not to use columns in the middle of the space as they would in-terrupt visibility as well as confine movement. We set-tled on an overhead rope grid under tension.
Using real-time physics computer modelling, I was able to determine that the grid would not have to be regular, thereby we could use less material to achieve same form factor. The non-rectangular aspect of a con-tinually shifting grid would suggest a disassociation with rationality.
To make the most of the rope’s tensile capabilities, we interwove the rope to create the net. Weaving is a reticulate system in which a loaded member is partly supported by all others. The sag of each individual rope is reduced and the applied load on the anchor-ing points is more evenly distributed. If a rope were to break the net as a whole would still support loads.
The purpose of the rope net was to undergird the ten-sile membrane and to have this bit of redundancy as-suaged some of my safety concerns. The next concern was how to shape the membrane over and under the rope.
Double-Layer Grid?Initially, it seemed clear that in order to support a ten-sile membrane we would need to construct a double-layer grid to keep the masts that project the membrane from shearing under wind loads. In the wooden mod-el, I included a second rigid layer.
The fabric we end up using proved to be so forgiving that the second layer was unnecessary.
The Sun Predicting Available Daylight Since one of our objectives was to frame the face pan-els, we thought it would be important to ensure the structure itself was not casting any unwanted shadows onto the faces.
With the Helios Sun Calculator (an iPod app, which utilizes algorithms developed by the National Renew-able Energy Laboratory and the National Geophysi-cal Data Center) we were able to input the site’s exact geographic coordinates and the exact date and time of our presentation to calculate the sun’s eventual path overhead. The software outputs the azimuth (α, the horizontal angle between magnetic north and the sun), the sun’s elevation (ε) and the shadow ratio, in ten minute intervals from approximate dawn to ap-proximate dusk.
α = 68°
For example: At 8:00 am, May 17, 2012, the azimuth was 68° and the sun’s elevation was 22° above the horizon and the shadow ratio was 2.55.
I then mapped this data into a 3D model by draw-ing lines projected from the site location to the cor-responding location of the sun at some fixed far-off radius. Treating the sun as a point-like light, I drew light cones emanating from each sun location point to an ellipse containing the face panels. In this way we could predict whether the sun would shine on a given area at a given time.
With this mapping we shaped an oculus that would allow for maximal sunshine on five of the face panels during the 3 hour window in which our presentation could occur.
May 17, 2012Latitude: 37.727291Longitude: -122.449234
Time: 8:00Azimuth: 68°Elevation: 22°
Time: 9:00Azimuth: 77°Elevation: 34°
Time: 10:00Azimuth: 87°Elevation: 46°
Time: 11:00Azimuth: 101°Elevation: 57°
Time: 12:00Azimuth: 123°Elevation: 67°
Time: 13:00Azimuth: 161°Elevation: 72°
Time: 14:00Azimuth: 202°Elevation: 68°Time: 15:00
Azimuth: 228°Elevation: 59°
Time: 15:30Azimuth: 236°Elevation: 54°
Shadow Predictions for May 17, 2012 2:00 PM. Shadow ratio: .4
Shadow Predictions for May 17, 2012 12:00 PM. Shadow ratio: .43
Shadow Predictions for May 17, 2012 1:00 PM. Shadow ratio: .33
Shadow Predictions for May 17, 2012 3:00 PM. Shadow ratio: .59
1B,
1
.89”
C, 1
1.84
”
D, 1
2.96
”3.
71”
E, 1
4.59
”
W1,
1G
1, 1
2B,
2C
, 2D
, 2
1.71
”.8
1”2.
64”
3.54
”4.
41”
E, 2
W2,
2G
2, 2
3B,
3
.92”
C, 3
1.91
”
D, 3
2.91
”3.
89”
E, 3
4.84
”
W3,
3G
3, 3
41.
16”
B, 4
2.31
”
C, 4
3.45
”
D, 4
5.60
”
W4,
4G
4, 4
4.54
”
E, 4
1.45
”
B, 5
2.83
”
C, 5
4.12
”
D, 5
6.74
”
W5,
5
5.40
”
E, 5
1.92
”
B, 6
3.48
”
C, 6
4.89
”
D, 6
7.56
”
W6,
6
6.25
”
E, 6
5 6
1.92
”
B, 7
3.48
”
C, 7
4.92
”
D, 7
8.06
”
W7,
7
6.40
”
E, 7
1.36
”
B, 8
A, 8
2.68
”
C, 8
4.02
”
C, 1
7.05
”5.
45”
C, 1 E, 8
1.00
”
B, 9
2.04
”
C, 9
3.18
”
D, 9
6.26
”
F, 9
4.50
”
E, 9
0.55
”
B, 1
0
1.30
”
C, 1
0
2.17
”
D, 1
0
4.14
”
F, 1
0
3.15
”
E, 1
0
0.31
”
B, 1
1
0
.62”
C, 1
11.32
”
D, 1
1
3.05
”
F, 1
1
2.13
”
E, 1
1
0.37
”
B,12
0.75
”
C, 1
2
1.40
”
D, 1
2
2.92
”
F, 1
2
2.13
”
E, 1
2
0.60
”
B, 1
3
1.20
”
C, 1
3
1.90
”
D, 1
3
3.31
”
F, 1
3
2.61
”
E, 1
4
0.80
”
B, 1
4
1.61
”
C, 1
4
2.41
”
D, 1
4
3.89
”
F, 1
4
3.17
”
E, 1
4
1.26
”
B, 1
5
2.32
”
C, 1
5
3.25
”
D, 1
5
4.87
”
F, 1
5
4.10
”
E, 1
5
7 8 9 10 11 12
1.71
”
B, 1
6
3.00
”
C, 1
6
4.06
”
D, 1
6
5.87
”
F, 1
6
5.00
”
E, 1
6
1.56
”
B, 1
7
2.87
”
C, 1
7
4.02
”
D, 1
7
6.04
”
F, 1
7
5.04
”
E, 1
7
1.41
”
B, 1
8
2.70
”
C, 1
8
3.86
”
D, 1
8
5.93
”
F, 1
8
4.94
”
E, 1
8
1.28
”
B, 1
9
2.51
”
C, 1
9
3.69
”
D, 1
9
5.94
”
F, 1
9
4.82
”
E, 1
9
1.18
”
B, 2
0
2.38
”
C, 2
0
3.57
”
D, 2
0
6.06
”
W9,
20
4.73
”
E, 2
0
1.11
”
B, 2
1
2.34
”
D, 2
1
3.57
”
E, 2
1
5.50
”
W10
, 21
4.70
”
F, 2
1
1.17
”
B, 2
2
2.66
”
C, 2
2
4.06
”
D, 2
2
5.50
”
W11
, 22
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
G5,
5
G6,
6
D, 8
W8,
8
A, 9
A, 1
0
A, 1
1
A, 1
2
A, 1
3
A, 1
4
G8,
16
A, 1
5
G7,
7
G9,
17
G10
, 18
G11
, 19
G12
, 20
G13
, 21
G14
, 22
Courtyard Mesh - Warp Curves1 inch = 2 ft
B C D
B1: 0 C1: 0 D1: 0
B2: 2.253575 C2: 1.995997 D2: 2.634816
A B3: 4.997938 C3: 4.557403 D3: 5.245984
G4: 0 B4: 7.674996 C4: 7.199298 D4: 7.93203 E
A5: 4.123679 B5: 10.299047 C5: 9.804642 D5: 10.763473 W5: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A6: 6.2276 B6: 11.537599 C6: 11.045147 D6: 12.357438 E6: 3.261513 G1: 0 G2: 0 G3: 0 G4: 0 A5: 0 A6: 0 A7: 0 A8: 0 A9: 0 A10: 0 G11: 0 G12: 0 G13: 0
A7: 8.288404 B7: 12.787078 C7: 12.309232 D7: 13.796489 E7: 5.248049 B1: 3.67329 B2: 3.815971 B3: 5.653351 B4: 6.962822 B5: 4.080729 B6: 2.568393 B7: 1.238586 B8: 1.18914 B9: 2.403597 B10: 3.22623 B11: 5.975817 B12: 5.393281 B13: 4.7709
A8: 9.824907 B8: 14.1417 C8: 13.707995 D8: 15.33752 E8: 7.089219 C1: 5.907648 C2: 5.820831 C3: 8.246518 C4: 9.852125 C5: 6.369726 C6: 4.342451 C7: 2.645479 C8: 2.489206 C9: 3.791865 C10: 4.818596 C11: 8.104866 C12: 7.72424 C13: 7.133055
A9: 12.298242 B9: 15.577875 C9: 15.204121 D9: 17.015413 E9: 9.13766 D1: 7.400037 D2: 7.779172 D3: 10.786392 D4: 12.785526 D5: 8.9964 D6: 6.30247 D7: 4.259782 D8: 3.958947 D9: 5.228079 D10: 6.343867 D11: 9.977717 D12: 9.87408 D13: 9.462337
A10: 14.212123 B10: 17.012797 C10: 16.703875 D10: 18.66478 E10: 10.918407 W1: 9.160371 W2: 9.689928 W3: 13.487488 W4: 16.119516 W5: 12.528084 E6: 8.266488 E7: 6.109358 E8: 5.532516 E9: 6.625285 E10: 7.788719 E11: 11.733534 E12: 11.86575 W13: 12.129744
G11: 18.220924 B11: 19.708493 C11: 19.592646 D11: 21.922156 E11: 14.800677
B12: 22.658395 C12: 22.588664 D12: 25.084194 E12: 18.278
B13: 26.108525 C13: 25.898367 D13: 28.378086 W13: 22.321117
The Raw Data
Dimensions for the placement of anchor points
The Construction Documents
AA, G7
2.62”1.10” 3.11” 4.15” 5.16” 6.25” 7.21” 9.25”8.30”
A, 8 A, 9 A, 10 A, 11 A, 12 A, 13 A, 14 A, 15 A, G8
B
C
D
E
F11.2”
F, W9 F, 10 F, 11
2.62”1.63” 3.54” 4.57” 5.46” 6.47” 7.42” 8.46” 9.175” 10.26”
F, 12 F, 12 F, 13 F, 14 F, 15 F, 16 F, 17 F, 18 F, W10
E, 1 E, 2 E, 3 E, 4 E, 5 E, 6 E, 7 E, 8 E, 9 E, 10 E, 11E, 12 E, 13 E, 14 E, 15 E, 16 E, 17 E, 18 E, 19 E, 20 E, 21 E, W12
D, 1 D, 2 D, 3 D, 4 D, 5 D, 6 D, 7 D, 8 D, 9 D, 10 D, 11 D, 12 D, 13 D, 14 D, 15 D, 16 D, 17 D, 18 D, 19 D, 20 D, 21 D, 22
C, 1 C, 2 C, 3 C, 4 C, 5 C, 6 C, 7 C, 8 C, 9 C, 10C, 11 C, 12 C, 13 C, 14 C, 15 C, 16 C, 17 C, 18 C, 19 C, 20 C, 21 C, 22
B, 1 B, 2 B, 3 B, 4 B, 5 B, 6 B, 7 B, 8 B, 9 B, 10 B, 11B, 12 B, 13 B, 14 B, 15 B, 16 B, 17 B, 18 B, 19 B, 20 B, 21 B, 22
Courtyard Mesh - Warp Curves1 inch = 2 ft
Layout of the nodes
The following are the documents we used to keep our-selves organized on site.
Materials Become Structural Components Rope We tested many types of rope, comparing material strength, price and textural connotation.
We ended up using manila rope because of it’s rustic aesthetic qualities and strength relative to price. We bought two thicknesses to correspond to both the hier-archy of structure, as well as program.
The quarter inch was the most commonly used across the grid. Being woven together, the ropes supported themselves in a coöperative network.
The half-inch manila would serve a structural role in the four portals, in that they would have to bear the greater tensile loads. Programmatically, the differentia-tion in thickness would visually define the four orific-es, two of which are passage ways, and the two others, lightways.
Hollow Polyester 1/4”
Cotton/Nylon Core 1/4”
Polypropylene 1/4”
Polypropylene 1/2”
Manila 1/2”
Manila 1/4”
Fabric The fabrics we tested:1 Netting: By far the cheapest, it came 72” wide and was $.79 per yard. The main issue with it was that it tore easily.2 Ripstop nylon: Strong and flexible but expensive. Would have required extensive testing and pre- stressing to get the pattern to fit snugly over the masts. Also would have picked up wind re- quiring tighter connections to masts. Could have varied the lighting conditions by making the tun nel black and the center white.3 Muslin: Cheap but not very strong or flexible. Same wind issue as with the ripstop nylon. 4 Stretch Illusion Nylon: Cheap, graceful, and ef- ficient: we used only 8 yards to cover the whole structure.
For all of the rope joining we used bowline knots. A mnemonic for tying a bowline: “The rabbit comes out of the hole, goes around the tree and back into the hole.”
1 2
3 4
3 2
Construction in Timelapse
In Detail
ReflectionsWorking with Manon, Eric and Kaitlyn was a rich and rewarding experience. We all contributed extensively to different aspects of the design, which we then inte-grated into a coherent and stimulating vision.
Eric designed the hanging panels which were original-ly intended to be a subtractive sculpting of much larger panels. Through many revisions and a fruitful collabo-ration with Manon, they created a densely patterned, interactive pathway that playfully hampered visitors’ entrance to the inner node, disorienting and causing the visitor to slow their pace in preparation for another mind state.
Kaitlyn and I worked on the gel panels, which would cast colored light onto the array of concrete faces, drawing attention to this overlooked gem of City Col-lege’s cultural landscape. The light served as an entic-ing lure to the curious passerby.
Our group dynamic was strong. We are all design-ers, committed to our own visions, but also to helping each other realize these visions.
We came together to slog through more the difficult and painstaking elements of the construction pro-cess. Measuring, marking and cutting the rope and the panels were two such endeavor that was made easier working as team. Kaitlyn and Manon have cars and were invaluable to the logistics of getting materials to the site.
I am proud of all that we were able to achieve, in such a compressed time frame. We learned so much about the design process, materials, coordination, team work and collaboration. Thanks to CCSF architecture de-partment and Professor Jerry Lum for all the support, and guidances.
Eric reflecting on the shape of the path.
Kaitlyn and Manon, in sync as they tape up the edges of the cardboard strips.
Kaitlyn lashes the supporting rope to the oculus rope ensuring the that anchor points remain fixed.
Inspired by Professor Lum’s design suggestion, we drilled perpendicular dado cuts into 1 inch dowels to fashion nodes for retaining the rope intersections as well as attaching the projecting element to the grid.
Manon cuts chain to suspend the vertical cardboard strips.
Manon, hiding behind the vertical strips.
