Moving Forward – Field Studies


Having now explored and ultimately created a basic ruleset/design mode to guide the exploration of our pavilion, we were asked to construct a portion of the pavilion using our current iteration of the 4″ x 4″ x 12″ joint. This portion had to create some form of “surface” – be it ground, roof, or wall – that ideally the rest of the pavilion would then extend from. I and my classmates found this to be increasingly difficult, as our smaller structure was just that – small, and the concept of transforming it to become a larger structure was very foreign. Ultimately the guidelines regarding the specific function of our new exploration (specifically one of the three necessary surfaces) were blurred/removed, allowing for a more open design process.

Looking back at some of the photographs I had taken of my smaller joint in various configurations formed the basis of my inspiration – I decided to quite literally stack my joint multiple times, creating a sort of smaller module which was then repeated over the course of the structure. The idea was simply to use one basic form of module (derived near-directly from the original joint), which was then slightly transformed to create eight basic modules. These parts were then stacked in various configurations to allow for openings and multiple surfaces.

Because of the construction of my original joint, I found it made the most sense to take one half of the joint and split it down the middle, effectively deriving my basic module from one quarter of the original joint. These quarters were then turned on their side, allowing the vertical nature to then become horizontal. This created various platforms across the surface as the modules were stacked and shifted. The exact function for each surface was unclear – I wanted their purpose to emerge naturally as they were used. Some surfaces were quite clearly stairs to upper levels, but all could then be used as seats or other forms beyond my limited imagining in the studio. I also decided to keep the idea of a “key” or anchor for the structure, creating three pillars that held the space together (although physically within the model they were not required to keep the rest of the parts together – but the idea was that perhaps they would).

Of course, the entire model was also to be constructed within Rhino, our primary modeling software. In anticipation of creating the actual model, I created some quick renderings of my design to get a feel of how it would ultimately look, some of which I have included below.

A sample of some of my renderings of the concept as designed in Rhino

A sample of some of my renderings of the concept as designed in Rhino

For the first time we were also introduced to the concept of space having a primary function – part of the requirements for our final pavilion was to ultimately create multiple spaces that could be used as a) public seating/conversation space, b) private space, and c) public demonstration/presentation space. While we weren’t expected to explicitly address these modes of space in this iteration of our development, they were something to keep in mind.

The final constructed model, built at 1″ = 1′ scale (so the model stood at 12″ tall and about 20″ long):

The completed field model. Like the original joint, I chose to construct the model out of a mixture of cold press and basswood, both because of ease of cutting/assembly and also to maintain a sense of continuity between the two models.

The completed field model. Like the original joint, I chose to construct the model out of a mixture of cold press and basswood, both because of ease of cutting/assembly and also to maintain a sense of continuity between the two models.

Like the original joint, the field model could also be disassembled, although unfortunately not as much as before - this time, only the wooden "keys" or anchors were removable, but the rest of the structure was stationary.

Like the original joint, the field model could also be disassembled, although unfortunately not as much as before – this time, only the wooden “keys” or anchors were removable, but the rest of the structure was stationary.

A view from the side of the field model/surface, to help illustrate how I shifted the alignment of the modules to create a more broken surface on the interior.

A view from the side of the field model/surface, to help illustrate how I shifted the alignment of the modules to create a more broken surface on the interior.

The exterior of the field model/surface. I chose to cover up various portions of the surface in an attempt to make the exterior feel more closed, to contrast with the broken/more open interior.

The exterior of the field model/surface. I chose to cover up various portions of the surface in an attempt to make the exterior feel more closed, to contrast with the broken/more open interior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s