program consolidation :: midterm review

My previous layouts were filled with tons of kitchens: • 1 kitchen classroom,
• 1 catering kitchen,  • 3 supplying the 2 restaurants,  • 3 rentable kitchens, and there were plans for integrating a demo kitchen on the ground level.  In reality, this amount of kitchens would be unfeasible.  Making that many kitchens requires duplication of equipment, and each kitchen has its own demands for ventilation, grease removal, and plumbing.  After talking extensively with a local caterer, I decided to try to consolidate the kitchen portion of the program.

program analysis :: kitchen usage intensities
I first tried to analyze the usage intensities of the different kitchens to see if there were any opportunities for consolidation in that regard.  The following charts, to the best of my knowledge/imagination, the potential open hours of the restaurants, as well as the anticipated usage of the kitchens corresponding to prep times and peak serving times.

Usage Intensity of Kitchens with Restaurant Hours

Revisiting the previous theme of molecular growth, I started conceiving of the program as elements on a periodic table.  In nature, some of these elements exist by themselves, but they can also combine to create compounds.

The beginnings of the "Periodic Table of Programmatic Elements"

As I mentioned, I was planning a demo kitchen on the ground floor, and I also wanted a mobile kitchen.  Noticing that the program called for both a classroom and a kitchen classroom, I thought I could create a classroom that could function as a kitchen classroom with the addition of a mobile kitchen plug-in that could also serve as the ground floor demo kitchen and the mobile kitchen.

To conceptualize this concept, I returned to my lego models, and created this one which highlights the idea of "plug-in" architectural units.

Plan view.  North pointing up.

From Prairie Ave. with fully loaded "plug-in dock."

Detail of "plug-in" architectural components.

Additionally, I fused the Trainig Kitchen (Tr), Catering Kitchen (Ca), and the Rentable Kitchens (3 x Rn) into one larger space that could be "divided" by time, not space.  These move most explicitly affected the 2nd floor, which was kitchen-heavy.  As you can see in the plans below that were presented at midterm, the 2nd floor plan is much more open and spacious. 

Here are some 3-d images that give a sense of what my project is at this point.

Perspective of building with some architectural detail.

Perspective showing pedestrian axis cutting through the building.

The building in the immediate neighborhood context.

midterm prep :: board drafts + project brochure
Our midterm review was held in The Fleur de Lis Restaurant across the street from our site.  Our professor arranged for the usual jury of architectural critics, but in addition, we were charged with getting out to the community and inviting community members and officials to the review.  Because we would be presenting to non-architects, we were pushed to diagram and explain our concepts in an accessible way.  In addition to our boards, we created a brochure to introduce our faces, our mission statements, and our project trajectories.

Project brochure (bio, mission statement, project description)
Draft of Board 1 :: context (city, neighborhood, site)
Draft of Board 2 :: metaphors (what goes in and out)
Draft of Board 3 :: molecular growth (container module + grid; adjacencies)

midterm revelations
I had struggled with the idea of what would attract people from outside the community to the project.  My primary goal was to serve the local community, and I struggled with the idea of the additional program component: Can I find something that serves the community but also attracts others without affecting the community's access to the services?  Do I interject something to the program that might not appeal as much to the community but serves to draw in others?  This question still hung over me up until the midterm presentation.

Then, while presenting my project, it came to me: as a distribution-heavy project, the strength for conversation and appeal to both the community and others was already built into the project--mobility!  The reason I was having so much trouble answering the question was that it wasn't true to my project.  This was not a "build it and (hope that) they will come" kind of project; instead, this project had the potential to start the conversation, and make the first contact.  If you want someone to come to you, why not first reach out or go out to them?

final midterm boards + model images

1/16" model in site context

1/16" model "unstacked"

Board 1 :: context (city, neighborhood, site; what goes in and out)
Board 2 :: molecular growth (container module + grids; adjacencies; phasing)
Board 3 :: drawings (plans, elevations, sections, perspectives)
1/16" model images (stackable program pieces; situated in site model context)

midterm review advice
The following are pieces of advice from our guest critics and community members, most were directed to me during my review, but some advice given to others applied to me as well, and are listed here as well:

• maximize penetration on the ground level 
• add more space open and available to the community (model garden outside or rooftop green space?)
• invest $ saved from container reclamation into making great spaces
• pedestrian axis is completely missed on the 2nd floor
• develop the outdoor recreation space; good concept, and good urban and community gesture
• see how music and performance can inform the project as well as the phasing

Questions to ask yourself:

• How do you react to where it's at and what is around it?
• How do you deal with these issues in terms of a building? of architecture?
• How can the extra component enhance and enrich your project?
• Can you do things better if you try to do less?  

The next couple of posts will focus on structure and circulation refinements that were needed after the midterm review.