Program Proposals

Based upon analysis done along the Busway, and my personal interests in design, I am

proposing various sporting facilities along the Busway. The primary goal is to bring the scale of the Busway down to the human level. Activity facilities do this by allowing users to interact very physically with adapted elements of the Busway. These facilities would be easily accessible by foot and/or bus. The activities being proposed are ones that may occur in long and narrow spaces. This allows the facilities to stretch themselves parallel along the busway. The dimensions of the spaces will therefor have an intimate connection with the directionality of the Busway, which supports intentions of not trying to fight its’ physical presence. The activities cater to a wide demographic of users in order to maintain a constant flow of activity from all types of users. Currently proposed activities include:

-Bowling alleys

-Lap pools

-Bocce Ball court

-Skate park

-Climbing wall

-Batting cages

-Mini Golf

Precendent Studies

Sections through Highline in NYC.

Sections through Southwest Corridor in Boston

Comparative Analysis between the Busway and precedent projects.

Recent Site Analysis

1+3 Update

1_ By introducing pedestrian-based interventions along the Martin Luther King Jr. Busway in Pittsburgh, the Busway can become a mechanism of interaction that helps to reduce the negative impact of the physical boundaries it creates.

3_ The Busway contains a wide variety of physical and social relationships to its adjacent urban landscape. This project will investigate the physical and social morphology that occurs, and how the different conditions may be addressed through a series of interventions at specific locations along the Busway. Interventions, comprising of alternative sporting facilities, will work to interweave many of the communities that lie in the Busway’s path by generating possibilities for people to actively occupy previously unoccupiable spaces.

Site analysis

I spent some time the past few days riding the busway and taking section cuts through it. The sections reveal that there is a unique and wide variety of morphing in the cross section of the Busway.

1+3+9_ Take 2!

1_ By expanding on the functions of the Martin Luther King Jr. Busway in Pittsburgh, the Busway can expand its users and further reduce the impact of many of the harsh boundaries it creates.

3_ The Busway contains a wide variety of sectional conditions that each have unique characteristics in relation to the adjacent spaces. The relationship between the Busway and these adjacencies can be further connected by adapting the Busway to accept a larger variety of uses. Interventions at specific points along the Busway will help to interweave many of the communities that lie in its path.

9_ Many of the active moments that occur along the Busway happen at points where crosswalks and bridges allow users to travel, by car or by foot, over, under, or along the Busway. If we think about these passages through the Busway as pores, an increase in the Busway's porosity will result in an increase in interaction between the residents in surrounding communities. To increase porosity, more bridges and tunnels will be proposed along with destination points. Destination points will work to expand upon what the Busway is already very successful at doing, which is bringing residents to and from nonadjacent communities. In order to be successful, the destination points must be specialty-uses that will provide a service that can''t be found in every community. This proposal will focus on various sporting facilities that require specific equipment such as climbing walls, skate parks, dance studios, bowling alleys, mountain biking courses, etc. Not only would these destinations better connect the people of Pittsburgh, but they would also bring more users to the Busway, which would bolster the financial support of the Port Authority which has undergone many cuts in recent years due to a lack of funding. Seeing that the locations around the Busway are viewed each day by over 25,000 users, the space is opportune for displaying new ideas and new technologies to the entire Pittsburgh region. Rather than fight the functional uses of the Busway, it is more viable to take advantage of the diversity of users the Busway has to offer.

Site Diagram

The site I chose was the MLK Jr. Busway that runs through Pittsburgh. I find this structure particularly unique in the way it divides the city and the different ways it relates to the ground plane. The diagram I produced takes a look at adjacencies and porosity as well as time along the busway. For ease of reading the diagram I abstractly unraveled the busway into a straight line.

I'm interested in taking my project to a large-scale urban intervention. I first analyzed the busway in the urban lab with my studio in Wilkinsburg. I wish to expand on this analysis and look at the entire busway (at least at the start) and find a program that is appropriate.

'Site Matters' Response

The reading 'Site Matters' by Andrea Kahn brings up a number of unique points about how we interpret urban sites and their boundaries. While Kahn is clear about these points, I felt that the reading could have been condensed down into two or three pages without losing much information. However, rather than dwelling on this fact, it is more useful to respond to what I found interesting.

The most interesting point I pulled out of the reading was the difference Kahn drew between representing architecture sites and urban sites. Of course there are many similarities in how these two overlapping fields utilize representation, but I agree with Kahn's assessment about how representation of a site is not about "depicting a reality, but about making knowledge." I believe that it is true that architectural models and drawings (micro scale), when compared to models and drawings of urban sites (macro scale), are more often rerepresentations of reality than 'evidence of a thought formation'.

Another topic raised in the reading that I found compelling was the talk about Urban Constellations, and the separation of 'site' and 'context'. Right from the start the point is made that, "Context is what the site is not." I appreciate the clarity and logic behind this statement, but it does then brings up issues with Kahn's definition of 'site'. This definition for context relies on a clear distinction between context and site, which, as we understand, has no distinct boundaries. Kahn does address this flaw in the definition, but never really puts forward a coherent explanation. What I take away from this dilemma, and the reading as a whole is that there are no distinct boundaries when discussing urban sites. And trying to make these boundaries won't do one any good since that would only isolate something not meant to be isolated.

Concept Sketch 3

My goal for this sketch was to get at some of my ideas without depicting any sort of buildings like I have done in my previous 2 concept sketches. A couple years ago I started collecting tin types - mainly portraits - that I would find in antique shops and yard sales in upstate New York. I'm not quite sure what drew me to these photographs, but I suppose I found them slightly humorous. Anyway I thought the images were relevant because they represent the historical aspects that I'd like to have show up in my thesis. In other words, they tell a story. So I started collaging over one of these images using brightly colored boxes, etc. in hopes of fleshing out some ideas about how to add on to this narrative.

'The Muses are not Amused' Response

Silvetti’s ‘The Muses are Not Amused’, while seeming somewhat blunt at points, gets at a core issue that has come up often in recent in class discussions lectures. When Pablo Garcia came in to join our discussion last week, he mentioned that of all the definitions he had found for ‘thesis’ the most common word to come up was ‘bullshit’. It seems that Jorge Silvetti, in a very appropriate and logical manner, is getting at the point that it is okay for many of the metaphors that architects use to exist as a starting point, but once they are translated into buildings they become mere bullshit. These are not his words, but he does criticize the use of metaphor multiple times throughout the reading.
As has been the issue with some of the previous readings, Silvetti uses form as a mechanism to flesh out his understanding of programism, thematization, blobs, and literalism. I suppose the question that is raised from his analysis is at what point does that architect have too little control over the form? - Specifically to the point where the architecture has to later be ‘stuffed’ with meaning. This stuffing of meaning through the use of common rhetoric is something I’ve seen a lot of in architecture school, where students find reasoning post form-making. Perhaps it is time for academia to evaluate the true importance/definition of rhetoric and metaphor and where in the process they are most appropriate.

Thesis Concept Sketch 2

This sketch is a bit more diagrammatic than my previous iteration. The diagram of the house is taken from Stewart Brand's 'How Buildings Learn.' I have expanded this diagram to include an urban context. The backdrop begins to talk about ideas of mass customization and the dichotomy between the old and the new.

1 + 3 + 9

1_ How can we improve the performance of existing buildings in urban environments to respond to growing populations and the climate crisis?

2_ Adaptive Reuse strategies in cities can have a profound impact on the urban fabric and redevelopment due to their cultural and historical presence. In the coming years these buildings will need to utilize new technologies in order to effectively grow and adapt to modern functions. Because of the density that exists within cities, there is a unique relationship created between the adapted building and the city.

3_ 66% of the houses that will be occupied in 2050 have already been built. For major cities that are undergoing rapid changes in population and economics, this means that existing structures must learn in order to keep up. In the book ‘How Buildings Learn’, Stewart Brand stresses that an adaptive building must allow for slippage between “site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and stuff.” With a focus on the urban context I think it’s just as important that there is slippage within the ‘city’ (it doesn’t start with an ‘s’, but at least it sounds like it does). What I mean by this is that buildings should be adapted with the assumption that their cities will always be changing. One of the mechanisms I would like to utilize in exploring the idea of adaptive reuse in cities is mass customization. This involves studying how new construction technologies may allow people to customize their space over time. The use of these new technologies in adapting older structures allows for a unique dichotomy to be inherent in the architecture. The challenge here becomes how much can we change a building – or a city – before it loses those qualities which we hope to preserve.

Thesis Concept Sketch

Reading Response: 'How to Draw Up a Project' by Jose Luis Mateo

To effectively analyze the project steps outlined by Jose Luis Mateo in 'How to Draw Up a Project' I think it is most helpful to relate these steps to the project process that I have become familiar within my four years in architecture school. Breaking it down into three steps for ease of comparison, the typical process has gone as follows: (1) The students are given a physical context and a broad program, which they analyze at multiple scales and develop a set of abstract issues to address with their project. (2) A hierarchy is developed as to which issues the student finds most pertinent, which informs their overall concept and begins to hint at a particular form. (3) The project becomes further refined based upon the realities of materials, construction, structure, etc.

So how do I think Jose Luis Mateo's outline of a project is different than what I am used to? Well, I think for the most part, it is quite similar, but some subtle differences reveal some interesting questions about the way we develop a project. Mateo's first step, where the project is "phantom-like," seems to be the most interesting for this comparison. Never in Mateo's first step does he reference program or site as the go-to start for a project (although one of the images is a photomontage of a site). So where does a project really start? As we've been told, with our thesis, we will get to choose whether to start with a site OR a program. However, the thesis project will start, for the first time in my architecture education, even before this decision is made; the beginning stages will be based upon my interests, allowing this phantom-like part of the process to be even more abstract than usual.

The second and third steps outlined in the reading correlate very similarly to the outline I defined at the beginning. Here, we are establishing a hierarchy of ideas, and then bringing these ideas into the parameters of reality. I do, however, find a couple of the inferences Mateo raises in the latter steps to be somewhat restricting. He breaks the last step down by separating the acts of defining space and skin. I don't believe this is a breakdown that students typically make in their projects (at least consciously) nor do I think it should be. This separation of space and skin inhibits the ability to explore the relationship between these two elements. I believe there is further evidence of this restriction when Mateo states that, when discussing 'skin', "an interior can be seen through it but not confused with it." Some of the most compelling projects I've seen from practitioners and students are when these boundaries of interior/exterior or skin/space are blurred and made ambiguous. It is in these projects that the parameters of reality brought on in the latter end of the design process are explored rather than accepted.