MDS portfolio

67
AMALIA LEIFESTE 2002 . 2003 . 2004 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2011 . 2012 Master’s Thesis University of Oregon, Eugene OR. Bachelor of Architecture MacArthur Means and Wells Architects University of Texas, Austin TX master design study on a process and product of design incorporating situated perspective REVERSE DEPRECIATION: EVOKING THE AGE VALUE OF BAKER SCHOOL

description

short portfolio on my Master Design Study work

Transcript of MDS portfolio

  • AMALIA LEIFESTE2002 . 2003 . 2004 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2011 . 2012

    Masters Thesis

    University of Oregon, Eugene OR. Bachelor of Architecture MacArthur Means and Wells Architects University of Texas, Austin TX

    master design study on a process and product of design incorporating situated perspective

    REVERSE DEPRECIATION:EVOKING THE AGE VALUE OF BAKER SCHOOL

  • The Baker School, owned by Austin Independent School District (AISD), served as a public school until the 1980s when it was converted to an administration facility. Baker garnered attention and raised conflict when AISD offered it for sale in 2011. Baker foregrounds many factors relating to historic preservation, sustainability, and participatory design. Not only is it a historic resource facing the prospect of adaptive use, but it is also a place of importance to its community. Though AISD decided not to sell it at this time, placing it on the market proved that Bakers future is of interest to sev-eral different relevant social groups. The direct and tangible goal of this research is to assist in imagining a future for this building which is highly sensitive to social context, reflects a sophisticated reading of the artifacts age value, and is expansive in thinking about, and assessing sustainability.

    The research is conducted in four main steps. First, the six relevant social groups [AISD, developers, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, preservationists,

    proximal residents and the City of Austin] emerge and are characterized through content analysis of discourse within each group.

    Second, the parameters of what change might be acceptable is defined by tracking value of tangible and in-tangible aspects of Baker.

    Third, multiple design scenarios are proposed based on these values: a senior living complex, a magnet school, and two mixed-use developments. Volumetric exercises are coded to reveal driving logics of the schemes and in so doing enable a more critical and informed discussion.

    Finally, the design scenarios catalyze discussion among relevant social groups and stand to inform decision making in Bakers unfolding future.

    The result of this research is twofold. First, there is a design product, the design scenarios, which the relevant social groups can use to continue discussion, generate interest, express vision and articulate values. The scenarios demon-strate sensitivity to the concerns of the communities and promote discussion of the critical underlying values as well as the potential for Bakers architecture to address these values. Additionally the design process itself is a result of the research. The design process created for and established in this research can be extrapolated as a strategy to apply to other projects where multiple points of view need to be sensitively incorporated into the planning and design process.

  • 39th Street

    Guad

    alup

    e

    Aven

    ue B

    Duva

    l

    40th Street

    42th Street

    38th Street

    100 100

    100

    100

    100 100

  • The Baker Center, or Baker School (depending on who is talking about the place) is a school facility in the Hyde Park Neighborhood of Austin, Texas. Baker School was built in 1911 as an amenity for the then-new Austin suburb, Hyde Park.1 Since that time, the city has grown significantly and the neighborhood is now a part of Austins core. Austin Independent School District (AISD) is the owner of the Baker property, located on Avenue B between 39th and 40th streets. The Baker School served as a public school until the 1980s when it was converted to an administration facility. As part of a greater facilities master planning and budget balancing process AISD has put The Baker Center up for sale.2 Two bids were received. The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) has been very vocal in opposing the sale of Baker School.

    Historic Preservation interests also play a role in this picture. Listed as a contributing structure to the Local Historic District, Baker is subject to the design guidelines adopted by the community. Being situated in a historic district means that the building stock surrounding the school possesses an established, valued, and documented character.

    1 Texas Historical Commission, Hyde Park Historic District Narrative, The Texas Historical Commission, n.d., http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/view_narrative.aspx?narrative=90001191.htm&title=Hyde%20Park%20Historic%20District&filepath=E:\atlas_text\nr_listed\html.

    2 DeJONG-RICHTER LLC, et al., Austin Independent School District-Wide Facilities Master Plan, Final Report (Austin, TX: AISD, March 2011). p 12. and Dennis Harner, Interview with Mr. Harner of Harner and Associates, demographer, e-mail, November 13, 2011, http://www.harnerandassoc.com/#!contact-us.

  • AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th

    LIMBOaka winter break

    sell

    sell

    STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

    LITERATURE

    REVIEW

    /

    RESEARCH

    DESIGN

    DISCOVER AND

    CHARACTERIZE RELEVANT

    SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER

    HPHP

    BL

    AISD interest dries up

    precedent + process design work

    chapter 1chapter 2

    chapter 3chapter 4

  • interest dries up

    precedent + process design work

    STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

    LITERATURE

    REVIEW

    /

    RESEARCH

    DESIGN

    longer term

    collaborative:discuss values with RSGs (less AISD)

    tbd:discuss values with RSGs (less AISD)(less developer?)

    work with respondents who are interested in longer term visioning, 1 per RSG as can generate interest

    FEASIBILITYSTUDIESprogramzoning

    massingcoding

    design critique and community meeting (dc+cm)

    dc+cmorschematic design

    dc+cm on thefeasibility scenarios and academic review on the process

    physical design work

    chapter 5chapter 6

    chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9

    chapter 10

    chapter 11chapter 12

  • 100 100

    100

    100

    100 100

    39th Street

    Guad

    alup

    e

    Aven

    ue B

    Duva

    l

    40th Street

    42th Street

    38th Street

    Spee

    dway

    Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Boundaries

    HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION [HPNA]

    The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association was founded in 1974 to preserve the historic and unique character and amenities of the community of Hyde Park.1 HPNA maintains a thorough and active website, including the portal to a community list serve.2 To understand the positions of the Hyde Park residents, I analyzed all posts on the list serve on the topic of Baker School.

    The most vocal residents have been acting as the official mouth-piece of the neighborhood association. The thrust of this view, which was presented as unanimous, is that the neighborhood association does not want AISD to sell Baker School, but return it to use as a school in the future. This position has been communicated to the school district. Though more nuanced and even dissenting views are to be found in the posts on the list serve (see following analysis), no one has challenged the official communications being sent to AISD.

    1 Powerd by WordPress & SimpleX The Hyde park Neighborhood Association, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, copyright 2012, http://www.austinhydepark.org/.

    2 Harris, Lisa HPNA president and list serve administrator, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Listserve, yahoo group, Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Listserve, n.d.

  • 9,500September 11, 2008

    one post

    two posts

    four posts

    9,000August 1, 2008

    8,500June 5, 2008

    8,000April 27, 2008

    7,500March 3, 2008

    posts mentioning Baker Schoolnot about its future

    baseline postseach line is 10 posts

    posts about Baker Schools Future

    21

    DETAIL DIAGRAM: CHRONOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BAKER SCHOOL IN THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LIST SERVE DIALOGUE

    1

    three posts

    HPNA list serve diagram one

    Method + Data:

    7458

    7575

    8780

    8787

    8788

    8791

    8796

    8800

    8803

    8806

    8807

    8823

    1560

    2

    1560

    2

    1560

    5

    1739

    2

    1739

    4

    1739

    5

    1741

    7

    1764

    3

    1766

    2

    1766

    9

    1767

    2

    1767

    9

    1816

    1

    1852

    1

    1852

    4

    1852

    6

    1852

    8

    1852

    9

    1853

    3

    1853

    4

    1853

    5

    1853

    5

    1853

    6

    1854

    0

    1854

    2

    1854

    4

    1854

    6

    1854

    9

    1855

    0

    1855

    2

    1880

    9

    Message without argument expressed

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    LOGICS WITHIN THE HPNA LISTSERVE DIALOGUE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

    HPNA logics diagram one

    LEN

    GTH

    OF

    POST

    - in

    wor

    ds

    POST NUMBER- in chronological order

    7458

    7575

    8780

    8787

    8788

    8791

    8806

    1560

    2

    1560

    2

    1560

    5

    1741

    7

    1764

    3

    1766

    2

    1767

    9

    1767

    2

    1766

    9

    1816

    1

    1852

    1

    1852

    4

    1852

    8

    1852

    9

    1853

    3

    1853

    4

    1853

    5

    1854

    2

    1854

    4

    1854

    6

    1854

    9

    1855

    2

    1880

    9

    1855

    0

    8823

    1852

    6

    1854

    0

    1853

    5

    1853

    6

    1739

    4

    8800

    8803

    8807

    1739

    5

    8796

    Message without argument expressed

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    LOGICS WITHIN THE HPNA LISTSERVE DIALOGUE IN ORDER OF STRENGTH OF POSITION FOR [+] OR AGAINST [-] THE SALE OF BAKER

    figure 15: HPNA logics diagram eight

    FOR

    the

    sale

    of B

    aker

    Sch

    ool

    AG

    AIN

    ST th

    e sa

    le o

    f Bak

    er S

    choo

    l

    post #

    7458

    7575

    8780

    8787

    8788

    8791

    8796

    8800

    8803

    8806

    8807

    8823

    1560

    2

    1560

    2

    1560

    5

    1739

    2

    1739

    4

    1739

    5

    1741

    7

    1764

    3

    1766

    2

    1766

    9

    1767

    2

    1767

    9

    1816

    1

    1852

    1

    1852

    4

    1852

    6

    1852

    8

    1852

    9

    1853

    3

    1853

    4

    1853

    5

    1853

    5

    1853

    6

    1854

    0

    1854

    2

    1854

    4

    1854

    6

    1854

    9

    1855

    0

    1855

    2

    1880

    9

    STRENGTH OF POSITION FOR/AGAINST THE SALE OF BAKER SCHOOL WITHIN THE HPNA LIST SERVE POSTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

    HPNA logics diagram seven

    FOR

    the

    sale

    of B

    aker

    Sch

    ool

    AG

    AIN

    ST th

    e sa

    le o

    f Bak

    er S

    choo

    l

    post number

  • HYDE PARK NATIONAL

    HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY

    SHADOW LAWN NATIONAL HISTORIC

    DISTRICT

    HYDE PA

    RK LOCAL HISTO

    RIC DISTRICT BO

    UNDAR

    Y

    100 100

    100

    100

    100 100

    39th Street

    Guad

    alup

    e

    Aven

    ue B

    Duva

    l

    40th Street

    42th Street

    38th Street

    Spee

    dway

    National and Local Historic District Boundaries

    PRESERVATION INTERESTS [PREZ]

    Hyde Park was designated as a Local Historic District in December of 2010. The designation followed an extensive process undertaken by members of the community which lasted over three years.1 These activists constitute the pres-ervationists relevant social group. Through the entire designation process, articles were published monthly keeping fellow residents apprised of the process and advocating support. The preservationist logic was analyzed through the articles presented in the Pecan Press, the Hyde Park newsletter.2

    In contrast to the HPNA list serve review, the preservationists writings required consideration as a continuous stream of discussion.

    The main thrust of the argument in these narratives is: Hyde Park is unique, its historic character is valuable, and its integrity is threatened. A delicate line between maximizing protection of the historic character and the individuals property rights was walked throughout the discourse and designation process.

    1 Lorre Weidlich, Interview with Ms. Weidlich, Hyde Park LHD nominator, in person, November 6, 2011.2 Lorre Weidlich et all, The Pecan Press (Hyde Park, Austin, TX, 2011 2008), Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Newsletter archive edi-

    tion, sec. Historic Preservation related articles, http://www.austinhydepark.org/newsletter/old-archives/.

  • DIAGRAM: ARGUMENTS/NARRATIVES OF PRESERVATION INWORD LENGTH BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRONOLOGICALLY

    Preservation publication diagram

    LW

    LH

    CM

    DB

    DO

    DS

    JD

    JPM

    KH

    MCG

    MLS

    SEC

    2010 20112008 2009

    Method + Data:

    THE HYDE PARK COMMUNITY

    preservation logics diagram two

    2008.4 2008.6 2008.8 2008.10 2008.12 2009.2 2009.4 2009.6 2009.8 2009.10 2009.12 2010.2 2010.4 2010.6 2010.8 2010.10 2010.12

    Message without argument expressed

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    others

    compiled

    LW

    2008.4 2008.6 2008.8 2008.10 2008.12 2009.2 2009.4 2009.6 2009.8 2009.10 2009.12 2010.2 2010.4 2010.6 2010.8 2010.10 2010.12

    Message without argument expressed

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    others

    compiled

    LW

  • 100 100

    100

    100

    100 100

    39th Street

    Guad

    alup

    e

    Aven

    ue B

    Duva

    l

    40th Street

    42th Street

    38th Street

    Spee

    dway

    boundary defining Proximal Residents

    PROXIMAL RESIDENTS [PR]

    The Proximal Resident relevant social group is defined as people living or working within 500 of the Baker property. Because the defining characteristic of this relevant social group is spatial, the group did not have documented dis-course. Thus the analysis consists of on-site observation and survey responses.

    The Neighborhood consists of some light commercial, along the Guadalupe corridor, bordering a residential neigh-borhood. South of Baker there are several larger scale multifamily buildings, either apartments or condominiums which contain more than four units. Single family, duplex and up to quadraplexes are presented in the adjacent dia-grams as residences.

    Of the 122 surveys sent, 9 surveys were returned completed. All of the completed surveys were from individual resi-dents (no businesses responded). All responses, if a name was attached, received a follow-up letter or e-mail. This attempt at continued participation met with no response. The content of these surveys became the proximal resident discourse used throughout the remainder of the project.

  • commercial

    multifamily

    residences

    Hello.

    You are receiving this letter because you are within 500 of Baker School. I am a graduate student at UT in architecture and I am working on a thesis project about the future of Baker.

    I would be very grateful if you would take a mo-ment to help me understand what someone who lives/works near Baker thinks is valuable about the place, and its best possible future.

    Enclosed is a pre-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience returning this brief survey.

    Thank you very much for your time. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions

    Amalia [email protected]

    Hello.

    You are receiving this letter because you are within 500 of Baker School. I am a graduate student at UT in architecture and I am working on a thesis project about the future of Baker.

    I would be very grateful if you would take a mo-ment to help me understand what someone who lives/works near Baker thinks is valuable about the place, and its best possible future.

    Enclosed is a pre-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience returning this brief survey.

    Thank you very much for your time.

    Amalia [email protected]

    Please feel free to use additional pieces of paper, include photos or anything else that communicates your response to these questions (or that youd like to share with me about Baker in general).

    1. What do you value about the community (physical and social/ cultural) around Baker School?

    2. What do you value about the Baker School property itself (physical and social/cultural)?

    3. What would Baker be, and be like, in five years in the best-case scenario?

    Again, I appreciate your time with this survey.

    I would like more information about this project

    I would like to be further involved in this project

    Name:

    __________________________________________________________

    Best Method of contact: e-mail address/phone number/mailing address

    __________________________________________________________

    __________________________________________________________

    __________________________________________________________

    (optional)

  • 35

    LA

    AUSTIN ISD FACILITY LOCATIONS

    AUSTIN ISD FACILITY LOCATIONS

    Prepared by AISD Communication Services.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

    HIGH SCHOOL

    MIDDLE SCHOOL

    OTHER FACILITIES

    SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY

    N

    S

    EW

    LOOP 1

    2222

    LAMAR

    CONGRESS

    SLAUGHTER

    FM 1826

    MANCHACA

    LOOP 1

    I-35

    71

    I-35

    290

    290

    183

    183JULY 2010SUMMITT

    DAVIS

    COOK

    LANIER

    WOOLDRIDGE

    BARRINGTON

    MCBEE

    WALNUTCREEK

    HILL

    PILLOW

    GRAHAM

    DOBIE

    HART

    PICKLE

    CLIFTON CDS

    REAGANANDREWS

    HARRIS

    BLANTON

    MAPLEWOOD

    WINN

    SIMS NORMAN

    ORTEGA

    PEARCE

    NELSON FIELD

    GULLETT

    LAMAR

    CASIS

    GARZA IND.

    ALC

    ALLAN

    BROOKE

    GOVALLE

    ZAVALA

    KEALING

    CAMPBELL

    BLACKSHEAR

    MARTIN

    LINDER

    RODRIGUEZ

    LANGFORD

    HOUSTON

    MENDEZ

    PEREZPALM

    BLAZIER

    WIDEN

    TRAVIS

    SANCHEZMETZ

    ALLISON

    CAC PEASE

    AUSTIN

    ZILKERFULMORE

    GALINDO

    CROCKETT

    BEDICHEK

    COVINGTON

    PATTON

    SMALL

    OAK HILL

    CUNNINGHAM

    BARANOFF

    KOCUREK

    COWAN

    JOSLIN

    BOONE

    BAILEY

    BOWIEKIKER

    MILLS

    GORZYCKI

    CLAYTON

    BALDWIN

    WILLIAMSCASEY

    PAREDES

    MENCHACA

    AKINS

    ST. ELMO

    ODOM

    SHRC

    DAWSON

    O. HENRY

    BURNET

    READ PRE-KCENTER

    WOOTEN

    BRENTWOOD

    ROSEDALE SCHOOL PECAN

    SPRINGS

    OAKSPRINGS

    SUNSETVALLEY

    TRAVISHEIGHTS

    BARTONHILLS

    PLEASANTHILL

    BURGER CENTER

    BECKER& ACES

    MCCALLUM

    EASTSIDEMEMORIAL

    HOUSEPARK

    ANN RICHARDS

    LEE

    BAKER/PDC

    RIDGETOP

    MATHEWS

    BRYKERWOODS

    BROWN NOACKSPORTS

    COMPLEXDELCOACTIVITYCENTER

    OVERTON

    GARCIA

    LBJ

    JORDAN

    WEBB

    REILLY

    DOSS

    ANDERSON

    MURCHISON

    HIGHLAND PARK

    AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT [AISD]

    The sale of The Baker Center was formally initiated in the 2010 Facilities Master Plan (FMP).1 This planning effort sought to begin the dialogue within the Austin community about deficiencies in the current school facilities, how to better utilize the resources available.

    Because much of the discussion and negotiations surrounding the sale of The Baker Center occurred in the executive session of the AISD board of trustees, there is limited information available on the logics AISD used in their argumenta-tion or decision rational. While bearing in mind the prominent message from the interview that the AISD decision pro-cess to offer The Baker Center for sale hinged on additional, perhaps not easily documented features, the FMP served as the primary document for coding the AISDs logics. Using the same, Cultural, Economic, Personal, Physical Use, and Social Logics the following diagrams and data depict a version of the logics being employed in AISD discussions about the value of The Baker Center.

    1 DeJONG-RICHTER LLC et al., Austin Independent School District-Wide Facilities Master Plan, Final Report (Austin, TX: AISD, March 2011).

  • Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Asset Logic

    Social Logic

    AISDs Facilities Master Plan logics

  • DEVELOPERS [DEV]

    Two developers have placed bids on Baker. The higher priced bid, with conditions, was submitted by Bula Lewis Farms, LLC. The second, unconditioned bid was submitted by Hyde Park Historic Properties.1

    Part of the bid documents received from AISDs agent is the formal question and answer document from the pre-bid period. This document itemizes the twenty questions that interested parties asked of the school district before the bid deadline. Though these questions were anonymous, and therefore cannot be explicitly linked to the developer relevant social group, it is a fairly safe assumption that these questions represent the concerns of those interested in bidding the project.

    Further information on the character of one of the potentially relevant developers (pending AISDs decision on De-cember 13th), was given in an interview with Thad Avery of Hyde Park Historic Properties.2

    In both sources, as throughout the study, the logics were not considered exclusive during coding.

    1 Austin Independent School District, Baker Center Bid Package (AISD, March 17, 2011).2 Thad Avery, Interview with Mr. Avery of Hyde Park Historic Properties, LLC, Phone call, December 3, 2011.

    BULA LEWIS

    HYDE PARK HISTORIC PROPERTIES

  • Developer logic through interview

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    LOGICS WITHIN THE INTERVIEW NARRATIVE WITH TA IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

    LENGTH OF DISCUSSION POINT

    Developer logic through pre-bid question and answer

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    LOGICS WITHIN THE PRE-BID QUESTION AND ANSWER DOCUMENT

    Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

  • THE CITY OF AUSTIN [CITY]

    The City of Austin and Travis County, as regulatory and political entities, are also relevant social groups of Baker. Though depicted as an objective formal entity, the rationale and logics embodied in regulation and political processes around buildings, zoning and public process have great bearing on Baker. Through formal codes and laws such as zoning the city exerts direct influence on the future of Baker.

    The City of Austin as a searchable online database of digitized records. References to Baker School extend back as far as 1913. Very few of the allusions to Baker are substantiative, meaning that most simply refer to Baker as a voting loca-tion, not about issues surrounding the property. The few documents that had content specific to Baker were pulled out and coded, as all previous documents from relevant social groups, for Cultural, Economic, Personal, Physical and Social logics.

    These logics were not considered exclusive during coding. A single sentence could receive multiple logic codes.

  • nominal reference

    substantative reference

    Baker Center

    Baker Center School

    1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

    Baker School{

    {

    LHD process

    CHRONOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BAKER SCHOOL / THE BAKER CENTER IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN

    city record diagram

    9

    8

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    10

    11

    12

    1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

    Cultural Logic

    Economic Logic

    Personal Logic

    Physical Use Logic

    Social Logic

    LOGICS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RECORDS SUBSTANTITIVELY REFERENCING BAKER BY CHRONOLOGY AND DOCUMENT

    city logics diagram

  • Hyde Park Neighborhood Association Preservationists

    Austin Independent School DistrictProximal Residents

    Developer[s] The City

    Using a semi-transparent green to highlight features that were specifically referenced as positive in the discourse of each relevant social group, and a semi-transparent white to white out undesirable features, the adjacent diagrams of value are generated.

    For example, when a proximal resident said I love the look of the old facade, even in disrepair in a survey response, then the 1911 facade received a green highlight. When Thad Avery, the developer, noted that the chiller unit in the courtyard was a million dollar mistake that decision makers had made in locating the mechanical equipment, the mechanical space in the courtyard received a semi-transparent white out.

  • 0 10' 20'

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    NORTH ELEVATION

    1345678

    0 10' 20'

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    NORTH ELEVATION

    1345678

    010'

    20'

    AVENUE B

    NO

    RTH

    ELE

    VATI

    ON

    1345678

    010'20'

    AVENU

    E B

    NORTH ELEVATION

    1

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    010

    '20

    '

    AVENUE B

    NO

    RTH ELEVATIO

    N

    1 3 4 5 6 7 8

    WEST ELEVATION

    NORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATION

    SOUTH ELEVATION

    Criteria:Weighted Value List

    1 big parcel (1)1911 over 1952 (3)ADA accessibility (1)Approach/Entrance (7)Art Deco Character (2)Courtyard (2)Craftsmanship (5)Faade (5)Grounds/park/openness (9)Height (spaces inside) (3)Historic Lighting (1)Kitchen (2)Massing (2)Materiality (8)Maximum building height (2)Maximum impervious cover (2)Out buildings (1)Playing Fields/sports (5)Porch size and location (1)Roof shape (5)Scale (3)Setbacks (2)Shadow line to other buildings (1)Structure (5)Trees (9)Windows/Fenestration (6)

  • 123

    5

    6

    74

    89

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    14

    1 decentralized waste water treatment2 health care facility3 commercial4 food supply/service5 mixed use6 park7 civic [library, city offices etc]

    8 housing9 museum10 school 11 complete community12 arts + culture13 community center14 jobs generation/training

    Post-it note exercise result; scenario groups

    Post-it note exercise result; scenario groups

    parameters in parameters out

    97 12

    job related

    14

    WHAT IS CONTESTED?

    identify points of friction

    This exercise generates the range of potential programs for the future of Baker as the relevant social groups have discussed them. It is fully inclusive in the first step of the exercise, but pro-vides for differentiation among possibilities in later iterations.

  • AISD dev HPNA prox prez city

    1. decentralized waste water treatment2. healthcare3. commercial4. food suply/service5. mixed use6. park7. civic8. housing9. museum10. school11. complete community 12. arts + culture13. community center14. jobs generating/training

    1

    2

    2

    3

    3

    3

    3

    3

    3

    4

    4

    5

    5

    5

    5

    6

    6

    6

    7

    7

    7

    8

    8

    8

    8

    9 9

    10

    10

    10

    10

    1010

    10

    10

    1112

    12

    12

    1314

    13

    13 10

    11

    13

    13 14

    Frequency

    FREQUENCYall rsg

    INCLUSIVITYall rsg

    COMPATIBILITYprez

    FEASIBILITYprez

    ACCEPTABILITYcity (re: zoning)

    FEASIBILITYdev

    Compilation scores1. -332. -1.53. 7.54. -10.55. 126. -57. 2.5

    5 78

    41013

    239

    14 12 6 1

    10 6 8 13 3 7 24

    11 5 19

    10 13 14 9 7 12 6 8 4 2 1

    5 3 8 967

    8 2 9 5 6 3 4 1

    8 5 3 9 1

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

    8. 269. 210. 1911. -612. 4.513. 814. 8.5

    12 714

    Meaning:the schemes with the most dialogue and consensus are

    [8] housing [10] school [5] mixed use

    [14] job [13] community center

    HS M M+

  • CONDO EFF

    CONDO 1

    CONDO 2

    CONDO 3

    60 X 15 60 X 9

    30 x 30 30 x 16

    41 x 22 2 x 22

    60 X 186 60 X 9

    30 x 37 30 x 16

    50 x 22 2 x 22

    33 x 336 33 x 1

    336 x 33 1 x 33

    60 X 28 60 X 9

    30 x 56 30 x 16

    76 x 22 2 x 22

    41 x 41 1 x 41

    41 x 41 41 x 1

    60 X 38 60 X 9

    30 x 76 30 x 16

    103 x 22 2 x 22

    48 x 476 48 x 9

    476 x 48 9 x 48

    AFFORD EFF

    AFFORD 1

    AFFORD 2

    AFFORD 3

    60 X 126 60 X 9

    30 x 25 30 x 16

    34 x 22 2 x 22

    60 X 166 60 X 9

    30 x 25 30 x 16

    34 x 22 2 x 22

    31 x 32 13 x 32

    32 x 31 32 x 13

    60 X 23 60 X 9

    30 x 46 30 x 16

    63 x 22 2 x 22

    37 x 37 1 x 37

    37 x 37 37 x 1

    60 X 34 60 X 9

    30 x 68 30 x 16

    92 x 22 2 x 22

    45 x 45 1 x 45

    45x 45 45 x 1

    27 x 27 1 x 27

    27 x 27 27 x 1

    These diagrams illustrate the weighted value grid system of Baker. Lines from the primary components of the ex-isting fabric [the interior face of load bearing walls, iden-tifiable column grid lines, primary corridors, etc] receive line weight value according to corresponding architec-tural elements.

    The different program grains [unit size or specific area, particular dimensions if locked-in, primary vs secondary spaces, etc] are determined by rule of thumb numbers, and/or evaluation of relevant precedents [such as in the case of the school programs].

    These program areas, if flexible, are investigated through grids of varying dimensions and are overlain on the ex-isting perimeter. The most important bay dimensions of the existing structure guide the first several grid dimen-sion investigations.

  • first Student/Elderly grid analysis second Student/Elderly grid analysis

  • Codes and ordinances are, in fact, not dissimilar from the values that this research seeks to discover in the relevant social groups. Zoning regulations are codified values.

    These are values which have a clear directive of how they should be translated into spatial decisions. Thus the next phase of the research looks at several parameters established by the City of Austin through zoning laws.

    Many different codes and laws govern the site. This analysis will cover the basic zoning parameters with significant impact at a programming or schematic design level. Additional zoning analysis would be required including detailed analysis for the way that various codes overlay one another, including the Hyde Park Neighborhood Plan, the Local Historic District design standards, relevant building codes, ADA accessibility standards, and the significantly more de-tailed restrictions within the Citys Land Use zoning code.

    In acknowledgement that this analysis is far from exhaustive, seven parameters are taken into consideration to guide further visioning of the site.

    Lot size Setbacks Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Coverage Impervious Cover Parking Heritage Trees

    Zoning Analysis: Value List

    lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: ..........................................................................................................

    compliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliantcompliant/non-compliant

  • Lot size

    Setbacks

    Maximum Building Height

    Maximum Building Coverage

    Maximum Impervious Cover

    H MZONING PARAMETER MF-4 moderate to high den-sity multi-family residential CSgeneral commercial +MF-4 MUmixed use neighborhood overlay8,000 sf

    50 min

    5,750 sf

    50 min

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    frontstr

    eet s

    ide ya

    rd

    front

    rear

    stree

    t side

    yard

    interior

    side y

    ard

    10

    15

    15

    1510 10

    60 60

    60% 95%

    70% 95%

    +

    Zoning Analysis: Typology

    MParking

    Heritage Trees

    Structured Parking Guidelines

    ZONING PARAMETER

    X 155 X 208

    H S M+

    X 112 X 124

    x

    x

    see reference PDF. Minimum efficient dimensions, slopes, ingress and egress standards, etc.

    Zoning Analysis: Site Heritage Tree Survey

    Species + trunk diameter indicates if a tree is protected by the City of Austins Heritage Tree Ordinance.Several of Bakers Trees are protected. Though a threshold that triggers municipal codified protection, this is not the only indicator of value for the trees on the Baker property. Additional trees are taken into consideration in volumetric exercises, particularly in light of the high incidence of relevant social group allusion to valuing the trees of the property.

    Type 1Live Oakheritagelist

    species

    Type 2Crepe Myrtle

    Type 3Hack-berry / Pecan

    Type 4Chinese Tallow / Paper Mul-berry

    Type 5Hack-berry

    Type 6Red Mul-berry

    Type 7Green Ash / Ligus-trum

    Type 8Pome-granate

    WEST 40TH STREET

    WEST 39TH STREET

    TYPE 5TYPE 6

    TYPE 2

    TYPE 7

    TYPE 2

    TYPE 3

    TYPE 8

    TYPE 4

    TYPE 4

    TYPE 5

    non-native invasive

    non-native invasive

    heritage treeheritage tree species, but slightly under size at presentnon-heritage tree species, but a tree of quality

    KEY

  • The primary limiting factor, or constraint, es-tablished through the zoning analysis is the parking space minimum requirements.

    This requirement, is further reinforced as an established local value by the Hyde Park Neighborhood plan which specifies that off site parking is not a permissible strategy for reaching minimum parking requirements within the Hyde Park neighborhood.

    Thus, parking schemes became the initial driving force initiating the various schemes investigated in the volumetric studies.

    Existing Parking 22

    1724

    15 13 18

    total of 109 existing parking spaces

    WEST 39TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

  • HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 2[H PS2]

    HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 2[H PS2]

    WEST 39TH STREET

    WEST 40TH STREET

    AVE

    NU

    E B

    AVE

    NU

    E A

    GU

    AD

    ALU

    PE

    STR

    EE

    T

    181316

    30

    11 22

    2417

    Zoning Analysis: Parking Schemes

    impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 29.5%

    WEST 39TH STREET

    WEST 40TH STREET

    AVE

    NU

    E B

    AVE

    NU

    E A

    GU

    AD

    ALU

    PE

    STR

    EE

    T

    181316

    30

    11 22

    2417

    HOUSING PARKING SCHEME 1[H PS1]

    impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 25%

    WEST 39TH STREET

    WEST 40TH STREET

    AVE

    NU

    E B

    AVE

    NU

    E A

    GU

    AD

    ALU

    PE

    STR

    EE

    T

    22

    17 24

    181316

    SCHOOL PARKING SCHEME 2[S PS2]

    impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 25%

    MIXED USEPARKING SCHEME 1[M PS1]

    WEST 39TH STREET

    WEST 40TH STREET

    AVE

    NU

    E B

    AVE

    NU

    E A

    GU

    AD

    ALU

    PE

    STR

    EE

    T

    99 + 71

    22

    MIXED USE PARKING SCHEME 2[M PS2]

    impervious coverage from driving and parking surfaces: 29%

    MIXED USEPARKING SCHEME 2[M PS2]

  • Existing:

    Beginning with constraints- both the codified values [zoning] and implicit values as discovered in the RSG research[weighted value list], multiple schemes of volumetric studies are developed for each programmatic scenario.

    Though a starting point for design schemes, these constraints are not viewed as completely immutable. Variances are possible, as is carefully reasoned rational for overruling implicit values. Deviating from or compromising these constraints or parameters would require significant justification, however, as the respect for the situated perspective accessed by discovering these values is central to the ideology of this project and research.

    Of the many iterations of volumetric configurations one version of each programmatic scenario is presented.

  • lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................

    compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant

    intactintactintactintactcompromisedintact + compromisedcompromisedintactintactcompromisedcompromisedcompromisedenhancedcompromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact? intact

    lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................

    compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant/ possibly noncompliant

    intactintactenhancedintactcompromisedintact + compromisedcompromisedintactintactcompromisedcompromisedintactenhancedcopromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact + compromised? intact

    lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................

    compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant

    intactintactenhancedintactenhancedintactcompromisedintactcompromisedintactintactcompromisedenhancedcompromisedintactintactintactintactintactintact? intact

    lot size: ......................................................................................................................... setbacks: ....................................................................................................... .............. maximum building height: ............................................................................. maximum building coverage: ....................................................................... maximum impervious cover: ......................................................................... parking: ......................................................................................................................... heritage trees: .......................................................................................................... 1 big parcel: .............................................................................................................. 1911 over 1952: ....................................................................................................... Approach/Entrance: ........................................................................................... Art Deco Character : ..................................................................................................Courtyard: ...................................................................................................................... Faade: .......................................................................................................................... Grounds/park/openness: ............................................................................. Height (spaces inside): ....................................................................................... Kitchen: ............................................................................................................................ Massing: .......................................................................................................................... Maximum building height: .................................................................................. Maximum impervious cover: ................................................................................ Out buildings: ............................................................................................................. Playing Fields/sports: ........................................................................................ Porch size and location: ....................................................................................... Scale: ...............................................................................................................................Setbacks: ......................................................................................................................... Shadow line to other buildings: ..................................................................... Structure: ...................................................................................................................... Trees: .............................................................................................................................. Windows/Fenestration: ......................................................................................

    compliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliantcompliant

    intactintactenhancedintactminimally compromisedintact + compromisedminimally compromisedintact intactcompromisedcompromisedminimally compromisedenhancedminimally compromisedintactcompromisedintactintactintactintact? intact

    SchoolScheme:

    HousingScheme:

    Mixed UseScheme:

    Mixed Use +Scheme:

  • The Baker School circa 1915

    The Baker School circa 2012

    The original building is shown in its context, circa 1911, and as it exists today with the major 1952 addition and the accumulation of smaller changes. The massing perspectives show an abstracted version of what the property would look like following the four schemes.

    Clearly the different massing arrangements prioritize different characteristics of the existing building and site condi-tion. These perspectives are conceived of as both a way to test how the massing effects ones read of the building, and also as a tool to initiate dialogue. Showing that there are trade-offs will help move along the spectrum of deci-sion making. For example, showing that if the original massing is maintained then a large mass is added to the back of the site forces these compromises to the forefront.

  • Massing perspective- as existing

    Massing perspective- School Scheme

    Massing perspective- Housing Scheme

    Massing perspective- Mixed Use Scheme

    Massing perspective- Mixed Use + Scheme

  • The architectural logics, described in the adjacent chart, are employed in the spatial ar-rangements of the volumetric studies. Micro decisions within the design require expedi-tious, quasi-intuitive rationalization while testing arrangements. Looking more deeply at this process or the underlying logics guiding it, makes the design decisions more trans-parent, and allows for their comparison to the logic systems expressed as valuable by the relevant social groups during previous research.

    The architectural logics are, once again, not treated as mutually exclusive. Some, in fact, overlap to a large degree.

    As discussed in the definition, these logics are not understood as value-free, but are about an oriented set of ideas and meanings. Though distinct from the values established through the research and taken as constraints [depicted in the adjacent lists], these logics are not thought of as value-free. The logics are not taken as neutral and natural.1 The ori-entation of these logics is seen in the specific spatial implications/ possible manifestations lists on the following pages.

    While revealing and investigating the values and assumptions behind decisions of spatial arrangement, there are a great many infrequently contested values embedded in the log-ics were accepted as assumptions. Premises such as people should have access to natural light and ventilation in their living accommodations, or that efficiency, minimizing waste [of space, of time], should be attempted in laying out sequences of spaces are discernible in the spatial arrangements, and fall within the architectural logic, but are not explicitly reconsidered.

    1 concept frequently employed in course discussions with professor Steven Moore

    ARCHITECTURAL LOGICS

  • bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    Functional Organization sequence of spaces /programs path of travel of different users of building programs and spaces relative to point of entrance clustering based on programmic similarity based on internal organization (departments, appropriate mixes) adjacencies of things with similar equipment needs Physical Considerations relationship to grade/perimeter ease of access to public relationship to street activity egress existing structure ease of manipulation character of column structure vs bearing wall ease of systems integration [HVAC, electrical etc] Environmental Considerations sun path shadows to adjaceny properties self shading sunlight/shading to outdoor spaces window orientation relative to function (north light for art vs. south light for vegetated areas) relationship to grade/perimeter thermal potential of ground mass vs. breeze Qualitative align qualitiative features of building with program needs height of space orientation relative to street/entrance cardinal directions massing of building (corner vs courtyard etc) relationship to oudoor access to outdoor space natural light views of nature natural ventilation relationship to entrances/exits eggress publicity older/newer character (1911 vs 1952) Consistiency with the Grain of the Building minimize demolition, maximize reuse/retention significant overlap with RSG logic of Physical Use and Economics

  • Functional Organization

    Physical Considerations

    Environmental Considerations

    Qualitative

    Consistiency with the Grain of the Building

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    dining

    administration

    rr

    college centercounciling

    health

    rr

    work roomcustodial

    lablab

    labArt

    student lounge

    foreign languageclassroom

    rr

    rr

    foreign languageclassroom

    foreign languageclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    ES lab

    Bio lab Scienceclassroom

    Science classroom

    GS lab

    musicclassroom

    healthclassroom

    LAclassroom

    LAclassroom

    Language Arts

    rr

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    SSclassroom

    SSclassroom

    SSclassroom

    WEST 40TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    0

    facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District

    FIRST FLOOR PLAN

    WEST 39TH STREET

    10' 20'

    rr/concession

    locker room

    locker room

    storage

    lobby

    Gymnasium

    storage

    choir roomall purposemusic room

    theater class room

    band/orchestraroom

    storage

    oce

    storage

    auditoriumlibrary

    college center

    computer lab

    rr

    rr

    zero and ground floor plans

    first floor plan

    second floor plan

    third floor plan

    Coded PlansSchool Scheme

    Public/Private Magnet Middle School programs potential for engaging values within the logics

    Cultural

    Economic

    Personal

    Physical Use

    Social

    H S M M+

    sliding scale evaluation of the School program, relative to the other three programs

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    Detailed Program: Public/Private Magnet Middle School

    CORE Language arts Classroom 3@ 800 Math Classroom 4@ 800 Science Classroom 4@ 850 Biology laboratory 1,000 Earth science laboratory 1,000 General science labora-tory 1,000 Storage 3@ 75/laboratory

    Social studies/history Classroom area 3@ 850 14,850 sf

    GENERAL ELECTIVES Art Classroom 1,500 Material storage 200 Exhibition area 150 Photographic darkroom 100 Kiln room 400 Music Classroom 850 All Purpose Music Room 2,000 (25/student) Vocal (choir) 1,920 (24/student) Instrumental (band, orchestra) 2,000 (25/student) Theater (classroom) 850 Practice room 100 Instrument storage 2/student (500 min) Uniform/robe storage 1/student (500 min) Library resource 1/student Office 125GENERAL ELECTIVES [cont] PE/health Gymnasium 5,850 (2@ 65 x 90) Safety lanes

    Public/Private Magnet Middle School [continued in book]

  • third floor axon

    second floor axon

    first floor axon

    zero floor axon

    Coded Exploded Axon

    ground floor axon

    H

  • Public/Private Magnet Middle School programs potential for engaging values within the logics

    Cultural

    Economic

    Personal

    Physical Use

    Social

    H S M M+

    sliding scale evaluation of the School program, relative to the other three programs

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

  • WEST 40TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    0

    facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District

    FIRST FLOOR PLAN

    WEST 39TH STREET

    10' 20'

    rr/concession

    locker room

    locker room

    storage

    lobby

    Gymnasium

    storage

    choir roomall purposemusic room

    theater class room

    band/orchestraroom

    storage

    oce

    storage

    auditoriumlibrary

    college center

    computer lab

    rr

    rr

  • dining

    administration

    rr

    college centercounciling

    health

    rr

    work roomcustodial

    lablab

    labArt

    student lounge

    foreign languageclassroom

    rr

    rr

    foreign languageclassroom

    foreign languageclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    ES lab

    Bio lab Scienceclassroom

    Science classroom

    GS lab

    musicclassroom

    healthclassroom

    LAclassroom

    LAclassroom

  • Language Arts

    rr

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    Mathclassroom

    SSclassroom

    SSclassroom

    SSclassroom

    student lounge

    foreign languageclassroom

    rr

    rr

    foreign languageclassroom

    foreign languageclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    Scienceclassroom

    ES lab

    Bio lab Scienceclassroom

    Science classroom

    GS lab

    musicclassroom

    healthclassroom

    LAclassroom

    LAclassroom

  • zero floor axon

    H

  • ground floor axon

  • third floor axon

    second floor axon

    first floor axon

  • Functional Organization

    Physical Considerations

    Environmental Considerations

    Qualitative

    Consistiency with the Grain of the Building

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    s ss

    r

    r

    rr

    rr

    rr

    r r r r

    r

    r

    r

    r

    r

    r

    r

    r

    rrrrr

    r r r r r

    r

    r

    r

    r r r r

    r

    rr

    rr

    rr

    r r r r

    sss

    s s s

    u

    u

    u

    l r

    u u

    u u

    uu

    uu

    l r

    WEST 39TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    WEST 40TH STREET

    multipurpose

    theaterhealth

    rr

    rr

    library

    fitness

    businesscenter

    cust

    odia

    l

    custodial

    spastaff dining

    kitc

    hen

    et a

    ll

    dining

    kitchen et all

    admin

    zero and ground floor plans

    first floor plan

    second floor plan

    third floor plan

    Detailed Program: Senior Living

    Assisted Living Units Suite 15@ 1150 (900-1400) (based on an affordable two bedroom) assuming 2-4 residents per unit Bedroom Bathroom Shared com-munal space Kitchenette Single 25@ 625 (500-750) (based on an affordable efficiency) assuming 1-2 residents per unit Bedroom Bathroom Living room space Kitchenette

    Nursing Home Units Room 50@ 425 (350-500) Bedroom (double occupancy) Bathroom 155-210 residents 54,125 sf Amenities and Service Spaces Food Services Dining 15/resident (210) Staff dining 500

    Business center 600 Computers Conference rooms Financial counseling Travel agent counseling Communal living room 400 Health consulting 300 Nutritionist Counseling Health Services Examining area 500 Cot area 200 Nurse office 300 Toilet 160 Storage 300 Custodial Office/storage 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (90) External storage 150 Laundry 800 Administrative Directors office

    Coded Plans

    Housing SchemeSenior Living programs potential for engaging values within the logics

    Cultural

    Economic

    Personal

    Physical Use

    Social

    H S M M+

    sliding scale evaluation of the Housing program, relative to the other three programs

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

  • third floor axon

    second floor axon

    first floor axon

    zero floor axon

    Coded Exploded Axon

    ground floor axon

    S

  • Functional Organization

    Physical Considerations

    Environmental Considerations

    Qualitative

    Consistiency with the Grain of the Building

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    retail

    retail

    lobby

    retail

    gallery

    m r m r

    m r m r

    m r m r

    m r m r

    rr

    rr

    tness

    6o

    6o

    sl o sl o

    sl o sl o

    sl o conf

    m o

    m o

    m o

    m o

    m o

    m o

    break/mail

    m o m o

    leasing

    retail

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    1b unit

    1b unit

    1b unit

    1b unit

    eunit

    WEST 39TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    WEST 40TH STREET

    2b unit2b unit

    1b unit 1b unit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    1b unit1b unit1b unit1b unit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    eunit

    2b unit

    commercial kitchen

    laundry/custodial

    6oadmin

    4o4o4o4o4o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    2o

    rr

    rr

    zero and ground floor plans

    first floor plan

    second floor plan

    Detailed Program: Mixed Use [w/ jobs]

    Office 2 office suite (shared toilets) 15@ 360 + 40 (+72) 4 office suite (shared toilets) 5@ 720 + 50 (+144) 6 office suite(shared toilets) 3@ 1080 + 100 (+216) Property manager/leasing office 200 16,038 sfRetail Retail unit 4@ 2,400 + 100 (+480?) 11,920 sfResidential Units Efficiency 20@ 700 1 bedroom 10@ 925 2 bedroom 4@ 1,400 Fitness 1,000 Custodial Office/stor-age 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (26) External stor-age 150 Laundry 800 Administrative Directors office 200 Storage 200 Mail, recep-

    Coded Plans

    Mixed Use SchemeMixed Use programs potential for engaging values within the logics

    Cultural

    Economic

    Personal

    Physical Use

    Social

    H S M M+

    sliding scale evaluation of the Mixed Use program, relative to the other three programs

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

  • second floor axon

    first floor axon

    zero floor axon

    Coded Exploded Axon

    ground floor axon

    M

  • Functional Organization

    Physical Considerations

    Environmental Considerations

    Qualitative

    Consistiency with the Grain of the Building

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    bounding/interface condition

    directional condition

    eld condition

    tness

    tness

    hotellobby

    rest rooms

    businesscenter

    retail

    retail retail

    retail

    retail

    lobby

    breakfast

    art reception

    bar

    admin

    admin

    mini artstudio

    e unit

    mini artstudio

    e unitmini artstudio

    1b unit

    e unite unit

    o o

    e unit e unit

    o o

    e unit

    e unit

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hote

    lro

    oms

    hotelsuite

    hotelsuite

    hotelsuite

    hotelsuite

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    1b unit1b unit 1b unit1b unit1b unit

    ooooo

    o

    e unit

    e unit

    o1b unit

    1b unit

    mini artstudio

    mini artstudio

    e unit

    1b unit

    1b unit 1b unit

    o

    e unit

    e unit e unit

    o

    1b unit

    e unit

    1b unit

    1b unit

    1b unit

    e u

    nit

    e u

    nit

    e u

    nit

    e u

    nit

    e u

    nit

    mini artstudio

    WEST 39TH STREET

    AVEN

    UE

    B

    20'10'0

    FIRST FLOOR PLAN

    facilities managment ocefrom Ausitn Independent School District

    WEST 40TH STREET

    room service/kitchen

    recordingstudio

    recordingstudio

    recordingstudio

    art studios art studios

    housekeepinglaundry

    laundry

    custodial

    art studiosart studios

    retail

    retail

    mini artstudio

    mini artstudio

    mini artstudio

    mini artstudio

    recordingstudio

    o

    zero and ground floor plans

    first floor plan

    second floor plan

    third floor plan

    Detailed Program: Mixed Use + [w/ arts]

    Retail Retail unit 4@ 2,400 + 100 10,000 sfLive/Work/Create Units Efficiency 20@ 700 1 bedroom 10@ 925 + [2] office suite 15@ 360 + small art studio 15@ 840

    Fitness 1,000 Custodial Office/storage 200 Materials/equipment storage .3/unit (30) External storage 150 Laundry 600 Administrative Directors office 100 Storage 100 Mail, reception 150 Lobby/mixing 800 44,354 sf Boutique Hotel Rooms Single/double 10@ 350 Suite 4@ 600 House keeping/laundry 900 Lobby/ guest services 400 Room service kitchen 1,000 Breakfast service/dining 800 Bar 100

    Coded Plans

    Mixed Use + SchemeMixed Use +programs potential for engaging values within the logics

    Cultural

    Economic

    Personal

    Physical Use

    Social

    H S M M+

    sliding scale evaluation of the Mixed Use + program, relative to the other three programs

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

    o

    +

    -

  • third floor axon

    second floor axon

    first floor axon

    zero floor axon

    Coded Exploded Axon

    ground floor axon

    M+

  • THEORETICAL PROCESSING

  • The following diagrams and thinking rely heavily on the notion of the Black Box, as presented by Bruno Latour in the Introduction to Science in Action, entitled Opening Pandoras Black Box. In this article, Latour defines [t]he word black box is used by cyberneticians whenever a piece of machinery or a set of commands is too complex. In its place they draw a little box about which they need to know nothing but its input and output. No matter how controversial their history, how complex their inner workings, how large the commercial or academic net-works that hold them in place, only their input and output count. (Latour, 2-3) He adds, that the black boxes represent what ...are now routine choices. (Latour, 3)

    This study looks at [at least] three categories of Black Boxes. The first is the early PROCESS of design. The second is the definition of sustainability, and, following, its relationship with historic preservation. The third is the Black Box of decision making about Baker. In a bizarre way, through this research, I am challenging the closure of the first two conceptual Black Boxes by illuminating a different method for closing the lid of the third.

    [re] Situating This Study, Black BoxesPublic Perspective on the Academic Design Process

    Designer Perspective on the Academic Design Process

    program [professor]

    site analysis[student]

    [commnity members][public]

    site analysis[student]

    [collective studio]

    program [professor]

    concept/thesis[student + professor]

    concept/thesis[student + professor]

    massing[student + professor]

    massing[student + professor]

    conceptual design [student + professor]

    conceptual design [student + professor]

    schematic design[student + professor]

    schematic design[student + professor]

    nal review[student + professors +community memebers]

    nal review[student + professors +community memebers]

    nal review[student + professor]

    publication/display[public]

    publication/display[public]

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

  • Public Perspective on the Academic Design Process

    Designer Perspective on the Academic Design Process

    program [professor]

    site analysis[student]

    [commnity members][public]

    site analysis[student]

    [collective studio]

    program [professor]

    concept/thesis[student + professor]

    concept/thesis[student + professor]

    massing[student + professor]

    massing[student + professor]

    conceptual design [student + professor]

    conceptual design [student + professor]

    schematic design[student + professor]

    schematic design[student + professor]

    nal review[student + professors +community memebers]

    nal review[student + professors +community memebers]

    nal review[student + professor]

    publication/display[public]

    publication/display[public]

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

  • Public Perspective on the Professional Design Process

    Designer Perspective on the Professional Design Process

    program generation[client + designer]

    [developer]

    zoning/code researchsite analysis

    public charette

    schematic design design development

    initial zoningreview

    construction documents

    media attention

    zoning/code review

    marketing marketing marketing

    construction

    program generation[client + designer]

    [developer]

    feasibility studies[designer]

    [developer]

    nished building

    public charette

    schematic design

    initial zoningreview

    design development construction documents construction

    nished building

    pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]

    design tasks[per IDP categories]

    pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]

    cost analysis

    bidding

    zoning/code review bidding + contract negotiations

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

  • Public Perspective on the Professional Design Process

    Designer Perspective on the Professional Design Process

    program generation[client + designer]

    [developer]

    zoning/code researchsite analysis

    public charette

    schematic design design development

    initial zoningreview

    construction documents

    media attention

    zoning/code review

    marketing marketing marketing

    construction

    program generation[client + designer]

    [developer]

    feasibility studies[designer]

    [developer]

    nished building

    public charette

    schematic design

    initial zoningreview

    design development construction documents construction

    nished building

    pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]

    design tasks[per IDP categories]

    pre-design tasks[per IDP categories]

    cost analysis

    bidding

    zoning/code review bidding + contract negotiations

    SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT

  • This Design Process

    literature review

    [Amalia + professors]

    research RSGs and their methods of discourse[Amalia + RSG reps]

    midterm + shared documents

    [Amalia + professors + RSG reps]

    nal review[Amalia + professors +

    RSG reps]

    publication/display[public]

    STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

    chapter 3chapter 4

    chapter 5chapter 6

    chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9

    chapter 10

    chapter 11chapter 12

    precedent + process design work physical design work

    DISCOVER AND CHARACTERIZE

    RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER

    UNDERSTAND WHAT IS VALUED ABOUT BAKER FEASIBILTY STUDIES/DESIGN SCENARIOS FEED-BACK LOOPS/ TEST

    AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th

    sell

    AISD interest dries up

    LITERATURE REVIEW

    WHO+

    LOGICS

    RSG meetings + shared documents

    [Amalia + RSG reps]

    WHAT[VALUES]

    RSG meetings + shared documents

    [Amalia + RSG reps]

    WHAT[PROGRAM]

    volumetric exercises/ massing[Amalia]

    AISD copyHPNA copy

    Developer copyPecan Press article

    future decision-making ????howS

  • This Design Process

    literature review

    [Amalia + professors]

    research RSGs and their methods of discourse[Amalia + RSG reps]

    midterm + shared documents

    [Amalia + professors + RSG reps]

    nal review[Amalia + professors +

    RSG reps]

    publication/display[public]

    STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

    chapter 3chapter 4

    chapter 5chapter 6

    chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9

    chapter 10

    chapter 11chapter 12

    precedent + process design work physical design work

    DISCOVER AND CHARACTERIZE

    RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS AT BAKER

    UNDERSTAND WHAT IS VALUED ABOUT BAKER FEASIBILTY STUDIES/DESIGN SCENARIOS FEED-BACK LOOPS/ TEST

    AISD decision on bidsDecember 12th

    sell

    AISD interest dries up

    LITERATURE REVIEW

    WHO+

    LOGICS

    RSG meetings + shared documents

    [Amalia + RSG reps]

    WHAT[VALUES]

    RSG meetings + shared documents

    [Amalia + RSG reps]

    WHAT[PROGRAM]

    volumetric exercises/ massing[Amalia]

    AISD copyHPNA copy

    Developer copyPecan Press article

    future decision-making ????howS

  • AMALIA LEIFESTE1309 E 13th STAustin, TX 78702ph 720.771.7360

    Thank you for your interest. I welcome any further communications:

    [email protected] LEIFESTE