Choosing the right scale – Version 2

Feasible Continuum – Site One | Supplement Architecture

The design process of site one is looking into the relationship and process of making cast iron facades in the US. I researched into the elements and composition of different existing facades and I wanted to create a ‘taxonomy’ catalogue( foldout postcard size), thus informing my decision and reinforcing that notion of ‘rhythm and pattern’ that was removed from this current façade leaving traces (seam and joints) behind.

Im currently casting the selection of facades and created info text for each. Below is a screen shot of the template, still work in progress – will replace drawing with the cast models.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 19.36.31


I also started to catalogue the precedents – I will have one single postcard for each precedent, for each proposal. Should be a simple single postcard size illustration on the front and info on the back.

Precedent 1 – Preservation through Supplement Architecture – Jorge Otero-Pailos\ Koolhaas.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 19.35.52Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 19.36.02


From here – tomorrow I will start drawing out this proposal and define a set of arches and geometric scale for each – they should be almost modular components, such as the cast iron facades, which are individually  bolted onto the structure.

I have started to sketch out some samples of the – arch and the arch within the arch; which will make an individual component – playing with the scale and distribution of each ( as mentioned by Manijeh) and their relationship with the stairs – will have a more developed idea by the end of the week. The modules start at 3600mm high and the width of the structure is 2600mm ( so it seat within the walkway leaving room aside).

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 19.44.22


In addition  to the post I started to get a 3 model of the actual structure, to understand how it will come together, it has proven more difficult than I anticipated, but I will revert back to the other two sites over the next few days. I feel that the scale is coming together and that the overall lightness and elegance of the arches are there, but Im trying to design the stairs within the structure so that it doesn’t read as a second thought! (which is becoming more difficult) Currently As you go up each level the journey should change- different spontaneous interactions and activities may happen, but  most importantly the intervention ‘recalls’ the once existing facade now part removed and the fire egress stairs which are characteristic of the Manhattan scape.


Work in progress images below!

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 13.32.38 Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 13.31.27 Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 13.26.39

2 thoughts on “Choosing the right scale – Version 2

  1. I like the idea of using the single postcards for the references – its a nice way to show the project’s ideological context but simply laying them out on the table to contextualise what inspired each site on your pilgrimage route.
    Good development of Site 1 in terms of the research into cast iron facades and their rhythm – It could be a nice tool for the Open Jury presentation if you could lay the cast models onto the drawing as you present to almost the build the context of the project that was erased, and that you are now returning to the site. The sketches of how the stairs can be more integrated into the facade are a good start but its at its strongest when you take the pilgrim on a meandering path so they really experience the different scales of arch, the views from the site etc. Perhaps as a design tool you could get inside the structure and make some images of what you see at various points on the route as you ascend and descend. At the moment all the sketches feel a bit too far removed and it would be a way to test how the stairs could work in tandem with the arches in terms of framing views of the facade you are preserving or reanimating (on the ascent) and of the city (on the descent). This could also be a way to address the point from the cross-crit about at what point do you see the second pilgrimage site from the first site that propels you onward?
    It would be good to see how you are developing sites 2 and 3 as well as the overall route of the pilgrimage, which now feels a bit too simple for the complexity of the three sites and the issues you are addressing, as well as the fact that it should feel more like a pilgrimage. Site 1 has always been the most developed and the clearest to understand so make sure you spend a bit more time on the other two to get them to the same level of resolution by next week. It might help to read the reference I posted for Inez a while ago about non-religious forms of pilgrimage if you haven’t already: specifically the first chapter about Secular Pilgrimage. Also I saw this interesting photographic study that uses repetition of similar images to construct space: – “The meaning of photography as a medium to catch a moment in time is questioned by the act of sequencing. Here, time is fragmented and recomposed, in a complexity which does not always imply a coherent temporal continuum.” – your stairs could start to be more than just architectural elements but ways to fragment and recompose time, and therefore the city through the experience you take us on. Just something to think about as you move forward with all three sites.

  2. Oh also check out this labyrinthine house by Xavier Corbero:
    The architectural language of arches and stairs is very reminiscent of your project but the images being inside it and looking out or looking within are quite incredible! In one image the stair rotates to becomes a ridged wall – you should start to play with your stairs in similar ways, how just by changing their orientation, do they become more than just ways to get from A to B but something more sculptural and spatial?

Leave a Reply