Well, there are some obvious issues with the upper levels of the design, as was pointed out in today's critique the floor plates and the nature of the circulation/layout beyond the 7th level is questionable especially with regards to code. At this point I am considering progressively pushing the setback back towards the southern property line at these levels in order to create better more optimal spaces.
After modeling the massive truss systems (which I'm not even sure will function properly as of yet) I have realized that the DMZ spaces will be heavily affected by this and will require some review in order to maintain my flexible work space with the sliding glass partitions. Can I switch up the system to columns and open web steel joists just for these two floors or delete some of the intermediary memebers? The other levels are fine as they line up with walls and offer interesting opportunities to break up the 3rd place on the ground plane.
Finally,after some consideration I wish to reevaluate the angle of the slope and build significantly higher (15+ stories). This should be possible with some minor tweaking of the plans. Since the surrounding development is clearly on this trajectory and with Ryerson's master plan calling for urban intensification and the vertical campus I feel this is a good opportunity to do so.
ps. please ignore the stairs in the southern open to below space they are a result of an incomplete export.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen the excerpts from the document:
ReplyDelete-I agree that the floor plans are absolutely horrendous beyond the 7th (the West corner of the 8th floor is a triple-threat of bad design: access between the open area and the diagonal north wall, awkward seating area, and congestion at a fire stair!); altering the setback further South might address some of your problems but will likely open up new ones that will likely be easier to deal with (for example the partial exposure of the core to internal and external conditions, the fallout of the wider corridors such as that found on the 4th floor)
-your 7th floor is pretty weak; the angled unit as well as the public space (again blocked with nondescript furnishings and terminating awkwardly at the Southwest corner) is poorly developed; as a message to everyone, please stop peppering your floor plans with furniture and focus on architecture!
-I will not respond to your structural issues online in too much detail; it would be confusing, I would run out of space, and I do not wish to come across as "mean"; suffice it to say that there is more work to be done on the design before structure really becomes an issue; perhaps by Monday there will be some material to really break down and integrate into the discussion (especially useful for the upcoming deadline)
-to directly answer the structural question however: switching structural systems (even if the same material) is possible but not advisable in most instances; this may allow for it, but I believe that with a stronger design, a cohesive structural system may be adopted
-this design is driven by a fascination with an artifact as opposed to architecture; it becomes so very evident not only in the floor plans and layouts, but even in elevation (which is quite a feat!); that your project elevations emphasize the abrupt relationships to the adjacent buildings and context reinforce the notion that this is form-making rather than developing strong architectural spaces
-you must be honest with yourself and realize that you are using the master plan as an excuse to increase the vertical scale of your form for "urban intensification and the vertical campus" yet the "intensification" nets about 35 units (a low value in the grand scheme of things) and lounges and private grad residences hardly constitute a genuine adherence to a "vertical campus"; it would be much better for you to concede this and simply state that you really are driven by this form and wish to fashion some type of architecture within it; post-rationalizing your design choices will not help you, especially in the future; there is nothing wrong with honesty - at least that way you will not slip up when presenting the ideas behind the project
-"minor tweaking of the plans" will not suffice here; your infatuation with (isolated) formal gestures really does not help your plans; you refer opportunities to break "up the 3rd place on the ground plane", yet you do not seem to capitalize on them; the organization of your ground, second, and seventh floor suffer from the exact opposite of what your eighth and lounge suffer from - expansive spaces with questionable use
Take a look at Crain Communications building in Chicago in section. It has a similar roof condition
ReplyDelete