Democracy in Architecture
Samuel Witt
Conceptual Puzzles
Ahoy captures the essence of specific spatial typologies to create an open medium for communicating complex relationships to non-designers. It aims mainly to be fun but also to be informative in order to encourage creative experimentation. By establishing “islands” (a.k.a. hotspots), players work together and in competition to network each of these hotspots and establish their own hotspots, while following a few simple rules on piece adjacencies.
Establish simple spatial rules.
Communicate with non-designers.
Create a user friendly interface.
Encourage experimentation.
"How can a blank wall invite art that kindles a community?"
Program / Concept Development
These are not adjacencies! Open source learning and democratic space call for an architecture that is also open source and democratic. How do we then establish order? Start by ignoring the values of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Based on analysis of programmatic needs, here’s what I propose: the design goals of these individual spaces are achieved by designing a system of “pods” that unitizes a solution to specific needs demanded by the program. These typological solutions can then populate the an envelope of continuous surface that demands leftover spaces, niches, and visual connection.
Section Concept
This design concept embraces an internal field condition that fosters diversity, democracy, and collaboration. Leftover space becomes what you need it to be. Programmed space is not limited to internally focused interaction. Learning and collaboration can happen anywhere they need to.
Massing Concept
Plan / Program Diagram with Massing
Just as in section, the plan for this design adopts an interior field condition with fluctuating densities of pods, providing moments of intersection as well as open conditions leftover from the pod population.
Precedent Perspectives
If multiple immersive perspectives, I would make a slider and use “on click” options to make full screen.
The intent to unite all of these programs under a roof is a good one. However, what is less clear is the organization of micro-communities. You need to revisit your program diagram – you say these are not adjacencies but you do use them as adjacencies. What if these were much more of a mixture? How do you define a micro-community with this mixture, and how to you structure these spaces – a programmatic and architectural strategy. The pod as an indidual cell is too small of a unit to work with from the large scale of the roof. Need to create another scale of grouping these pods – the micro-community – under the roof.
What happens when roof becomes tube and connects to the ground. What happens to the program due to this disruption?
Jeff: building within a building approach – something a lot of tech companies are doing now, such as Google by Heatherwich etc. Amazon similarly has glass dome with building within that. Tschumi project – La Fresnoy – a series of existing buildings unified under a new roof. Need to focus on the extra bonus open space between program but under the roof. The big move is fun, but how deal with the particles is the hard part and the really important part. I like how talk about it as a field condition, but field conditions develop from an underlying set of rules. You need to go back to the puzzle, looking at not just the pieces but the board as an ordering system. Its two things – one is the relationship to the site, the other is the relationship to each other. You want to find the logic to it. Trying to think of a precedence for this – such as Safdie’s Habit.
Jeff: your program diagram was maybe helpful for you, but it was’t helpful for me. The section diagrams at left worked for me. What is the bare minimum that you need? Leftover space is not just leftover space – you need to plan for it.