G. E. PATTERSON G. E. PATTERSON

BEALE ST.

BEALE ST.

Lauren Amos ARCH 609Spring 2013 Denton Nichols

M O P AMemphis Museum of Photographic Arts

A W

illia

m E

gg

lest

on

Co

llec

tion

M O P A

“I had this notion of what I called a democratic way of looking around, that nothing was more or less important”

-William Eggleston

Introduction

Pre-Design

Schematic Design

Design Development

MidReview Presentation

Construction Documentation

Final Presentation

Site & Context AnalysisZoningClimateDemographicsHistoric Preservation

45% Presentation90% PresentationPhase Summary

Reflection Period

Detailing DevelopmentEnvelope Analysis45% Presentation90% Presentation

Semester Summary

45% Presentation90% PresentationPhase Summary

609 IntentProgramming AnalysisClient Analysis‘Photographic Arts’ Analysis

Design IntentBudget AnalysisPrecedent

7

19

45

55

65

79

93

Introduction

609 IntentBefore our class discussion about how the typical museum is laid out and accessed, I had never realized how similar in function museums all were. While they all vary in collection, size and location the one thing that did not seem to differ was how museums were run. Administration, curartors, trust, archive, delivery and service are always hidden and unabled to be accessed. My goal for my project is to challenge this and show a practical and viable alternative option that allows the public to experience this other side.

My goals for the semester consist of creating a simplistic, functional and comprehensive project. I hope to strengthen my presentations through learning new software and techniques.

Below is a diagram demonstrating the first steps I took to deconstruct the typical museum layout.

This project proposes that we develop a 30,000 (g)sf ‘Museum of the Photographic Arts’ for the city of Memphis, focusing on the work of famed local William Eggleston; in particular his ‘Democratic Forest’ collection. This particular collection currently does not have a permanent home, thus giving a reason and purpose for this investigation.

The project desires to break out of the traditional response of the prototypical museum being a ‘careful’ and ‘prescribed’ environment so that we can achieve a response that has a visible and clear alignment with Eggleston’s work. You will be asked to thoroughly articulate the purpose and intent of your museum through a careful analysis found in the overlapping energies of programmatic spaces, city and enigmatic photographer. Lastly, the project must address the reality that exists in the world of ‘high(brow) art’ which feels photography is merely a subset or ‘other; form of art. Eggleston has successfully challenged this notion, but without a proper and permanent location for this work it becomes temporal and, naturally, so does the larger conversation of photography and its rightful place in our culture’s precious museums.

To be clear… this project is not about developing and proposing another white-wall museum that is both “limitless” in its flexibility and (somehow) exacting in it’s lack of purpose and definition. Instead, this project is about the purposeful response to a particular set of precious and artful works and to help further the justification of photography as a multi-dimensional and valid representation of the human condition.

ProjectOverview

ProjectOverview

Program Analysis

Galleries - 6660 democratic forest 3200 storage 220 analog gallery 1800 storage 140 digital gallery 1200 storage 100

Archive - 5000 archivist office 200 storage intake 200 storage/presentation queue 400 storage display 200 closed stacks/flat file storage 3200 open shelving area 600 work area 200

Cafe/Dining - 1920 dining area 1000 cooking area 400 food prep area 120 ref/frz storage 120 dry food storage 80 reception 200Offices - 2360 Egglestons Trust: private office (4 @ 120) 480 break room 200 work/copy/file 240 confrence 200 unisex toilet 60 Museum Operations: private office (4 @ 120) 480 break room 200 work/copy/file 240 confrence 200 unisex toilet 60

Community Space - 4000 auditorium 1500 storage 120 library 1000 viewing room private gallery 320 confrence room 400 work area 400 storage locker 200

Circulation - +/-7500 25% of GSF

Mechanical - +/- 4000 15% of GSF

Entry - 1200 vestibule reception 100 coat room 160 public toilets (2 @120) 240 building storage 480 janitors closet 40 electrical closet 40 data closet 80

Off-Site Parking 40 cars

Plaza/ Green Space - +/- 5000 15% of GSF

Born in Memphis, Tennessee and spent many summers growing up on a family plantation in Mississippi. He studied for a year at Van- derbilt when he received his first Leica camera, He later studied at Ole Miss and became more interested in art. Eggleston was influenced by French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson’s book, The Decisive Moment and Swiss Photographer Robert Frank.

Eggleston firsts prints were in black at white and in 1965 he started to first experiment with color transparency film. While teaching at Harvard in the early 1970s he learned about dye-transfer printing and this became the media he is most known for. His first portfolio, 14 Pictures (1974) was exhibited at the MoMA in 1976. Eggleston’s style has been said to focus on the mundane object, often lack- ing the presence of the human and creating an eerie sense. Eggleston has produced many portfolios and continues to take photos. He lives in Memphis, Tennessee.

WilliamEgglestonb. July 27, 1939

“I want to make a picture that could stand on its own, regardless of what it was a picture of. I’ve never been a bit interested in the fact that this was a picture of a blues musician or a street corner or something.”

-William Eggleston

I was in Oxford, Mississippi for a few days and I was driving out to Holly Springs on a back road, stopping here and

there. It was the time of year when the landscape wasn't yet green. I left the car and walked into the dead leaves off the road. It was one of those occasions when there was no picture there. It seemed like nothing, but of course there was something for someone out there. I started forcing myself to take pictures of the earth, where it had been

eroded thirty or forty feet from the road. There were a few weeds. I began to realize that soon I was taking some pretty

good pictures, so I went further into the woods and up a little hill, and got well into an entire roll of film.

Later, when I was having dinner with some friends, writers from around Oxford, or maybe at the bar of the Holiday Inn,

someone said, 'What have you been photographing here today, Eggleston?'

'Well, I've been photographing democratically,' I replied.

'But what have you been taking pictures of?'

'I've been outdoors, nowhere, in nothing.'

'What do you mean?'

'Well, just woods and dirt, a little asphalt here and there.'

-- From a conversation with Mark Holborn, Greenwood, Mississippi, February 1988

DemocraticForest

Dye-transfer process is a technique for preparing colored photographic prints in which the colors of the subject are resolved by optical filters into three components, each of which are recorded on a separate gelatin negative. The three negatives are converted into relief positives in which the depth of the gelatin is related to the intensity of the color component; each image is then saturated with a dye of complementary color, and the finished print is assembled by transferring the dyes one at a time, and in register, to a suitable surface.

Up to 150 prints can be obtained from a set of gelatin-relief positives simply by redyeing them and repeating the transfer. In the late 20th century, the development of a panchromatic matrix film made it possible to produce the relief positives directly from a color negative.

Dye-TransferProcess

“Father of Color Photography”

Pre-Design

Site 1

Site 2

Site 1 Site 2

Orginal idea and first attempt at seperating the archive from the rest of the program while creating a connecting axis from the East to West side of the site.

ContextAnalysisMemphis, TN

South Main is a quaint district with historical ties to horrific tragedies like the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the deaths of many great musicians. The loss of these memorable people is felt day and night through the lack of liveliness in the Historic District. The trolleys continue the tradition running, but empty are typically empty nowadays. The district felt like a ghost town, with store fronts and cars but very little human interaction.

The district lacks a place of rest, a community ‘node’. The closest thing to one is the Civil Rights Museum which has a very unsettling feeling and solemn mood.

I chose site 2 for many reasons. It has ties to the railroad which speaks to the foundation of the city of Memphis. The west side of the lot near the tracks provides opportunity for revived landscaping and paths. The site also provided constraints to the north and south and a substantial elevation change from east to west. The site is also larger in size than the other. I felt that the challenges this site brought would help inform a more interesting project than the typical corner lot.

Site 2: Site Visit Notes

ZoningS CBID - South Main

_Permitted Use: Residential Additional Uses Permitted such as a museum Special Use Permit Buildings

_Maximum street frontage per street facade is 100 linear feet unless with a special permit.

_Maximum Height is 90 feet or 8 stories; most in the area are two to five stories high

_Building Setbacks are subject to site plan review, but are often minimal

_Parking lots and garages shall be landscaped

ClimateMemphis lies at 35°07’03”N 89°58’16”W which is much more south than Kansas City 39°5’59.01”N 94°34’42.78”W. These location differences allow for longer periods of sunlight in Memphis. The city experiences all four distinct seasons. It is at risk for both hail storms and tornadoes. Average temperatures are about 6 degrees higher in Memphis than Kansas City. Memphis also has more precipitation in the winter, but less humidity. Harsh winter winds come from both the south and north and strong summer breezes come from the southwest.

Avg Sunshine

Avg Precipitation

Avg Temperature

Avg Humidity

Avg Wind speed

Demographics

“These guidelines are designed to encourage rehabilitation and new construction that is sensitive to the original style and method of construction widely used within each district. They strive to void inappro-priate design features such as blank facades and suburban development patterns, while promoting development that responds to its surroundings, maintains the established character and reinforces the urban fabric... The Center City Commission acknowledges that exceptions to the rules will occur from time to time, and that such situations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”

_Scale of the building should reflect the adjacent buildings and new buildings should create transitions between buildings of different scales. The building should be at a human scale at the ground.

_Massing should be proportional with the surrounding buildings’ masses de-pending on each district’s characteristics. Unless based on historical design long uninterrupted facade and roof planes should be avoided. Many are box shaped

_Base & Cap should be incorporated in all buildings by creating defined hori-zontal elements at the top and bottom of a building.

_Facades facing the street should invite in the public through design and clearly be different than the other facades of a building with details and fenestration. Street facades shall mainly be designed vertical including window and door design. _Roof forms should consider surrounding building form and are mostly flat _Materials, textures and colors should be influenced by the surrounding build-ings and site. Existing masonry should not be painted. Brick, terra cotta, and stone are mostly used.

_Details should be based on the design of the building and surrounding build-ings/site. New buildings should replicate and simplify historical detailing.

_Parking lots should be screened by walls, fences, or landscaping.

DESIGN GUIDELINESHISTORIC PRESERVATION

Design Intent

The Museum of Photographic Arts stimulates, alongside its neighbor, an appreciation for creativity and the arts in the community and for tourists of Memphis. This building extends itself to the district by creating public retreats in the form of open green space and dedicated community rooms.

The building mimics the mind and work of Eggleston, displaying a true appreciation of the art of “how things work”.This was part of Eggleston’s fascination for the dye transfer process. For MOPA, its livelihood depends largely on the hard work and dedication of the Curator and Trust. In part, their work is seen through the archive’s processing of its current and future contents. Through exposing the archive to the public eye, it starts telling the story of Eggleston’s work, displaying pieces of new exhibits, and uncovering how a piece makes that journey from delivery to display.

Category A - Public Spaces Area Unit Size Units NSF Gross Factor GSF Entry Vestibule (circ) Reception (circ) Coat Room 160 1.6 256 Galleries Gallery 1 (Democratic Forest) 50 64 3200 1.5 4800 Storage 220 1.6 352 Pre-Function (circ) Gallery 2 (Rotating | Analog) 50 36 1800 1.5 2700 Storage 140 1.6 224 Pre-Function (circ) Gallery 3 (Multipurpose | Digital) 50 24 1200 1.5 1800 Storage 100 1.6 160 Pre-Function (circ) Archive ArchivalOffice 120 1.5 200 1.25 250 Storage | Intake 200 1.6 320 Storage | Presentation Queue 400 1.6 640 Storage | Display 200 1.6 320 Closed Stacks | Flat-File Storage 320 1.3 512 Open Shelving Area 600 1.6 960 Work Area 40 5 200 1.25 250 Café | Dining Dining Area (Interior) 21 47 1000 1.5 1500 Cooking Area 9 44 400 1.5 600 Food Prep Area 9 13 120 1.5 180 Ref. | Frz. Storage 9 13 120 1.5 180 Dry Food Storage 9 8 80 1.5 120 Reception 10 20 200 1.5 300

Sub Totals 10700 16500

Space Budget

Category B - Private Spaces Area Unit Size Units NSF Gross Factor GSF Eggleston Trust Offices PrivateOffices 4 120 480 1.25 600 Break Room 50 4 200 1.25 250 Work | Copy | Filing Room 60 4 240 1.25 300 Conference Room 20 10 200 1.65 330 Unisex Toilet 60 1.5 90 Museum Operation Offices PrivateOffices 4 120 480 1.25 600 Break Room 50 4 200 1.25 250 Work | Copy | Filing Room 60 4 240 1.25 300 Conference Room 20 10 200 1.65 330 Unisex Toilet 60 1.5 90 Community Space Lecture Hall 11 130 1500 2.2 3300 Lecture Hall Storage 120 1.6 192 Library 35 28 1000 1.5 1500 Viewing Room | Private Gallery 35 9 320 1.5 480 Conference Room 20 20 400 1.65 660 Work Area 50 8 400 1.25 500 Work Area Storage Locker 10 20 200 1.6 320 Sub Totals 6300 10000Sub Totals Cat. A + B 17000 26500

Category C - Service and CirculationCirculation Stairs | Corridors | Elevator 25% of GSF 6000 9500 Mechanical Room 15% of GSF 3400 5400 Courtyard 20’ x 30’ 600 600 Dock Public Toilets Men 120 1.6 192 Women 120 1.6 192 Building Services Areas Building Storage 480 1.6 768 Janitor’s Closet 40 1.6 64 Electrical Closet 40 1.6 64 Data Closet 80 1.6 128

Sub Total 11000 17000

Visitor Count = 250

Net Square Feet = 21,000Gross Square Feet = 30,030

Use 30,000 GSF

Square Foot Cost = $120.00 From 2007 Means Cost Data, p. 759 Median GSF Cost

City Cost Factor = 0.981 City Cost Index, p. 627. Weighted Avg., KCKS.

Weighted SF Cost = $117.72 $120.00*.981

SizeModifier=0.93FromSizeModifier,p.766. 22,000/9,400 = 2.3 From Area Conversion Scale 2.5 = .93

Adjusted Unit Cost = $109.48 $117.72*.93

Use = $109.50 Adjusted Cost per GSF

Escalation = 6% Assume a modest escalation of 4% per year. 1 Jan. '07 to 1 July '08 = 1.5 years. 4%*1.5 = 6%

Unadjusted Construction Estimates GSF $3,600,000 30,000 GSF * $120.00/GSF

COST BUDGETBased on provided GSF

Description CostA. Adjusted Bldg. Costs $3,285,000 30,000 GSF*$109.50

B. Fixed Equipment $328,500 Usually a percentage of building costs. Use 10%

C. Site Development $492,750 Again, usually a % of building costs. Use 15%

Subtotal $4,106,250 A+B+C

Escalation $2,463,750 Subtotal*6%

D. Total Construction $6,570,000 Subtotal + Escalation (Direct) This is the amount the architect will have direct control over

E. Site Acquisition $500,000 The cost of the property and real estate fees. This is variable and market dependent.

F.MovableEquipment $657,000 Thisisdependentonspecific client needs and building type. Use 10% of construction cost.

G. Professional Fees $3,942,000 Percentage of D. Use 6%

H. Contingencies $657,000 Percentage of D. The more complex the project, the higher the %. Use 10%.I. Administrative $65,700 Percentage of D. Use 1%.

J. TOTAL BUDGET $12,391,700 D+E+F+G+H+I

Total budget is much lower than given estimate by Denton Nichols of $17-20 million, but follows the given 30,000 GSF estimate.

Visitor Count = 250

Net Square Feet = 28,040Gross Square Feet = 43,724

Use 44,000 GSF

Square Foot Cost = $120.00 From 2007 Means Cost Data, p. 759 Median GSF Cost

City Cost Factor = 0.981 City Cost Index, p. 627. Weighted Avg., KCKS.

Weighted SF Cost = $117.72 $120.00*.981

SizeModifier=0.93FromSizeModifier,p.766. 22,000/9,400 = 2.3 From Area Conversion Scale 2.5 = .93

Adjusted Unit Cost = $109.48 $117.72*.93

Use = $109.50 Adjusted Cost per GSF

Escalation = 6% Assume a modest escalation of 4% per year. 1 Jan. '07 to 1 July '08 = 1.5 years. 4%*1.5 = 6%

Unadjusted Construction Estimates GSF $5,280,000 44,000 GSF * $120.00/GSF

COST BUDGETBased on found GSF

Description CostA. Adjusted Bldg. Costs $4,818,000 44,000 GSF*$109.50

B. Fixed Equipment $481,800 Usually a percentage of building costs. Use 10%

C. Site Development $722,700 Again, usually a % of building costs. Use 15%

Subtotal $6,022,500 A+B+C

Escalation $3,613,500 Subtotal*6%

D. Total Construction $9,636,000 Subtotal + Escalation (Direct) This is the amount the architect will have direct control over

E. Site Acquisition $500,000 The cost of the property and real estate fees. This is variable and market dependent.

F.MovableEquipment $963,600 Thisisdependentonspecific client needs and building type. Use 10% of construction cost.

G. Professional Fees $5,781,600 Percentage of D. Use 6%

H. Contingencies $963,600 Percentage of D. The more complex the project, the higher the %. Use 10%.I. Administrative $96,360 Percentage of D. Use 1%.

J. TOTAL BUDGET $17,941,160 D+E+F+G+H+I

Total Budget is between given estimate by Denton Nichols of $17-20 million, but is much higher than the given 30,000 GSF estimate.

PrecedentVila Vehla Museum

Architects: Belém Lima ArquitectosBuilt: 2008Location: Vila Real, PortugalSize: 7,600 sq ft

“Within it old and archaic are linked tothe new. The past runs through it like sap inside an old tree. From the outside we see a compact building, from the inside it seems to levitate, floating above nature and the ruins.”

- Belém Lima Arquitectos

“The existing plan was completely reconfigured to define a journey through the galleries that unfolds in ascending order, from the ground to the new third floor. Windows and terraces are positioned to offer visitors previously unimagined vistas of Queen’s Park, the University of Toronto, and the downtown skyline.”

- KPMB Architects

Gardiner Museum

Architects: 1984- Keith Wagland 2001 Renewal- KPMB ArchitectsLocation: 111 Queen’s Park, Toronto, CanadaSize: Orginally 31,958 sq ft., Now 46, 276 sq. ft.

Precedent

Schematic Design

G

2

3

West Section

North Section

North Section @ Archive

Structural Grid

Crit CommentsMechanical _Needs to move _Put 2/3 behind archive and 1/3 into building

Archive _How are you branding this? _ How is it obvious? _ Skylights for viewing from above _Access from main building for public

Greenery _ Public setting? _Use front space better _Wrap green bar to back, enjoying courtyard from both sides

General _Activate back of building better Angles More green space Larger lobby in back _Look at movement of trains/tracks _Good cantilevers- dramatize _Move elevators to front _Lobby needs expansion, pull closer to South Main _Shifting of building, spaces, pulling them in and out depicts movement

Stairs _Landings as organizational element Make bigger/end accurately _Switch back vs lengthen

ReflectionA

D J

A C

E N

T B

U I

L D

I N

G

A D

J A

C E

N T

B U

I L

D I

N G

BUIL

DIN

G C

ORE

PLA

ZA S

PACE

ARC

HIV

E

After this review I realized that there is so much more to a building than floor plans and sections. As far as any other studio was concerned, plans, elevations and sections were our only goal. I recognized that substantial reasoning and logic needed to guide every decision I made. I felt confident in the direction I was headed and used my plaza and archive as a driving factor for programming decisions. I had a strong belief in what pieces of the program should remain together, and which still had some flexibility. I began to get a glimpse at the difficulties the physical separation in the programming would cause but my big idea was clear to me and my jurors.

As a note after I was critiqued, I had drawn the following diagram in my sketchbook to cement my overall idea and as a response to my jurors perception of my project.

Design Development

WO

RK R

OO

M

LEC

TURE

OPE

N S

TACK

S

CLO

SED

STA

CKS

WO

RK R

OO

MCO

NF

GA

LLER

Y

RRRR

CON

FO

FFIC

E

DIS

PLAY

QU

EUE

INTAKEWORK SPACE

G

2

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

OFF

ICE

DIN

ING

FOOD PREP

KITC

HEN

MEC

HA

NIC

AL

AN

ALO

GG

ALL

ERY

AN

ALO

GG

ALL

ERY

WO

RKS

PAC

E

BREA

K R

M

BREAK RM

CO

NF

WS

MEC

HA

NIC

AL

3

LIBR

ARY

DIG

ITAL

DEM

OC

RA

TIC

FO

RES

T

Circulation Programming

Structure HVAC

Crit CommentsPlaza _Space dead ends _What lures people into/through it? _Make meaningful connection _If the axis of roads is important then line them up _How can this space become useful?

General _Office planning is still not resolved Think about their views/power/position _Diagrams need presentation improvement _Structure is on right track _Still not engaging the back of the building _Bad circulation in lecture hall _Think through galleries Democratic gallery is a good start but take further and more purposeful _Think through the building sectionally i.e. ceiling heights, shapes, skylights _Graphically represent adjacent buildings at correct height

Steve Padget’s sketches towards a better plaza space planning

ReflectionGoing into this review I felt like I had made some strong programming choices while maintaining my overall idea and incorporating some design elements. This was the first attempt at diagramming and developing more accurate systems to be incorporated into our buildings which helped inform other decisions. After this review I realized that the development of my plaza space and placement of my offices were going to be critical. Moving forward I wanted to approach solving some of these issues through sectional studies.

I turned to landscaping precedents to help inspire more ideas and tried to develop important spaces in my building through sectional decisions.

Mid Review Presentation

G

2

3

Circulation Programming

Structure HVAC

Crit CommentsDiagrams _Can move 1/3 HVAC to roof _Circulation has improved by seperating service/ public elevators and by pushing the fire stair closer to the entrance, improving code _Still need graphic improvement _Skeptical that any sun diagramming has been looked into

Plaza _Improvement _Still dead ends with building however _Connection with cafe is weak, skeptical of any sun reaching patio, but good thought _Nice addition of stairs up to new roof deck that would be more sunny and connects people with the west side of the building

General _Office programming has been better resolved Why make half of them face west? _Back (west side) of building is still not activated... needs to be resolved Try ramps, landscaping, signage _Like window along front however facades do not mesh _Like the heavy rough materiality of the stone contrasting with the bulk of the building _Cafe would be very dark in current location _Think in 3D, think in perspective! _Sections/elevations graphically improved

ReflectionBy mid-review I felt that my understanding of hvac, structure, and programming had improved and were well incorporated. Decisions to move the offices felt more resolved and I was pleased with my plaza design. As we began exploring facades I knew that I wanted to stick with contrasting materials between the archive and main building but wanted to further investigate my options. My building was continuing to express my big idea that I had since day one as well as strengthen qualities such as site context, circulation and outdoor spaces to engage the community.

As large problems were feeling more resolved I was able to give more attention to detail and finesse things such as types of plants I envisioned in the plaza and interior finishes. Smaller isssues were flushed out by this point and I knew the areas of my building I wanted to study in detail.

ConstructionDocumentation

G

2

3

Crit CommentsThis ended up not being a formal review with jurors however constant revisions and critiques from classmates/Denton guided my progress.

Details _Detail curtain wall, isntead of west cantilever _Nice parapit detail on bridge _Consider soffit material and detailing _Try and cut through different types of windows and materiality _Curtain wall is incorrect in how it sits from the structure and connects with the ground

General _The bridge was a bold and correct move _Bridge helps resolve plaza _Continue thinking in perspective and considering which views will be rendered

ReflectionI felt like I had a good grasp on the direction my half inch sections were heading and began editing and finalizing plans and sections for the final review. I liked how my project was finishing up and was looking forward to spending some time cleaning up and editing my drawings.

I was hoping to resolve all three of my details but realized with the amount of time left that that goal would have to be let go of. As a class we shared a lot of good information between us and I learned a lot more beyond what is reflected in my drawings.

Final Presentation

G

2

3

Programming

Materiality

Structure

HVAC

Circulation

1/16” Model

1/4” SectionModel

1/4” SectionModel

Crit CommentsPlaza _Feels much more resolved now that it connects through to the back _Dislike how there are steps up on the west side, wish it could have been avoided _Wish that you could see the sky under the bridge from the east facing west

General _The bridge resolved the uneasiness of the office progaming that was occuring before _Circulation is a very good and strong element _Nice site context _The perforated aluminum rainscreen was a really successful facade choice _Connection of the bridge to the larger building has opportunities for different facade choices and heights _Entry is a successful place, render displays this well _Overall a successful comprehensive level project _Maybe there are possible advertisement opportunities behind aluminum rain screens or in interior hall way of main building

ReflectionGoing into this review I felt much more confident on the presentation of my images. I feel like I accomplished clearly highlighting and diagramming parts of my project, learning new skills in both physically and digitally modeling. While there were a few things I wish I had a little more time to resolve, I am pleased with the outcome of my project. My reviews went well and their comments insightful.

Most importantly, I completed (and survived) comprehensive!!

SemesterSummaryGoing into this semester I wasn’t sure what to expect. Since I studied abroad in fall semester, I was one of the few who more blindly approached our project. After flipping through the information Denton provided us, I had a strong intuition with site 2. I immediately was given the sense that it had a strong connection with Memphis’ history, due to the railroad track and that it would revive a piece of land in the heart of this district. Additionally, I wanted to challenge myself with a project nestled between two existing buildings since these site restrictions have not been presented to me before. In previous studios our focus was a design, and the best designers with the most obscure ideas were those who were praised and idolized. In this studio, those same students got a very different start to the semester and helped clarify for me the objective of the studio: a realistic and functional building. This ‘realistic and functional building’ came to entail many different things as the semester progressed.

When we began the semester with the pre-design programming exercise I quickly discovered the rigorous schedule we would be on the rest of the semester. This helped the entire class break personal design habits while trying to make informed programming decisions. Already, we were far ahead of my previous studios by implementing the habit of designing while programming… a huge improvement! While programming quickly took over the first half of our semester I took it upon myself to make sure I had strong site context. Not only had Shannon strongly suggested this through many critiques of our studio but I seem to naturally design to these constraints and wanted to strengthen my ability. I also wanted to force myself to incorporate the knowledge we were acquiring about HVAC systems and structure. Not only were these never accurately

depicted in sectional drawings in past studios, I had never allowed it to influence my design. During this project it caused my cantilevers to be restricted to certain distances, ceiling heights to take in account their thicknesses and expenses to be considered. However, I wish we had shortened the amount of time we spent on programming so that we could have gotten a little more in depth with HVAC and structure. Our semester lacked in hard deadlines allowing us to move forward and focus on other aspects of the project. This also caused it to be difficult for many of us to be prepared for our reviews. As new layers of the project were piled on, as a studio, we should have ‘frozen’ our other issues as time is a huge constraint in a semester like this.

Throughout our semester we took a few class field trips which were very informative and helped cement the lessons we were learning in class. In particularly, Cerner was very helpful. Through the addition of more hands on learning introduced towards the beginning of the semester this studio would be strengthened in materiality and detail creativity.

Half inch details are what many people ‘brand’ comprehensive studio by. It is the first studio that requires us to intensely explore and understand the workings of our building as if it were going to be built. Unfortunately, this seemed to be the most rushed part of our semester. While these are tedious in nature, more time should have been dedicated to these. It was difficult for me and others that came into studio with very little knowledge to have enough time to gain more. I believe it would also benefit the studio to do a mock-up of a half inch study model of their detail to learn connections and construction better.

However in saying this, what understanding I did acquire has helped me tremendously in knowing how facades and windows are generally constructed.

Throughout this semester I pushed myself to attempt to keep up with each individual student’s strengths as well as improve my own. Looking back through this semester as I created this booklet, I feel that I accomplished this goal. In relation to computer modeling, I designed my first project in Revit, rendered in 3DS Max using Vray, and gained a better understanding of Illustrator, Photoshop, SketchUp and Autocad. While some of these may have caused me to get behind at times or cause a lot of late night frustration these skills will come to help me in my internship. I also looked to others for example in crafting models, managing time, and presentation skills. As a studio we all worked very well together and helped keep each other motivated, as a result we all designed create projects highlighting these strengths.

Moving forward I will continue to try and improve my confidence in my abilities and strengthen my weaknesses. This project created a good foundation for many of us to build our professional career off of. In comparison to other comprehensive studio’s project, the size, program and location of our project suited comprehensive and should be considered for future 609 studios.

http://www.aaronschuman.com/egglestondemocratic.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-segregated-cities- census-maps-2013-4?op=1

http://www.clrsearch.com/Memphis-Demographics/TN/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:i_Is Me84EN0J:www.shelbycountytn.gov/Document View.aspx?DID%3D669+south+central+business+ improvement&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADG EESgAzzzftsVKm11HFlbrfdWhoVvCVOhc8HAw5v83I 5aQgGoj5_R3tlKgOiJx3Ru4z2M5XLRNbTKNCS4Ev_ ajt16L7j5Pk30ExK1Xj5lpPqLIx6q18y5yceBEGd9NpIb wZV0wFQ_X&sig=AHIEtbTOJj-VpyGc4083kFPS5rx GW8dutA

http://www.downtownmemphiscommission.com/docu ments/cbid_design_guidelines.pdf

http://www.weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly- Rainfall-Temperature-Sunshine,Memphis,United- States-of-America

http://www.egglestontrust.com/df_afterword.html

Studio Mission and Intent provided by Denton Nichols

Bibliography