C_ABE Stephanie Ziegler _ Megan Sutherland _ Courtney Reid

PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITYPHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY

22

1010

2222

2828

3838

5454

6060

6868

PROGRAM ANALYSISPROGRAM ANALYSIS

SITE SELECTIONSITE SELECTION

SITE ANALYSISSITE ANALYSIS

SPATIAL CONCEPTSPATIAL CONCEPT

FORM DEVELOPMENTFORM DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMSTECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTFUTURE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C_ABE 3

PROGRAM ANALYSIS Philadelphia University: College of Architecture and the Built Environment

1:

4

SEPARATIONbetween curriculum and learning environments

FUNCTIONcurrent spaces overlap in use and do not provide efficient working environments

SUSTAINABILITYnot prevalent throughout campus buildings

PROBLEMS

GOALS

building produces energy as students produce work

building will serve as aneducational model for tectonics and sustainable architecture

engage community

encourage exploration

passive sustainable systems

nodes of collaboration

engage existing campus fabric

C_ABE 5

MAJOR CORE

ELECTIVESCOLLEGE STUDIES COLLEGE STUDIES

ELECTIVES

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURE

INTERIOR DESIGN

ARCH. STUDIES

CONSTRUCTION MANAGMENT

M.S. CONSTUCTION MANAGEMENT

M.S. INTERIOR

M.S. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

top: curriculum: OVERALL OVERLAPRepresents each major by its curriculum and then shows the overlap in relationship to other majors along the bottom line, proves that there is little overlap between the

built enviorment classes and the environment classes.

left: curriculum: YEARLY OVERLAPthis web shows the overlap in classes over the span of a school year in each

major’s year levels. it further show a segregation of collaboration.

The current C_ABE program shows a great amount of overlaps in curriculum in the younger years, but disperses collaboration as the students move up in grade.

The current C_ABE program is linear and spread out from the very North to South ends of the campus. This separation between majors and years does not allow for cross-collaboration to happen.

right-top: macro democraphics: COMPETITIONWhin each .5 mile x .5 mile outlined blocked space is one of Philadelphia’s

univeristy campus building maps. Highlighted in yellow the architecture program facilities. Together, delineating that Philadelphia University’s greatest difference - a

lack of centralization and grid - characterizes it as a less urban campus within Philadlphia’s fabric.

right-bottom: linear movment: CAMPUS LAYOUTmore linear than centralized like other design schools in Philadelphia, the movement

across Philadelphia University’s campus spans a .5 mile distance. In addition, the movement varies by majors according to building program. Overall, the layout proves

the necessity for a new C_ABE building, as well as possible areas of congestion for site locating.

curriculum: OVERALL OVERLAP

curriculum: YEARLY OVERLAP

6

PROGRAM ANALYSISmacro democraphics: COMPETITION

linear movement: CAMPUS LAYOUT

C_ABE 7

Amount of people per program per year: Square footage need per person:

- total: 626 students

8

4th + 5th year architecture : B

2nd + 3rd year architecture : B1st year architecture : B

4th + 5th year interior : B

2nd + 3rd year interior : B1st year interior : B4th + 5th year landscape : B

2nd + 3rd year landscape : B1st year landscape : B

2nd + 3rd year arch. studies : B1st year arch. studies : B

sustainability : M

interior : M

architecture : M

4th - 5th year

2nd - 3rd year

1st year [hot seats]

PIE CHARTS KEY: STUDENT IN STUDIO TO AREA OF STUDIO DESK RATIO

PROGRAM ANALYSIS

C_ABE 9

UNDERGRAD ACTIVITY LEVELS

UNDERGRAD ACTIVITY LEVELS

Student Activity Levels Throughout a Day:

10

65000 FT240 FT

25 FT

20 FT

15 FT

10 FT

entry. bike. lab.common. lab. 40 studios. woodshop. presentatIon.

collaboration. material library. storage.display. office.assistance.kitchen. bathroom.storage.circulation. waste. egress. ARCHIVE ADMINSTRATIVE

CLASSROOM STUDENT SPACE

Proposed Support Square Footage:

Proposed Spacial Relationships:

Proposed Heights:

Proposed Sutdio Square Footage:

PROGRAM ANALYSIS

PROGRAM ANALYSIS

C_ABE 11

SITE SELECTION Philadelphia University Campus 2:

12

CRITERIA

COMMUNITY PRESENCE

ACCESSIBLE

ENGAGING

INADEQUATE FUNCTIONALITY

MINIMALRELOCATION

SUSTAINABLE

improve community access through campus

mimic porosity of ravenhill campus

vechicular access to site and parking

minimal obstruction to pedestrians and bikers

connection to new university buildings

development of new, on-campus quad

redevelop under-used parts of campus

re-establish fabric of university

least impact on current program spaces

access to natural wind, water, and light

passive design development

C_ABE 13

left: CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT.

right: POTENTIAL SITES

Philadelphia University’s development has been widespread over the years. The recent development on the North side of campus has allowed for both accessiblity and engagment - two points in the previous site criteria. Therefore, the potential sites were soley chosen from the Northern side of campus.

SEED Center: C_ABE Graduate

Gallegher Athletic, Recreation, and Convation Center + Parking Garage

Gutman Library + Board Room and Media Service

Kanbar Campus Center + Food Service, Mail Services, and Bookstore

DEC Center: Industrial Design, Fashion Design, and Business

KEY DEVELOPMENT

14

DOWNS TOWNHOUSESSCHOLLER HALLneed to demolish :

SITE SELECTION

C_ABE 15

DOWNS HALL 12 ClassroomsAuditoriumStage Bathrooms LoungeStorage/Backstage Street access (schoolhouse lane) Main Campus, close to resources (Library, bookstore, SEED, A&D, etc.)Existing parking lotCommunity face

TOWNHOUSES100 people5 single bedroomsLiving/ Dining Room Area furnished as space permittedKitchen with oven, refrigerator and sinkBathroomHVC SystemNo Laundry Facilities (must go to Scholler)No LoungesNo Vending Machines

SCHOLLER HALLdormitory149 peoplestudy/social loungescommon area bathrooms facilitiesvending machinesHealth Center

Existing Conditions

16

Scholler Hall

Down’s Hall

Townhouses

South-East North-East South North

SITE SELECTION

C_ABE 17

SCHOLLER HALL TOWNHOUSES DOWNS HALL

SITE ACCESS:Scholler and Down’s have immediate access from the main roads of School House and Henry. The townhouses are set further back from the main roads and require entering the main campus to see them.

18

SCHOLLER HALL TOWNHOUSESDOWNS HALL

730 DISTANCE FROM BUILDING LOCATION (IN FT)

The Scholler and Down’s site require longer lengths of distance to relate to the whole campus. The Townhouse site is relatively centralized.

SITE SELECTION

C_ABE 19

VEHICULAR ACCESS RAM VAN STOPS SEPTA STOPS

WALKING PATHS CAMPUS NODES

20

EASEYIELD

OBSTACLE STUDENT WALKERS PUBLIC WALKERS

BIKERS DRIVERSEASEYIELD

OBSTACLE

EASEYIELD

OBSTACLE

EASEYIELD

OBSTACLE

RATE OF MOVEMENT:between the outermost edges of campus to the interior.

SITE SELECTION

C_ABE 21

The townhouse site is diagramed to be the most porous site because of the difficulty of the Henry Ave and School House Lane intersection.

MOMENTS OF CLARITYMOMENTS OF UNCERTAINTY

MOMENTS OF DIFFICULTY

22

VEHICULAR SPACE

PEDESTRIAN SPACE

ENGINEERED SWALES AND DRAINAGE

ADJACENT BUILDING FACES

Choosing the townhouse site for C_ABE will allow for an engagement with Kanbar and DEC. It will also provide the chance to engage the existing bioswale and campus road.

SITE SELECTION

C_ABE 23

SITE ANALYSIS Townhouse Site3:

24

C_ABE 25

WINTER SUMMER

20’40’60’

WIND AND TREE STUDIES:describes how natural ventilation can be achieved in the project

26

9AM NOON 6PM

SUMMER

WINTERSUN STUDIES:shows where to achieve optimum amount of daylight

SITE ANALYSIS

C_ABE 27

WATER CONCERNS

Wissahickon Creek Watershed

Lower Schuykill River Watershed

water movementSITE CONCERNS

water movementCITY WATERSHEDS

Looking at the bigger picture, there are 7 watersheds within Philadelphia's borders. within Philadelphia's borders. Zooming in on the northern side of Philadelphia University’s campus shows that the site is divided between the Wissahickon between the Wissahickon Creek Watershed and the Lower Schuykill River Watershed. As such, the northern campus drainage system should/must engage these watersheds.

water movementCAMPUS DRAINAGE

The relationship of drainage The relationship of drainage access outlined in a blue circle to rainwater saturation shows minimal efficiency in dealing with runoff and drainage.

Wissahickon Creek Watershed

Lower Schuykill River Watershed

water movementSITE CONCERNS

water movementCITY WATERSHEDS

Looking at the bigger picture, there are 7 watersheds within Philadelphia's borders. within Philadelphia's borders. Zooming in on the northern side of Philadelphia University’s campus shows that the site is divided between the Wissahickon between the Wissahickon Creek Watershed and the Lower Schuykill River Watershed. As such, the northern campus drainage system should/must engage these watersheds.

water movementCAMPUS DRAINAGE

The relationship of drainage The relationship of drainage access outlined in a blue circle to rainwater saturation shows minimal efficiency in dealing with runoff and drainage.

28

EXISTING SITE SECTIONS

SITE ANALYSIS

B

A

AB

C_ABE 29

TEXT INFO ...

SPATIAL CONCEPT Fluidity 4:

30

TEXT INFO ...

SEPARATIONbetween curriculum and learning environments

FUNCTIONcurrent spaces overlap in use and do not provide efficient working environments

SUSTAINABILITYnot prevalent throughout campus buildings

PROBLEMS

GOALS

building produces energy as students produce work

building will serve as aneducational model for tectonics and sustainable architecture

community exhibition

encourage exploration

passive sustainable systems

nodes of collaboration

engagement

nodesoverlapping

movementcirculation

C_ABE 31

FLUIDITYThere is no distinct fluid motion. Some types of movement impede their

obstacles to take the path of least resistance, taking over the space

in which it interacts with. With fewer obstacles, these fluid paths move

faster, while moving slower with more obstacles. However, these fluid

paths overcome their obstacles, they eventually overlap and collaborate.

32

SPATIAL CONCEPT

C_ABE 33

FASTmovement

change in levels and movement from small to large spaces cause fast movement

34

SLOWmovement

flat, open and transparent spaces cause slow movement

SPATIAL CONCEPT

C_ABE 35

CARVEDspaces

carving of objects allow for penetration of the natural elements into spaces

36

FORMEDobstacles

formed obstacles are what’s left over after objects have been carved out

SPATIAL CONCEPT

C_ABE 37

FLUID MOVEMENT OBSTACLE CARVING VOLUME

INTERIOR CONDITION

CONCEPT MODEL PROCESS:describes how fluid movement takes on obstables to carve out spaces and create a formed object

38

SPATIAL CONCEPT

FORMED OBJECTS:in relation to program and site

C_ABE 39

FORM DEVELOPMENT A Fluid Learning Environment for Collaboration5:

40

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 41

PRESENTATION

STUDIOS

CLASSROOMS

MAIN DESIRE LINES SITE LINES FORMED

DESIRE LINES:site studies of where desire lines are laid, site lines are wanted, and site obstacles, lead to the carving away of the overall volume. This caused a separation of program. The classroom pod faces other academic buildings. The studios are placed to interact with DEC, the new quad, and the Kanbar student center. The presentation space allows for integration with the existing bioswale, as well as, capping off the quad.

42

QUAD DEVELOPMENT:The previous layout did not provide true space for a quad. the development of form and master plan allowed for a bigger quad to be formed. This also created sub-quads between buildings.

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 43

EARLY SECTION STUDIES:attempts to connect separate buildings and create carved spaces inbetween.

44

SECTION STUDIES:exploration of circulation acting as the connector to pods.

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 45

DEVELOPMENT OF SECTIONS:lack the desired “pod” spaces and connections

46

ANGLE FORMATION:walls are tilted to divert direct sun radiation in the summer and allow for passive, thermal heating in the winter.

WINTER SUN SUMMER SUN

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 47

48

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 49

50

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 51

FINAL FORMopens up quad and collaboration spaces are clearly defined

52

FORM DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 53

DEC Center

C_ABE

fire stair

classroom entry

atrium entry

stuido entry

presentation space

Gallagher Athletic Center

visitor + administrative entry

C_ABE

classrooms entry

student stuido entry

DEC Center

SOUTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

54

FORM DEVELOPMENT

SECTION A:gives understanding of the classroom to studio, down to presentation composition

SECTION B:studio entrance

A

B

B

B

A

A

C_ABE 55

STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT from Trusses to Fins6:

56

C_ABE 57

TRANSFORMATION:The truss and hollow core concrete system did not succeed in meeting the aethetic desires for a carved concrete look. the need to design a unobstructed concrete building was met with using three different structural systems: Filigree concrete, poured-in-place concrete, hollow core concrete, and a spider clamp, glass fin system.

58

STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 59

STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT

GUTTER DETAIL

CATWALK DETAIL

CIRCULATION FLOOR DETAIL60

STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT

C_ABE 61

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS Radiant Floors and Decentralized 7:

62

C_ABE 63

FILIGREE FLOOR SYSTEM

FILIGREE CONCRETE

POURED-IN-PLACE WALL

GLAZED ROOF

CONCRETE FIN

FILIGREE CONCRETE

GLAZED FLOOR

HOLLOW-CORE CONCRETE

CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATION

LIGHTING

To execute an all-concrete building, Filigree, hollow core, and poured-in-place concrete systems were used.

64

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

FILIGREE CONCRETE SYSTEM POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE

WALLS

GLASS FINSPIDER CLAMP SYSTEM

HOLLOW CORE SLABCONCRETE FIN AND BEAM

SYSTEM

In the circulation spaces, hollow core slab and concrete fin systems are used. The pods are constructed with Filigree concrete and poured-in place walls. The breakout spaces use glass fin and spider clamp structure.

C_ABE 65

ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING:within the pods, suspended lights are installed.within the circulation space, LED lights are installed under the concrete fins.

66

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

MECHANICAL

SHAFT

FORCED AIR

RADIANT FLOOR

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS:the building uses radiant heated and cooled floors with a decentrailized forced air system

C_ABE 67

COOLING

HEATING

RADIANT FLOORS

68

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

RADIANT FLOOR DETAIL

C_ABE 69

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTNatural Lighting and Landscaping8:

70

NATURAL LIGHTING:now that there is natural light being brought in from the central ciruclation space, it would be ideal to have that light redirected into the pods. if we look back to our original “Spatial Concept” model, we can see a strategy for being able to bring natural light into darker spaces by cutting through the walls on angles. This can also allow for those passing by through the circulation spaces to get views into the studio pods.

LANDSCAPINGnow that there is enough space for a new campus quad, we would like to develop the land using the same architectural language that our building evokes. There can be spaces for presentation and testing ideas outside. The landscaping will also help to make outsiders feel comfortable approaching C_ABE.

C_ABE 71