organization and circulation

Graphic Collection with 2 Parts (20%)

This collection must be 2,000 words in length and can include up to 20 figures.

From the six case studies listed below, choose two buildings. In Part 1 you will analyze each building, and then in Part 2 you will compare the two. Remember to support your discussion with maps, graphic sketches, and images that help explain and/or discern characteristics and interrelationships that you consider relevant. Use the concepts from the Unit 3 readings to comment on the buildings, focusing on elements of organization and circulation. Support your analyses and comparison with citations from the course texts and other sources. Be specific.

Case Studies

1. Fernberg Pavilion (2001) Brisbane, Australia by Andresen O’Gorman with Michael Kennedy
   • UME 16 Issue, click on blue button to open (2 PDF pages)
2. Boyd Education Centre (1999) Bundanon, NSW, Australia by G. Murcutt + Wendy Lewin + Reg Lark
   • Google website with photographs and drawings of the project
   • UME 10 Issue, click on blue button to open (several PDF pages)
3. Serpentine Pavilion (2009) London, UK by Kazuyo Sejima & Ryue Nishizawa
   • Google website with photographs and drawings of the project
   • Serpentine Pavilion website, showing photographs and video
4. M.B. House (1999) Shuneh, Jordan by Sahel Al Hiyari
   • Sahel Al Hiyari’s website
5. B2 House (2001) Ayvacık, Turkey by Han Tümertekin
   • The Aga Khan Award for Architecture website
6. Howard House, West Pennant, Nova Scotia, by Brian MacKay-Lyons
   • UME 14 Issue, click on blue button to open (4 PDF pages)
   • Mackay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects’ website

Part 1: Analysis

1,000 words

Write a critical commentary on the role played by the key elements in each of the two chosen case studies. Discuss the organization and circulation in each project, to include the following design concepts:

space-to-space relationships, types of spatial organization, progression (time/sequence/space), approach, entrance, path, path to space relationships, rest to movement relationships, function.

Document how each project’s architecture is informed by decisions specific to the locale:

climate, topography, geography, local materials, orientation, fenestration, massing, and other considerations.

Use the following questions to help guide your analyses:

• Are the projects well organized?
• Are they clearly legible in one glance or do they require a perceptually gradual discovery?
• Do they mesh with their context or sit in contrast to it?
• What are the hierarchies at play?
• Is there a relationship between each project’s plan and its elevation and/or section?

Part 2: Comparison

1,000 words

Using your analyses from Part 1, compare and contrast the character of the buildings in the two case studies.

Identify key similarities and differences between the two case studies, and discuss how they inform the quality and character of architectural space. Keeping in mind that architectural space is much more complex than a compiling of design elements, use the following questions to help you consider the experience of these structures within their respective landscapes:

• What do you see in the images and drawings?
• What is the architect’s intent in each project? Be clear on the use of both published sources and your own conjecture.
• What is each project’s attitude toward its social and physical context?
• What are the underlying themes?
• Describe each project’s parti.
• What is the user’s emotional reaction to the projects?
• What is the mood of each project’s narrative? Talk about how this impacts the atmosphere, identity, and perceptual character. For example, is the project monumental or does it speak to the user in plain terms? Is it happy? —moody? —rigorous? —playful?

Use the pertinent ideas in the readings and case studies to support your assertions, being careful to reference the ideas of others. All source material that is not original must be referenced using APA style for referencing and in-text citations.