MODEL WORKSHOP

After a tiresomely long research assignment (the first half of the Atlas assignment), we finally got a design project! Having not designed anything at all during the entire summer vacation, I was really excited to once again be able to put my creative skills to use. The joy was limited though, since it was only a model workshop that lasted mere two weeks.

The goal of the workshop was primarily to learn more about a method of design through trial and error with concept models. The workshop was done in groups of two, and for this, I joined creative forces with Guru. We were told to basically do as many models as possible and keep trying them out until we get a concept for our site that was right. Secondarily, our goal was to practice working in a larger scale (one that is between local and urban planning). Our site was located directly by the beautiful lake areas of Inner Copenhagen as shown above. 

The existing area on the site is a home for the elderly, and our goal was to redesign the existing slab complex into a more pleasant and vibrant area. Function-wise, the area would remain for the eldery, though with an addition of a kindergarden. Our first thoughts were to (quite obviously) preserve the opportunities for views of the lakes for the elderlys. This was a high priority, though not our primary. Our greatest focus was to open this rather large plot towards the public and allow for cafés and public recreational areas. By planning the site with a somewhat dense city structure, we have tried to create small spaces and passages between the newly created buildings on the plot. We believe that this narrowing of the site will create more spaces for activities and relaxation, as well create a balance between public and semi-public spaces.

Our approach towards achieving this vibrant new area, was firstly by sticking to a contextual design. At first, we took our first steps through mimicing the Copenhagen block structure, which is basically a closed rectanglur structure with a private inner court. We took great efforts in reading the surrounding area, and placed our structures according to the existing trees on the site, pedestrian movement lines, the surrounding road connections, building heights, etc. After having placed our abstractions of the Copenhagen blocks around the site, it still seemed to closed and uninviting. This led os to reverse our perspective on the Copenhagen block, and rather take the qualities of the very diverse inner courtyards of these. By doing this, we ended up with three large buildings (formally in the shape of the Copenhagen block), which were now fragmented into smaller connected structures with different shapes, heights and perhaps even facades. This design strategy creates a sort of city-within-city kind of development, that appeals to the human scale, and also avoids looking like a hospital-like structure (something we also took great measures to avoid!). Finally, our kindergarten was placed in the upper right area of the plot. The kindergarten is a stand-alone building, but it mimics the design language of the elderly home and creates an almost replica-like structure. The area between the kindergarten and the lake opens up as a completely public green area with facilities such as a small football plane and a green belt that connects the lake path to the street on the other side of the plot. All this should be visible on the plan photo above.

The most interesting part of this workshop, was to work with this model-based method. This method is very popular among young Danish architectural firms such as JAJA Architects, Adept Architects, BIG and so on. The model is (and has always been) a very powerful tool during the design process (in my oppinion), but personally, I believe this method has its issues. One thing I noticed very early during the design process, is that the shape and form of the created models is too dominant. It felt like working with shapes rather than context most of the time, and personally, I am against that sort of architecture. As a matter of fact, Guru and I had to stop after the first week and rethink our entire project through a process in which we primarily focused on the context for a start (which is more like our normal design method). This approach led to much more specific concepts and in the end led to our final model. My personal conclusion was quite simply, that thorough study of the site's context in the beginning really pays off, rather than taking a more form-based approach. This is undoubtfully a personal matter, but nevertheless my own oppinion.

As for the crit; the majority of the comments were largely positive towards the result of our work, while our design process was slightly questioned. The latter is without question due to our change of method towards the more contextual one, but since the result was welcomed very warmly, I am quite satisfied with our choice of sticking to our own methods.

P.S. This site has an actual competition that is completed at this point of time. The result of the winning proposal is expected to be made public within the coming few months, so it will be very interesting to see which group in the class came closest to the winning proposal (if any). I'll post about this in the future.

- Andy Minchev

LUND UNIVERSITY'S FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Having made a short visit to Jakriborg on the way to Lund, I later arrived at my destination and atlas workshop site. In this post, I have directly copied the text from my analysis, since I believe it explains my thoughts and oppinions of the area quite clearly as it is.

Lund University's Faculty of Engineering is located in the north-western part of the Swedish college town of Lund. It was founded in 1961 and was planned after functionalist principles. The faculty consists of two large building complexes, which are designed to be dense on the vertical plane in order to take up little space of their site and thereby leave space for an open landscape. The open landscape created from the dense building has allowed for the creation of a park area west from the building complex and car-parking areas in the easr. In this case, the complex acts as a buffer zone between the pedestrian paths on the western side of the faculty and the motorized traffic on the eastern side. This buffer effect allos walking and cycling students to move freely and unbothered by the vehicles on the western side, while the motorized vehicles can move with greater ease on the eastern side.

Dense building was a way of planning that was typical for the time. This was done in order to use as little land of a site as possible in order to create large, open natural areas where inhabitants, visitors and workers could take walks and enjoy fresh, clean air. Such urban planning was a reaction to the often highly polluted and unsanitary European old-city areas during the time after the Second World War.

Despite the positive effect of creating harmony in the local traffic and a green belt for pedestrians and cyclists, the consequences of such planning are too great to justify the benefits. This is because of the enormous non-pedestrian, car-parking areas that would end up dominating the landscape of the site as a result of the planning ideologies of the time. The site as a whole illustrates how highly prioritized motorized vehicles were in urban planning during the first decades that followed the Second World War and the immeasurable landscape that was sacrificed in order to maintain this urban planning idealogy.

To make a comparison to the previous post about Helge's Jakriborg, my site is quite the opposite. It is a classic example of rationalistic architecture, where the different functions of the complex are divided in different zones and where motorized vehicles are a great priority compared to pedestrian recreational areas. I believe this should sum things up. It's been interesting to focus intensively on two different sites and their idealogies and create a comparison between the two. With all currently 34 students in my class having made such analysis of different sites throughout the Øresund region, we've taken our first step towards our contribution to the Copenhagen atlas. The 34 different sites are indeed greatly different from one another and paint a rather eye-opening picture of how different urban planning can be both historically and ideologically. Since we are currently still working on the next step of the atlas project, there are yet more updates on the atlas workshop to come in the near future.

- Andy Minchev

ATLAS WORKSHOP

As part of our 5th semester projects, we have a lengthy workshop in which we are to contribute to an atlas of Copenhagen. This atlas assignment is done with close collaboration with Dutch architect/graphic designer Joost Grootens, who has great experience with making graphical atlas books on topics such as cities, architecture and social subjects through the use of simple and plain, yet extremely clear infographics. Grootens believes that the atlas is a tool of great worth and one that can often make complex topics and issues more clear through the simple, yet strong use of direct factual statistics. He tries to deliver information on the chosen topics as clearly as possible, or to quote his own words "In such a clear way, that it hurts.". Below is a short film that introduces Grootens and his works.

Our first assignment was to analyze individual real-life locations measuring 300m by 300m within cities in the Øresund Sound area (Greater Copenhagen, Malmö, Lund and Helsingborg). My plot was Lund University's Faculty of Engineering, which is basically a university complex. My analysis of the site will be posted shortly in a separate post.

Our second assignment (the one I'm currently working on) is a group assignment, in which we are given the subject Political Economies. This subject contains themes such as politics and economic factors on urban development, as well as case studies on the process of large scale city planning. While we have argueably been given one of the most complex subjects within the contents of the atlas, it is also perhaps one of the most interesting, especially due to its complexity. Since we have still a lot of work before us on the topic, it is yet too soon to post about this work of ours, but nevertheless, I'll make a post about one of the more lively discussions we've had on one of the sub-topics we've had. We'll have several different workshops that are independant from the atlas during the process, but I'll keep updating about our discussions and ultimately of our final content during the process.

Further reading:

- http://www.grootens.nl/

- Andy Minchev

3D STUDIO MAX COURSE

As our studies progress, we have come to the point where we are to learn the more advanced graphical and technical computer programs. For about a week ago, we finished the first of a few CAD and rendering courses that are to come. The first course, was about working with and rendering in AutoDesk 3D Studio Max. As some of you may know, this is an extremely advanced program, used to make visuals for high-budget film and animation productions and also computer and console games. The limits are few with this program, which of course is a plus, but also quite a problem. The vast possibilities have made it quite the complicated application, so fortunately, we were only introduced to the tools we need in order to make architectural render scenes.

The rendering scenes we were to make, are those of our previous project (link at the bottom of this post). The theme I was going for here, was to illustrate the evolution from a techincal CAD drawing to a photorealistic render. The original 3D model is made in SketchUp 8, the rendering in 3D Studio Max Design 2012 and finally after effects, entourage and such are all made in Adobe Photoshop CS5. That's all there is to say really, I'll let the pictures tell the rest of the story - But do keep in mind, that these are my first renderings in 3D Studio Max.

Further reading:
- http://goo.gl/GmfNx (post about the project)

- Andy Minchev

GLASS COLUMNS

During the last few weeks, we've had a workshop that focuses on load-bearing elements in architecture. The workshop is quite basic, and only focuses on the basics of construction methods, in order to give us a simple insight towards designing more stable buildings, while still allowing us to leave the details to the engineers. The workshop consisted of two parts (a week for each). During the first fase, we were to work with a single loadbearing element, while during the second, we were to design a structure which primarily makes us of the before mentioned chosen element.

During the first week, a joined a group that focused on the column as a load-bearing element. The column, being one of the perhaps oldest and most basic of all architectural constructional elements, was an interesting choice. But due to the simplicity of it's function, our group decided to try out something different in the world of columns. We decided to test the strength of glass as a material for a column. Now what you see above clearly illustrates the strength of glass. The sculpture consists of five glass columns which bear a large stone. The glass columns measure 21cm (height) by 1cm (length) and just 0,4cm (width). The glass columns are furthermore casted in a gypsum foundation, which doesn't have a load-bearing function, but is rather used to keep the glass columns firmly in place. The stone above measures 20cm x 20cm x 20cm (roughly) and weighs about 25kg. During the final experiment, we even had only four columns, and the stone still stood firmly and safely on the extremely thin columns.

As for the second week, we were to design a larger structure, and in our case, we chose to make a marketplace. The special thing about it, is that we've tried to create an effect, in which the roofing for the market place litterally illustrates an enormous chunk of earth that has been directly cut out and lifted from the ground, thus creating a space underneath. Following our project from the first week, we chose to work with glass columns once again. This time, we found out that 30 of such columns (in a quadratic column) were able to lift as much as 1500 tons of earth, concrete and vegetation that float above the market space! We were no doubt truely amazed by the load-bearing abilities of glass, but like so many good things in life, it has its issues. The thing with glass is that it is extremely fragile. It may carry remarkable masses on a vertical scale, but if the glass were to lean even the slightest towards a horizontal direction, the glass will unlike metal's bending and concrete's cracking, almost litterally explode. This great constructional danger is perhaps one of the reasons why glass isn't so common as a load-bearing material, but as far as I know, research is leading to stronger and more stable glass systems, which one day might just prove worthy for even large scale glass-only structures.

- Andy Minchev

MASONRY WORKSHOP

It has been a while since I have posted in the blog, but this is due to a workshop we have had recently. As you may (or may not) remember, I mentioned that during the last four works, we have been working on material workshops - Learning more about materials and their abilities and such. First we worked with a project that examined the strength of paper structures, and later a similiar project, but with really thin load-bearing wooden sticks (I haven't posted about the latter project on the blog, since it is very similar to the paper structure project). After these minor structure experiments, we were to choose to work from a variety of four different materials: bricks, concrete, steel and wood. The material I wished to work with was concrete, being the most common building material, but due to an unfortunate day of absence (and yes, unfortunately it was on the very day on which we were to choose our material-groups!), I ended up in the masonry workshop instead.

The masonry workshop was at first sight rather simple. But then again, it was at times surprisingly challenging. We were given 1:5 scale bricks to work with at first, with which we were to create a model of a wall fragment - A brick pattern to put it simply. Being one of those think-out-of-the-box architect types, I naturally started off by attempting to make very dynamic and organic patterns, but I quickly learned that such patterns are very unstable when building with bricks. Due to such structural weaknesses, I ended up simplyfing my design more and more, until I ended up with result above. I have to admit it is a design that I was (and still am) rather disappointed with, but on the larger scale, it actually looks alright (we were to make a 1:20 visualization of our pattern - this is shown later in the post.)

After everyone had completed a model each, 14 of the designs were chosen for real-life construction. My classmate, Jens', model was selected as one of the 14, and together we built it at a masonry high school outside of Copenhagen, as part of our masonry program. During this two-day masonry course, we quickly learned that the art of brick masonry is far more challenging than it seems, and the work is, well to say the least, pretty hard! I can assure you that after about 6-7 hours of working on the wall (which furthermore is much slower than the tempo in which professional masons work in!), the both of us went home with back pains! Below is a photoshop visualization of a facade with my brick pattern. As you can see, it looks almost completely different once you add some windows and doors to the pattern, bringing it to life in a real-life situation (best seen in full screen):

Even though I didn't get to work with the material I wished to work with, I still got a valuable lesson from the masonry course. First of all it is a material I wouldn't often choose to work with, meaning that I wouldn't learn much about it, so I'm glad I got to learn more about it in case I were to use it in a project some day. Another important thing I learned, is that we as architects can often get really comfortable in front of our desks, sitting with a cup of joe and designing buildings in an office, while forgetting that builders at site are doing a really hard work to build our visions to life. I have learned of the hard work that takes place in the building process (at least that of masonry), and I'll remember it as a reminder that we should also mind conditions and challenges that real-life on-site workers must face in order to make our projects realitys.

P.S. We have just started on our new project today, and on that occasion, we're going to be spending the next three days on the small island of Hven (an island between Denmark's Zealand and Sweden). Expect a post about the trip and the new project when I return.

- Andy Minchev

PAPER STRUCTURES

As our four weeks of architectural technics workshop continue, this week, we are working with buildings' construction - load bearing and such. Our lectures on the subject are accompanied by minor projects (usually two or three day projects really), which test our understandings of the whole engineers' point of view. As our first mini project assignment for the week, we were to design a load-bearing structure entirely out of paper.

The assignment was more specific than that though. We were to design a load-bearing paper structure out of no more than two A4 sheets of paper, and a single 5cm piece of string. This structure was afterwards to be placed on a 25cm gap - Like a bridge if you will - And attempt to carry as much weigth as possible, before collapsing. Having had a quick introduction to paper as a material, we quickly learned that it is stronger than one would expect. I would have shown photos of our design to make things easier, but unfortunately I didn't have my camera with me on the day, and my cell phone has issues uploading pictures - So instead, above and bellow are our concept sketches (we were in a three student group, if I didn't mention this before). We started off by attempting to build a triangular bridge structure, which obviously had potential, but wasn't strong enough yet. After that, we tried a round tube, which made great use and strength of the paper, but still lacked some stability. Having tried both ideas, we decided to shove the tube into the triangular structure in order to make an unstable exterior structure, while maintaining a solid, strong interior structure (as illustrated above). The structure was added a thin paper "line" to the construction, where a hook could hang for the weights that were to be placed, and also so that the pressure from the weights is sent to the massive structure, furthering its strength.

The result was a highly efficient load-bearing structure. During the try-outs today, it did rather well - It managed to hold 6,5 kilograms before collapsing (our paper construction weighed no more than 10 grams!). In other words, our paper structure was able to hold 650 times its own weight! Unfortunately our structure didn't score first prize amongst the different paper structure made by the other groups. We managed to get a 4th place among about 14 groups. The 2nd and 3rd place went to two structures that had a similar concept to ours, but apparently ones that were more stable. The first place went to an entirely different concept, and I must admit, one that was most impressive. It went to two boys who had made a spider-like structure that rested its columns on the edges of the gap - Thus concentrating the pressure created onto four different points. They used solid, massive paper columns on a vertical plane, which dramatically strengthened their structure. It went on to hold about 20kg! The known record is assumed to be 28kg at the architectural school, while our workshop teachers claimed that paper structures created by professionals have managed to hold weights at about 50kgs! This excersise has really been a huge eye-opener for me on the subject of paper constructions. Having always had an interest in the works of architects such as Shigeru Ban, I am glad to finally have a clear understanding of the potential of paper, and who knows, perhaps I might try out working with it some day.

Further reading:

- http://www.shigerubanarchitects.com/

- Andy Minchev 

A TOUR OF 8-TALLET

This week, we were assigned to find a room or space in Copenhagen, which we were to analyze in terms of lighting conditions, accoustic conditions, etc. This project is for a minor presentational poster we are to make by Monday, which is part of our current workshop (Technology). The field work was to be done groups of three. Our group decided to visit some of the new apartments in Bjarke Ingels Group's (BIG) 8-tallet (8-tallet is Danish for "the number 8" - referring to the shape of the complex). In order to visit the apartments, I contacted the entrepreneur of the building (and also BIG's VM-apartments and the VM-mountain in Ørestad, Copenhagen). Per Høpfner as he is called, agreed to give us a quick tour of the building yesterday morning, as well as give us a new perspective about architect and entrepeur relations.

The mentioned Mr. Høpfner, was a rather interesting character. His looks were those of the stereotypical Hollywood capitalist, followed by a matching personality and attitude. At first sight, it was clear to see that he was a no-time-for-nonsense type of person, getting straightly and directly to the point with things. He gave half an hour of his rather busy work time to wander around the building and into some of its apartments, while also acting as a tour-guide. I'll have to admit that I've never before experienced such a hasty tour, and the things we were told weren't lengthy stories of how the building came to be as one would expect, but rather straightforward facts.

The most interesting part of the tour was not so much the building itself from my point of view, but rather the comments and facts that were told by the mentioned Per Høpfner. Being an entrepreneur, he naturally focused a great deal on the economic elements of the architecture. Among the many things he managed to tell us during the tour, was that it is really important for architects to stay realistic when it comes to the construction budget - a thing that from his own experience, can often be rather problematic. Many of his other comments were also focused on economical aspects, and being more focused on design and such, I instinctively disagreed with many of his oppinions. But then again, entrepreneurs are the people paying for architects' projects, so like it or not, you're going to have to stay realistic with their demands. Being a first year student, I have yet a long way before having to face entrepreneurs, but since the architectural school doesn't have an obligatory economical course, Per Høpfner's views have thought me an early lesson of having to mind economic realitys when the time comes for such matters. I'm futhermore very grateful for the kind Mr. Per Høpfner who found time in his busy workday to give us the tour. Thank you!

Further reading:

- http://www.8tallet.dk/

- http://www.hopfner.dk/

- Andy Minchev

3D COURSE

We just ended a three week 3D course last week. The 3D course focused on SketchUp and a renderer called Maxwell, as well as how to best upload traditional drawings in a mix with traditional 3D rendering, and a quick photography course as well. Most of us in my department have been using SketchUp for quite a while now, so besides som minor tips and tricks the course was basically a revisit to the elements of the program that we know. Of course there were also some who were new to the program as well. 

Now having said that much of the material in the course wasn't all that new to most of us, I have rather few things to showcase in this post. Since my renderings are nothing new (they look a whole lot like the pictures I took for my Light and Sound Art Center project - link to the project is at the bottom of this post), I've decided to show some other illustrations I've made instead. I have before done technical illustrations of projects as I believe I also have uploaded here on the blog, but since another important theme in this course was to experiment with personal styles in illustration of a project, I decided to try to make shaded and textured sections instead of traditional ones. I furthermore gave the illustrations some artificial soft shadows in Photoshop to give the illustrations a sort of 3D feeling and an illusionary depth.

As I also mentioned, we worked with the renderer called Maxwell (link bellow as well). Now as far as I understood, this renderer those a great effort to mimic a real-life camera. This is also very clear in its render adjustments and options. It seems indeed to be able to create photo-esque renderingers and many real-life camera adjustments such as aperture, shutter speed and ISO values are adjustable. Furthermore it is really quite easy to use - Even for more advanced settings it seems to be rather user-friendly. But then again comes the necessary evil. If I've experienced something, it's that almost all such programs have their issues, and this one is certainly no exception. The greatest problem with Maxwell is its ridiculousy slow rendering speed! 

I spent an hour for each image, and even after that sort of time, photographic grains plagued most of the renderings! Now I now that almost all renderers are required a great amount of time before the pictures rendered look really good, but never have I experienced a renderer as slow as Maxwell! That said, it really ain't worth the time if you ask me! I used to work with V-Ray and that worked just fine, being MUCH faster than most renderers and especially Maxwell! I do have to admit, that I am still in the fase of searching for a good CAD program and a good rendering program, but I guess that is quite normal for a first year student to be wondering about.

Further reading:

- http://andyminchev.blogspot.com/2011/01/light-and-sound-art-center.html

- http://www.maxwellrender.com/

(P.S. I'll be sorting Courses under Workshops since I believe they sort of fall in the same category in our sense of work)

- Andy Minchev

WORKSHOP: BEE-QUARIUM

Shortly after our Bicycle Shelter project was complete, we had a workshop week at the architectural school, in which three different architects, from Denmark, Sweden and Norway respectivly, were invited to give us three different types of assignments, all focusing on our speciality: Sustainable architecture. All five education years (bachelors and masters) participated in the workshop week, and we were divided into three greater groups - one for each architect. Once in our groups, we were furthermore scattered into six minor groups, each focusing on different assignments within the main assignment. Our assignment leading architect was Cord Siegel from Hauschild-Siegel Architects.

The greater theme of our project, was to create an agriculturally productive building, that also includes 12 apartments for agriculturally interested citydwellers (urbanfarmers). The six different groups were given different assignments based on different types of agriculture. My group was given a rather different type of production, that is usually not very common amongst urban agricultural structures - An urban apiary and honey production building. Our group quickly learned the frightening facts of the amounts of plants needed to produce but the slightest amounts of honey (it takes several hundreds of thousands of flowers to produce less than 30kg of honey pr. season!), and therefore we decided to furthermore divide ourselves into yet two smaller groups. The idea of this, was that one of the groups would focus on a realistic production of honey and bee's wax, placing large apiary systems amongst living quarters in areas with vast ecological areas, while the other group would place no more than a single beehive, and create a structure that exhibits the ridicilous amounts of plants needed to support honey and bee's wax production in just a single hive!

In order to fit the 100.000's of needed plants and flowers, the easiest solution for us, was to plant them in a vertical direction, where the entire exterior facade is covered in vegetation. Amongst the 50 meter high vegetational tower, are 12 prefab apartment units of the size 120 square meters, placed between the vegetational planes, and sticking out from the structure. The irony of our structure, is that despite focusing on sustainable design, our tower can be said to be quite the opposite! In order to just water the plants, we have had to use just about every possible technology of water purification to be able to reuse water, so that ridicilous amounts of watering water is nulified. Our structure gathers rainwater, reuses all of the structure's water usuage - even graywater, and last but not least, it even gathers the plants' dew and evaporation! All these methods are used, so the building's bees have enough plantation to be able to produce no more than 35kgs of honey pr. year!

We have furthermore fixed an elevator and staircase system within the vegetational skyscraper, that allows the inhabitants to move freely through the structure in bee-free isolated areas. Each apartment floor furthermore has its own garden area, which is also isolated from the bees, and where the dwellers have direct access to bridge systems that follow the buildings facade, where the inhibatants can take care of the plants, and also admire the many bees  (just about 10 bees pr. square meter) that roam trough the un-isolated areas (assuming it's a structure for beekeepers, we believe that the inhabitants would have interest in observing the bees).

To sum things up, our project was, well, in many ways rather extreme. Our sister group that focused on a realistic honey production, that fortunately create a functional structure that managed to create several tons of honey and bee's wax pr. year, so perhaps it is a realistic productional concept. Our group however, intentionally aimed at failing a realistic production, since our focus was rather to illustrate to the public, how much vegetation is actually required for mere 35kgs of honey! As a matter of fact, our bee hive stands at the floor level of the building, in a way that it stands almost as a sacred relic, illustrating how much bees actually work, to produce so little. Of course, such a structure is ridicilously unpractical, and far from realistic, but the challenge of making such a project function in a "sustainable" manner, was the greatest lesson to be learned!

- Andy Minchev