| Words of Architecture.... |
| ArquiTalks |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2008 ArquiTalks. All Rights Reserved. |
SUMMARY
After writing my previous reflections I moved to work with the units and their relationship to
accessibility. I went around the neighborhood and took pictures of different units’ thresholds.
Subsequently, I started looking at those using sections, but the information I collected was
minimal. The results were incomplete because I was just staying in the main entrance without
taking into consideration what happens after the thresholds. Looking to gain better information
for my design process I worked with diagrams to establish the relationships I needed. I looked
at activities and spaces to determine a better path of action. I found that in order to design
functional thresholds I had to design the whole transition between the spaces beyond them. I
decided to rearrange my proposal once again and work with lots and units in conjunction.
I observed that the connection between the unit and the lot creates a space that needs to be
defined. I named those “access spaces” because they allow connectivity between the main
parts. The access spaces are the areas in my investigation that need to be re-designed in
terms of accessibility. Another characteristic I discovered was that access spaces are often
semi-private (semi-public) areas. Therefore, activities will occur with and without the need of
planning. In the lot/unit access space the most common activities are (1) in/out of residents, (2)
mail collection, (3) trash collection, (4) announced visitors, (5) casual meetings, and (6)
leisure. These activities created a relationship for me to focus my work more because they
serve as markers for the areas to design.
After one week of ups and downs I understood the challenges of Design as Research and
the importance for flexibility in the process. Ideas normally come when we are not expecting
them and we need to be willing to incorporate them in the process. I finished the week with a
concrete area of investigation called “access spaces” and the activities that happen in terms of
lot and units.
I started the second week of design at the library. I found a book called Between the Edges
written by Milos Bobic in which he discussed (1) the relationship between street and block, and
(2) the interaction between house and street; both topics helped me to see ways to show my
findings diagrammatically and with a sense of reference. After this, I went back to the
neighborhood and took pictures of the different units concentrating in main entrances and front
yards. I collected over 100 pictures and I divided them into five groups with their correspondent
subdivisions (based on pedestrian and vehicular paths) in order to create a design typology.
The first group was ground level entrances and it had 5 subdivisions. Group two was ramp
entrances and had 3 subdivisions. Group three was front porches and had 9 subdivisions.
Group four was stepped entrances and had 6 subdivisions. And the last group was multi unit
entrances and had 3 subdivisions.
With this system in place I started creating diagrams to represent their plan views, view from
the street, thresholds and paths. I ended up with 26 categories with 4 diagrams each. I found
similar patterns and took design decision that will affect my end product, i.e. the need for
connective paths. Unfortunately, after this process, I concluded that I need to find a way to
bring my research back to a more manageable scale and a new way to design the existing
pedestrian and vehicular paths. The plan I presented during material investigation (peer
review) for the following week was to create proposals to develop accessible entrances for all
twenty six subdivisions. I can only say, it did not happen.
The third week started with divine intervention. It was suggested to create a chart looking
diagram to redefine my findings. It really helped me understand the discoveries I did during the
previous two weeks. I kept four groups (1) ground level entrances, (2) ramp entrances, (3) front
porches, and (4) stepped entrances, but I reduced the subdivisions to four per group. The four
charts had the same type of diagrams (a) unit in lot, (b) paths, (c) view from the street, and (d)
thresholds. After all this diagramming I needed a creative break. I went out and took pictures
of the sidewalks and streets I will be using for week number five. I also found the neighborhood
lot map which allowed me to understand the current block configuration and the redevelopment
plans for Military Highway; which includes the Norvella Heights area.
Then back to diagramming…I created three design patterns out of the groups’ charts. The
first one was accessible main entrances “zero-step”. The zero step entrance allows easy
access to the house without the need of constant help. I proposed two ways to achieve these
entrances (1) level terrain, and; (2) landscape integration. The second pattern was separate,
but connected paths, in which I integrated the ramps and paths to the parking areas. The third
pattern was path and sidewalk connections in which an activity area serves as a connector. I
will set all patterns together to create the accessible neighborhood concept around week nine.
Another area I worked during this week was the lot distribution. I looked at the neighborhood
configuration and identified different block types then, I selected two blocks that helped me
developed the patterns above. I kept the main entrances in relation to the main street and
decided not to create a mew or alley. I found out that these decisions will need more process
to be justified and maybe incorporated in a modified way. With this I can say that week three
was a long and creative week. I was able to start establishing the patterns to use and bases for
my final concept.
Week four started at week five. I had to create a section related to my thesis for a theory
class. So, I started working in what I had schedule for week five. I created a cross section in
which I created an accessible street gutter. It allowed for water infiltration in the driveway areas
and easy transition from the street to the driveway apron. I did multiple diagrams to investigate
and design this section. I also, went out and took the measurement of the current gutters,
depth and overflow. Then, I moved back to week four to work in the development of models for
my patterns proposals.
I started measuring one unit and lot to have a starting point. I created various digital models
to show the level terrain pattern. I was able to create a ramp/landscape integration model in
which I develop the three previous patterns. I then moved to physical models. I decided to use
foam core and clay in order to transfer the digital models. Everything worked fine until the
model dried up. The foam core absorbed the humidity of the clay and the base bend. At the
same time, the clay cracked and the paths were no longer defined. I tried to create all clay
models, but they were not to successful. Some may consider this a modeling issue and not an
accessibility one, but I think is part of my design as research and should be included. Also it
helped me conclude that the scale needed to be at least 50 % of the original in order to make a
visible reference because I was trying to investigate the need of terrain changes in order to
develop the accessible entrances.
I set the physical modeling work aside and started working on a suggestion I received from
two different sources. I selected three blocks in the neighborhood and took pictures of them.
Then I mapped them in relationship to their entrances and paths. This opened the opportunity
for block development and community interaction. I created different ways to increase the
interaction of the neighborhood based on their pedestrian and vehicular paths. I even
integrated the use of alleys/mew in one of my solutions. The restructuration of these blocks
allowed me to create accessible areas that are independent and active too.
Time to back track...When looking at my work development I realized I have some areas that
needed more consideration. The other day I had a magic realization I was trying to redevelop
the Norvella Heights neighborhood. Now, I understand the big picture. I need to use the
neighborhood as a guideline to design the intrinsic elements that will create an
intergenerational neighborhood. I have to study the relationships of the area to determine the
needs of the community based on accessibility. Then, those concepts can be applied to
Norvella Heights and any other neighborhood in order to create accessible neighborhoods.
When I mention accessibility I am not only referring to 1:12 ramps and 1/4” entrances. I am
talking about the concept of accessibility as areas that can be used by anyone regardless of
their age or disability. I see the concepts of my investigation in a diagrammatical perspective
and not as a technical exercise. As architects we learn many ways to react to accessibility and
there are many codes and books that go into great details of how to achieve the minimal
standards. In this quest, I am proposing accessibility as an important component in order to
create an active community. The overall experience can be created when combining the
minimal standards and the real needs of the community.
As I mentioned before, I was planning a bonus part for my investigation with the integration of
my Spring Travel class to Prague. In the Czech Republic, I had the opportunity to share my
passion for urban spaces with a great group of colleagues. It was a fascinating experience to
travel with lower classmates and professors and be able to all agree on topics of design. I paid
close attention to issues of accessibility when in the city and discovered a great pedestrian
fabric. I can say that accessibility is currently invisible in Prague and that it’s residents are
accustomed to treating people with disabilities and/or mobility issues equally. I observed that
elements of accessibility like ramps and curbs do not looked standardized. They are part of the
streetscape and everyone is able to use all the spaces freely. Prague is an active city and a
great area for investigation, but it was time to go back and continue my research.
Week six was a turning point for the investigation. With midterms and travel in the past, it
was time for the last efforts. I went back to basics and looked for sources and previous
researches about community development. I visited the Congress of New Urbanism website
and other firms that work with the same issues. I was looking for a way to express the findings I
have. Also, I was investigating my place in the realm of urban design. I identified the areas I
studied and the difference with current publications. I found minimal information in relation to
intergenerational communities and ways to integrate accessible areas to existing
neighborhoods. Therefore, I think is my responsibility to work with those areas.
The progress continued with week seven and the application of my findings to Norvella
Heights. Like I mentioned before, I am not developing the neighborhood. I am using its current
mainframe to create a set of characteristics that can be used in the design of accessible
neighborhoods. I created diagrammatical examples for block configurations and relations
between lots. All these attempts helped me to understand the areas that need to be
redesigned.
By week eight I was ready to start developing those characteristics into a more coherent
system. I set them starting with the district area and finishing with the street. The street in this
investigation was the turning point in the neighborhood sections. It was the area in which the
elements started repeating and the relationship presented similar issues with the next block.
This process continued during the last week of investigation creating a group of identifiable
elements that constitutes the intergenerational neighborhood. This together with the
characteristics of accessible spaces formed the perfect environment for the elders to
participate on the life in community.
accessibility. I went around the neighborhood and took pictures of different units’ thresholds.
Subsequently, I started looking at those using sections, but the information I collected was
minimal. The results were incomplete because I was just staying in the main entrance without
taking into consideration what happens after the thresholds. Looking to gain better information
for my design process I worked with diagrams to establish the relationships I needed. I looked
at activities and spaces to determine a better path of action. I found that in order to design
functional thresholds I had to design the whole transition between the spaces beyond them. I
decided to rearrange my proposal once again and work with lots and units in conjunction.
I observed that the connection between the unit and the lot creates a space that needs to be
defined. I named those “access spaces” because they allow connectivity between the main
parts. The access spaces are the areas in my investigation that need to be re-designed in
terms of accessibility. Another characteristic I discovered was that access spaces are often
semi-private (semi-public) areas. Therefore, activities will occur with and without the need of
planning. In the lot/unit access space the most common activities are (1) in/out of residents, (2)
mail collection, (3) trash collection, (4) announced visitors, (5) casual meetings, and (6)
leisure. These activities created a relationship for me to focus my work more because they
serve as markers for the areas to design.
After one week of ups and downs I understood the challenges of Design as Research and
the importance for flexibility in the process. Ideas normally come when we are not expecting
them and we need to be willing to incorporate them in the process. I finished the week with a
concrete area of investigation called “access spaces” and the activities that happen in terms of
lot and units.
I started the second week of design at the library. I found a book called Between the Edges
written by Milos Bobic in which he discussed (1) the relationship between street and block, and
(2) the interaction between house and street; both topics helped me to see ways to show my
findings diagrammatically and with a sense of reference. After this, I went back to the
neighborhood and took pictures of the different units concentrating in main entrances and front
yards. I collected over 100 pictures and I divided them into five groups with their correspondent
subdivisions (based on pedestrian and vehicular paths) in order to create a design typology.
The first group was ground level entrances and it had 5 subdivisions. Group two was ramp
entrances and had 3 subdivisions. Group three was front porches and had 9 subdivisions.
Group four was stepped entrances and had 6 subdivisions. And the last group was multi unit
entrances and had 3 subdivisions.
With this system in place I started creating diagrams to represent their plan views, view from
the street, thresholds and paths. I ended up with 26 categories with 4 diagrams each. I found
similar patterns and took design decision that will affect my end product, i.e. the need for
connective paths. Unfortunately, after this process, I concluded that I need to find a way to
bring my research back to a more manageable scale and a new way to design the existing
pedestrian and vehicular paths. The plan I presented during material investigation (peer
review) for the following week was to create proposals to develop accessible entrances for all
twenty six subdivisions. I can only say, it did not happen.
The third week started with divine intervention. It was suggested to create a chart looking
diagram to redefine my findings. It really helped me understand the discoveries I did during the
previous two weeks. I kept four groups (1) ground level entrances, (2) ramp entrances, (3) front
porches, and (4) stepped entrances, but I reduced the subdivisions to four per group. The four
charts had the same type of diagrams (a) unit in lot, (b) paths, (c) view from the street, and (d)
thresholds. After all this diagramming I needed a creative break. I went out and took pictures
of the sidewalks and streets I will be using for week number five. I also found the neighborhood
lot map which allowed me to understand the current block configuration and the redevelopment
plans for Military Highway; which includes the Norvella Heights area.
Then back to diagramming…I created three design patterns out of the groups’ charts. The
first one was accessible main entrances “zero-step”. The zero step entrance allows easy
access to the house without the need of constant help. I proposed two ways to achieve these
entrances (1) level terrain, and; (2) landscape integration. The second pattern was separate,
but connected paths, in which I integrated the ramps and paths to the parking areas. The third
pattern was path and sidewalk connections in which an activity area serves as a connector. I
will set all patterns together to create the accessible neighborhood concept around week nine.
Another area I worked during this week was the lot distribution. I looked at the neighborhood
configuration and identified different block types then, I selected two blocks that helped me
developed the patterns above. I kept the main entrances in relation to the main street and
decided not to create a mew or alley. I found out that these decisions will need more process
to be justified and maybe incorporated in a modified way. With this I can say that week three
was a long and creative week. I was able to start establishing the patterns to use and bases for
my final concept.
Week four started at week five. I had to create a section related to my thesis for a theory
class. So, I started working in what I had schedule for week five. I created a cross section in
which I created an accessible street gutter. It allowed for water infiltration in the driveway areas
and easy transition from the street to the driveway apron. I did multiple diagrams to investigate
and design this section. I also, went out and took the measurement of the current gutters,
depth and overflow. Then, I moved back to week four to work in the development of models for
my patterns proposals.
I started measuring one unit and lot to have a starting point. I created various digital models
to show the level terrain pattern. I was able to create a ramp/landscape integration model in
which I develop the three previous patterns. I then moved to physical models. I decided to use
foam core and clay in order to transfer the digital models. Everything worked fine until the
model dried up. The foam core absorbed the humidity of the clay and the base bend. At the
same time, the clay cracked and the paths were no longer defined. I tried to create all clay
models, but they were not to successful. Some may consider this a modeling issue and not an
accessibility one, but I think is part of my design as research and should be included. Also it
helped me conclude that the scale needed to be at least 50 % of the original in order to make a
visible reference because I was trying to investigate the need of terrain changes in order to
develop the accessible entrances.
I set the physical modeling work aside and started working on a suggestion I received from
two different sources. I selected three blocks in the neighborhood and took pictures of them.
Then I mapped them in relationship to their entrances and paths. This opened the opportunity
for block development and community interaction. I created different ways to increase the
interaction of the neighborhood based on their pedestrian and vehicular paths. I even
integrated the use of alleys/mew in one of my solutions. The restructuration of these blocks
allowed me to create accessible areas that are independent and active too.
Time to back track...When looking at my work development I realized I have some areas that
needed more consideration. The other day I had a magic realization I was trying to redevelop
the Norvella Heights neighborhood. Now, I understand the big picture. I need to use the
neighborhood as a guideline to design the intrinsic elements that will create an
intergenerational neighborhood. I have to study the relationships of the area to determine the
needs of the community based on accessibility. Then, those concepts can be applied to
Norvella Heights and any other neighborhood in order to create accessible neighborhoods.
When I mention accessibility I am not only referring to 1:12 ramps and 1/4” entrances. I am
talking about the concept of accessibility as areas that can be used by anyone regardless of
their age or disability. I see the concepts of my investigation in a diagrammatical perspective
and not as a technical exercise. As architects we learn many ways to react to accessibility and
there are many codes and books that go into great details of how to achieve the minimal
standards. In this quest, I am proposing accessibility as an important component in order to
create an active community. The overall experience can be created when combining the
minimal standards and the real needs of the community.
As I mentioned before, I was planning a bonus part for my investigation with the integration of
my Spring Travel class to Prague. In the Czech Republic, I had the opportunity to share my
passion for urban spaces with a great group of colleagues. It was a fascinating experience to
travel with lower classmates and professors and be able to all agree on topics of design. I paid
close attention to issues of accessibility when in the city and discovered a great pedestrian
fabric. I can say that accessibility is currently invisible in Prague and that it’s residents are
accustomed to treating people with disabilities and/or mobility issues equally. I observed that
elements of accessibility like ramps and curbs do not looked standardized. They are part of the
streetscape and everyone is able to use all the spaces freely. Prague is an active city and a
great area for investigation, but it was time to go back and continue my research.
Week six was a turning point for the investigation. With midterms and travel in the past, it
was time for the last efforts. I went back to basics and looked for sources and previous
researches about community development. I visited the Congress of New Urbanism website
and other firms that work with the same issues. I was looking for a way to express the findings I
have. Also, I was investigating my place in the realm of urban design. I identified the areas I
studied and the difference with current publications. I found minimal information in relation to
intergenerational communities and ways to integrate accessible areas to existing
neighborhoods. Therefore, I think is my responsibility to work with those areas.
The progress continued with week seven and the application of my findings to Norvella
Heights. Like I mentioned before, I am not developing the neighborhood. I am using its current
mainframe to create a set of characteristics that can be used in the design of accessible
neighborhoods. I created diagrammatical examples for block configurations and relations
between lots. All these attempts helped me to understand the areas that need to be
redesigned.
By week eight I was ready to start developing those characteristics into a more coherent
system. I set them starting with the district area and finishing with the street. The street in this
investigation was the turning point in the neighborhood sections. It was the area in which the
elements started repeating and the relationship presented similar issues with the next block.
This process continued during the last week of investigation creating a group of identifiable
elements that constitutes the intergenerational neighborhood. This together with the
characteristics of accessible spaces formed the perfect environment for the elders to
participate on the life in community.