A Ritual Language

A Ritual LanguageKaitlyn Cabana

A Ritual LanguageKaitlyn Cabana

dedication

I would like to dedicate this document to my family and friends who have supported and been my rock through

this long journey. I have met some amazing people through this experience and know those friendships are here for a

lifetime. I would especially like to thank my parents and brother who

have been so understanding of the rigor of this education and sponsored my endeavors. I Love you all!!!

“A Ritual Language”

1 A Ritual Language

Master’s Project Chair

Committee Members

A Ritual Language

A masters project presented to the University of South Florida School of Architecture and Community Design as a

partial requirement for the Masters Project for the Masters of Architecture.

Documentation By:

Kaitlyn Cabana

Steve CookeProfessor of Architecture

University of South Florida Tampa, FL

Chadaphan HanwisaiProfessor of Architecture and Project Manager of USF


Stanley RusselProfessor of Architecture


A project studying the interactions of people within a common space.

Fig.1 Master’s Project Poster

Fig. 01Fig. 02Fig. 03Fig. 04Fig. 05Fig. 06

Fig. 07-10FIg. 11Fig. 12Fig. 13Fig. 14Fig. 15 Fig. 16Fig. 17Fig. 18Fig. 19Fig. 20Fig. 21Fig. 22Fig. 23 Fig. 24

Fig. 25-27

Fig. 28-30

Fig. 31-32

Fig. 33Fig. 34

Fig. 35-38Fig. 39

Fig. 40-42Fig. 43

figures

Master’s Project Model PosterCentral Park Fountain ObservatioryCentral Park BenchPeople GatheringPeople of New YorkProximity MapsDistance, Personal Space ConstructDistanceRound Table Rectangular TableRitual Diagram Memorial TreesSolitude, Personal SpaceMemorial ReflectionsBryant Park Pre- BPC blog.bryantpark.orgBryant Park NowTransportation SeatingLibrary SeatingTraffic http://www.radialsblog.com/Suburban Street www.merqurycity.comPhoto-collage showing proposed housing, garden, and church Rendering for Living Rooms at the Border Concept Collage http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/smallscalebigchange/projects/casa_familiarMain EntranceGarden Area with Children’s PlayChildren’s Play http://www.archdaily.com/157899/hssu-early-childhood-parenting-education-center-luchiniad/undercourt2/Multiple ViewsEntrance http://www.archdaily.com/57339/surry-hills-library-and-com-munity-centre-fjmt/Parti Preschool SketchDiagramsPoe Garage MapProcess ModelUSF Fine Arts Map

Fig. 44-46Fig. 47Fig. 48Fig. 49Fig. 50Fig. 51Fig. 52FIg. 53Fig. 54Fig. 55Fig. 56Fig. 57 Fig. 58Fig. 59Fig. 60Fig. 61Fig. 62Fig. 63Fig. 64Fig. 65 Fig. 66Fig. 67Fig. 68Fig. 69Fig. 70Fig. 71Fig. 72Fig. 73Fig. 74Fig. 75Fig. 76Fig. 77Fig. 78Fig. 79Fig. 80Fig. 81Fig. 82Fig. 83

Site AnalysisParti

Layered SpaceMateriality

Charratte PlanDivisions of Space

Transparent EntranceProcess Section

Entrance PerspectiveAdult PerspcetiveChild Perspective

Filtering Multiple ViewsFiltering LevelsChildren’s Play

Filtering ConstructIndustrial Intervention

DeteriorationProcess ModelProcess Model

Process Section ModelProcess Model

EntryEntry Model

Entry Section ModelChildren’s Path

Cross SectionEntry Garden Rendering

Entry Sketch ModelGarden Trees

Communal Garden RenderingLongitudinal Section

Garden DetailFinal Model

Ground FloorModel Plan Diagram

Second FloorFinal Model Final Model

Introduction 1

Defining “Language” 7

Case Studies 17

Elements 21

Precident Studies 25

Concept 31

Design 39

Conclusion 53

Table of Contents

AbstractVisiting the City with a Floridian

Background to our own Language

PeoplePublic Space

ProximityDistance

The New DowntownRitual

World Trade Center MemorialBryant Park and New York Public Library

TerritoryTechnology

Casa FamiliarHSSU Early Childhood and Parenting Education Center

Surry Hills Library and Community Center

ConceptPreschool For Creative Learning Visit

MethodsChildren

Elderly

Site SelectionProgram

Design ElementsProcess Models

Final Design DevelopmentConclusion

2A Ritual Language1 A Ritual Language

abstractintroduction

peoplehistory

public spaceproximity

the new downtownritual

territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase

distanceconceptmemory

filtertime

pedestrian path occupantvehicular

transparency perspective

layeringresearchchildren elderly

precedent language

observationsite

abstract

Space can be considered the universal language of humans and animals. We have developed these ideas of space, distance, and territory that can be deciphered by others through this common language. We inherit these interactions through our parents and grandparents, as well as observing the people in our communities. How did these gestures that we know as simple handshakes as greet-ings or clapping as an acknowledgement, continue to be common practice for everyone? Animals and people alike offer these characteristics of territory, boundary, memory, and procession that can be mapped to describe the place they are occupying. A space always reveals the patterns of the people who dwell within it, because even after they are gone, the ‘ghost’ of them lasts within the space. When you remove all of the sidewalks and leave people to navigate on a ‘blank canvas’ how will they choose their path and where will their paths be created. Some consider taking the short-est distance to make it to their desired destination, others explore the possibilities. Whichever way, we are all creatures of habit, and once we develop a way that works, we tend to continue on that path. We form these habits in the way we inhabit buildings and our ideas about them, so this is why buildings are becoming more and more uniform. Stud-ies have been conducted based on the way people react to architecture, which also causes many common building types to look the same. When you approach an architectur-ally designed building, for example the Publix Supermarket in Miami Beach, FL, that appears to be a very exciting and different experience than an average supermarket, and walk inside and see it looks like every other supermarket, you are deceived by its appearance. What if our knowledge of people and space were translated into a building? Meaning, we take these interactions people want to see, or experi-ence and change the way a public space is designed. Cre-ating a space where people of all different backgrounds, age groups, and family backgrounds can interact.


Fig.2 Central Park Fountain



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

Visiting the City with a Floridian

While on my recent trip to the ‘Big Apple’ with my mother I noticed a lot of things through just her experiences with people and the place. I brought her to Times Square, Central Park, Grand Central Station, and the 9/11 Memo-rial. In every place you can tell the residents from the tour-ists and every ones purpose for being there. Times Square is distinctly a tourist area because everyone is crowding the streets with cameras in their hands. The proximity to all the “touristy” shopping districts, theater, and the morn-ing television news networks is all in this area. People walk very slow in this area as they try to navigate the streets and where they are going, frequently stopping in the middle of the sidewalk to double check their direction. The speed of people walking in Central Park was similar, although you could tell the people were residents by the confidence in the way they walked. Central Park is not based on a grid, but organic trails, so finding your way through the park can be difficult. While in the park, a little boy said to his mom that she was walking the wrong way, his mom said back, “no we are walking the right way” and the little boys said back to her, “no mom we are not walking towards the playground.” I had no idea where I was in that park and I had a map in hand, so it is amazing how a 3 year old could figure out the park on his own. I experienced the same thing on the sub-way leaving Grand Central, A little girl started crying to her mom because she knew that the line we were riding meant she was going home and she didn’t want to go home, she wanted to ride the Purple line to somewhere else. It is amaz-ing how observant and knowledgeable kids are with regards to their location. While walking through the streets and taking in the scenery someone said, “You need to learn to walk like a New Yorker.” I didn’t want to be seen as a tourist though it was probably obvious to many that I was. My mom did not want to feel like she did not belong either, so that idea stuck with her, she was more willing to walk faster and ride the subway after that. When you think about it, we all go to a place to buy into their lifestyle; we want to experience what makes that place a place, and why people go there. No matter how fast we walked we could not keep up with


those “New Yorkers”; their lifestyle is just too fast paced for a Floridian. In Florida we rarely walk outside and when we do we

walk slow to not work up too much of a sweat or to not tire ourselves too much. We rarely have the opportunity to walk because of our proximity to things. Our cities are so spread out, and rarely do all your needs reside within the same city

block, like places in New York. My mom could not believe the distance we covered each day, and we constantly

counted the number of blocks we walked or rode past in the subway, which made her appreciate public transportation. In vacations past, we have stayed within blocks of the hotel in Time Square and only leaving by taxi. Going to different cit-ies and countries offers us exciting experiences we cannot get from our homes. We get in these routines at home that prevents us from trying new things in our own areas. Being

in a new place forces us to learn about the people, place, and rituals of the area.

Fig.3 Observatory



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

introduction

The purpose of observing people within spaces is to determine how the architecture can influence the way people actually use the place. For example, you park in the same place every day so you remember where you parked when going back to find your car. We walk the same way to a destination because we know the path that we are taking. By taking the same path we know where the sidewalk is off and cause a trip, where we may get hit by rain, and where trees offer enough coverage for shade. These rituals to the way we conduct the smallest details of our life influence the bigger picture of how we experience situations. Do we walk fast, slow, along a building or among the shade? While observing space you can recognize all the patterns that people make and how their experience can in-fluence how you experience the space. We all demonstrate patterns to the way we move through a building. These pat-terns can be seen as rituals based on the environment we have grown up within. In our daily lives we subconsciously move about without even having to think about what actions and what we are conversing to others. Some of our actions may have not just started with us, but stemmed from past generations and evolved with us. The way you walk explains much about the way you think and our process of finding our way. If as a child, you walked by something that either scared or would injure you, the next time you walked by that same place you will be more cautious. We find these memo-ries repeating in our actions for years after. Many elements come into factor when analyzing why people walk, drive, or come in by bus to a place. The expe-riences that they may have are different each way, and will change the aspects of journey in which they see. People, place, proximity, and distance all play a major role in the rea-sons why we go to places; they are place-making factors, reasons why places are successful. Our personal reasons for going to a space depend on these elements to all be in place. People and distance are reasons for us developing our rituals and patterns. The exploration of these ideas will further explain how we can build spaces to suit different age groups and people, and personalize the buildings we are building to suit their needs.


Fig.4 Central Park Bench



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

people

To study people is best done by watching people and taking their actions into consideration when developing a space. People are most likely the best way of understand-ing the culture of the area and the types of activities that will take place within the space. As Herman Hertzberger said, “The architect too must watch what people do. Yet sadly, all too often architects seem interested in buildings but not in their occupants.” (Lawson, 2001, pg. 9) We explain to oth-ers a lot about ourselves by our actions. Hopefully, these ac-tions are not overlooked by architects or other key players in the design because they are important in designing for our activities. The book Reading People by Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, Ph.D explains how to determine human characteristics from simply the places that they inhabit, “...Your environment is a rich source of information about your personality, values, and lifestyle.” (1998, pg. 77) The home and work is where we spend the most amount of our time. How we spend our time shows certain things to outsiders about our lives, Jo-Ellan Dimitrius explains. If you have a long commute or no commute it describes whether or not your job is the center of everything in your life or your family. “A person’s environ-ment can reveal a clue about her job, education, hobbies, religion, culture, marital, and family status, political affilia-tion, friends, priorities and wealth.” (Dimitrius, 1998, pg. 77)

“A Ritual Language” When we find free time from home and work, the places we choose to spend time is very revealing about the

space and our personality. The people we tend to go to or share space with are also similar to us, like the saying,

“Birds of a feather flock together.” Women with small chil-dren would not normally be out at a bar late on a weekday on a regular basis because the people that are out at bars on a weeknight do not have the same lifestyle or values as

a mother of small children. We go to places because we either want people to think we are a part of that group or

that is who we are, like the country club, you spend time at the country club if that is the neighborhood you live in, or the friends or clients you associate with. (Dimitrius, 1998)

People may use different areas of a city or activities to as-sociate with different groups of people.

Fig.6 People of New YorkFig.5 People Gathering


and residences are closer together forcing you indirectly to interact with your neighbors. The television and technology

keep people more isolated and at home than in the parks and playfields.

Public places are also becoming less public because more and more buildings are forced by codes and ordinanc-

es to build places of refugee, but are restricting the use of these areas. Many of the open plazas and space in between

buildings that resembles parks and public spaces is actu-ally privately owned. In the text from The Value of a Public

Space, the authors Carr, Francis, and Stone (1992) suggest that the reasons people fear public spaces is because of

the attraction that ‘undesirables’ or ‘deviant’ users have to a place. Most privately owned spaces hire security guards

and will remove anyone that does not belong. The text even suggests the values of public space that we do not find in

privately owned spaces. Most of our interactions with the outdoors is only for necessary activities that we must perform. We rarely find

ourselves participating in any optional or social activities unless the factors are right, according to Jan Gehl(1987).

Weather and shading have a huge role in the use of public spaces. People are more likely to go to a public place if they are familiar with the environment and understand it is a safe

place to go. The most successful public spaces have acces-sibility, activities, comfort, and social ability. They find that

places are very unsuccessful if there are no places to gather, poor visibility, useless paths, dead zones or blank walls, lack of activity, and fear of the street. Even when walking people

want to feel comfortable by seeing what is ahead. People want to feel safe with windows and doors that break up the walls of buildings they walk by. (Madden & Schwartz, 2000)


peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

public space

We demand a lot from the spaces we occupy whether it is our home, work or even a public space. In an airport we expect there to be seating, food, shops, and outlet stations to charge and work on our computers.. In every space we expect for it to be a comfortable temperature, and for us to have the option of seeing and hearing people. As Bryan Lawson said in his book, The Language of Space, “...We need space to help us to feel right about our current situa-tion.” (2001, pg. 15) Bryan Lawson also quotes in his book, Dutch Architect, Aido Van Eyck, “Whatever space and time mean, place and occasion mean more. For space in the image of man is place, and time in the image of man is oc-casion.” (2001, pg. 23) The more time we spend in a space the more comfortable we become with the interactions within the space. Public spaces are different for everyone because it depends on your culture how you use and inter-act within them. Most of our research about people and their inter-actions with space comes from observing them in a public place. When William H. Whyte studied public plazas in New York City he developed a set of rules for designing a place for people to occupy outside of the office or home. He suggested that all good public spaces had the following six characteristics: moveable seating, sun, water, trees, food, and the street. When outdoor areas lack certain things more people are likely to perform their activities inside. People also need people to be within a space because people like watching people, we like to see people interacting, and us-ing facilities to feel comfortable in a space. When people move out of the city and into the sub-urbs the ideas of public space change. We not only become isolated to only using the automobile for our transportation but also lack the closeness to sidewalks and parks, es-sential to fostering outdoor activity. When we start to have backyards and private swimming pools our connection to the public park and recreation center grows further and fur-ther away. We rely less on those public areas for space for activities when everything is in the convenience of our back-yards. The difference is, downtowns usually offer a variety of needs within a short distance from each other,




peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

proximity

I grew up in Alva, a small town of roughly 3,000 people, east of Fort Myers, Florida on the Caloosahatchee River. When my family would want to go pick up milk at the grocery store it was a twenty minute drive each way, and there is only two restaurants within a twenty minute radius of our house as well. I went to a high school 30 minutes from my house and my friends lived within 30 minutes to one hour away from school as well. My parents chose to raise us in this small city, but everything any of us did was in Fort Myers. My relationship with the car was completely different then when I moved away for college. I would bring every-thing I could possibly need with me for the day just in case i made plans while at school because there was not an op-tion to run home to pick up anything. Moving to Tampa and living in the USF area, I was not used to having five or more restaurants to choose from for lunch or having a grocery store that I could walk to if I desired. The short distance I am from just the basic things, like grocery store or convenient store changes the way I use my car. The density of New York City to Tampa is not comparable. The basic needs for any New Yorker is within walking distance of their residence, and they technically do not need to move far past a two block radius of their apartments for anything. The car is so relied upon in Tampa because no one is willing to walk the distance to just get the basic necessities because of the distance between them. Tampa can also not compare with the density of an urban city because of the amount of strip malls for shop-ping instead of the mixed use dense blocks of downtowns. The necessities of the family, such as banks, post office, grocery, schools, and hospitals are what we strive to have our residences near. In both New York and Tampa traffic is a problem, but in Tampa the car is unavoidable, where you can use public transportation in New York City and other urban areas. The suburbs have caused us to get in our cars and hurry home to beat traffic and then stay home to avoid any more time in the car.

“A Ritual Language” The proximity maps explain the distances of the

basic needs of a person to a specific location on the map. New York and Portland are both the urban cities tested and compared to a Tampa suburban area and the University of

South Florida. The New York, Portland, and Suburban map are all drawn to the same scale to show how different each city is, while USF is zoomed in to express the convenience

of everything to campus.

Fig.7-10 Proximity Maps



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

distance The distance in which you travel to something changes the amount of things that provoke your senses and your attachment to the place. Traveling as a pedestrian offers a different experience than driving in a car. When you walk past a block of shops and restaurants you can see the textures of the clothing, the details of what is in the shop, and the smells of the food. In a car driving you get a com-pletely different experience, You have to imagine what the stores and food are like; you have to somewhat guess what is happening or what the building occupies. While driv-ing you see the people walking along the side walk from a distance so you know what people are occupying this area. In a car you are isolating yourself from the area, as you ob-serve from a distance. The distances people place between themselves and other people and areas is not accidental, we position ourselves with a comfortable distance to the next person. Birds also keep an equal distance from each other as they fly in packs. We understand the appropriate distances from another person in all situations, as Bryan Lawson said, “...The distance between people are seldom accidental or arbitrary,” distance gives us the ability to detect members of our species. (2001, pg. 101) The idea of territory comes into effect when you think of appropriate distance between people. When we violate a person’s “personal space” by bumping into them on the sidewalk we apologize. In a crowded elevator we ignore eye contact even though we acknowledge that there are people inside at close proxim-ity to each other. We normally do not let anyone into our personal space unless they are close to them or invited. As humans we generally have a fear of touching people, and we have a fear of being too close to a stranger. Our per-sonal and social space is only really entered by a person in a relationship, a parent with their child, children with anyone, and doctors and other health personnel. Children in general have no perception or concern for personal space, and have no fear of invading others. Within a social space, an ex-ample of close contact would be a hand shake or greeting; the distance between them would be comfortable enough to have a normal conversation. In night clubs or in loud spaces, the social distance is less than normal so that

“A Ritual Language”a conversation can be carried on even between two strang-

ers. When going out to dinner with a group of friends to

all catch up you normally only have the opportunity to talk to the few friends at your end of the table. The distance and

number of people makes it difficult to have a conversation with a person at the other end of the table. The distance in which we can have a conversation is only a few feet away

from us and only small talk can happen with people past the people sitting right around you. The seating arrangement

depicts the conversations to be had. The people to the sides of you are harder to have conversations with because of the way your body is positioned. The perfect position for

a conversation is sitting across from each other. (Lawson, 2001) While sitting across from each other you can easily

see non-verbal communication and hear the conversation. Bryan Lawson refers to the round table as the best for hav-

ing conversations or a dinner party because it foster the idea of bringing people together.

The idea of an urban space creating places for people to gather was created by the continuous seating of Gaudi’s Barcelona Parc Guell. The seating is arranged

in a “S” fashion allowing people to have a more private interaction within the concave section, while more coexist-ing seating happens within the convex area of the shape. Urban areas allow for these spontaneous places to gather and the areas to gather. People who choose a more soli-tude experience sit in the less busy areas that allow them to observe the interactions of others or keep to their own business. (Lawson, 2001) William H. Whyte discusses in

his documentary the difference between men and women in public situations; men like to stand near the street amongst all the action, while women stand more inward in a plaza for

quiet observation. The distances studied between people, and the differences men and women take in public space

explains how we form these relationships to environments.

Fig.11 Distance, Personal Space Construct

Fig.12 Distance

Fig.13 Round Table

Fig.14 Rectangular Table



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

ritual

There is a unspoken ritual to the way people inter-act with and within a space. For example, when you go to your neighborhood church you understand the procession, where to sit and how to act within the space; it is the same when going to another church in another country. The basic traditions of a church are the same no matter the location, and you understand where to sit and how to act within, even if you do not understand the language. The same goes for Libraries, you understand how to act within a library and the basic knowledge of how to locate books and navigate the space. “Not only is redundancy necessary to produce architectural style, it also acts in a rather more fundamental way to make space readable and understandable.” (Law-son, 2001, pg. 78) Most building types are translated to other cultures with the same importance and ritual. The most important thing about architecture is mak-ing it recognizable, and not making it look like something it is not for people to understand it. We can recognize a public space versus a private space by just looking at the building based on how inviting the building looks, and if the en-trance is pronounced. We need to recognizable ‘cues’ that explains the building is a restaurant and not an auto parts store. “...There are different social rules applying in different settings,... to a certain extent, then, we find it necessary for a library to look like a library and not a nightclub.” (Law-son, 2001, pg. 99) Architecture has a common personality among different building types. Sometimes, just by where the building is in the downtown offers cues to what occu-pies the building. People also develop rituals within their daily life, such as the side of the bed you wake up on, the way to the kitchen, and your morning commute to work. Most of these actions are so mundane that we do not have to put much thought into what we are doing and where we are going. We can even find ourselves going through the ritual of getting ready for work out of habit of doing the activities daily. “...Whatever we do as we move around and position ourselves in space may result in communication even if we do not intend it.” (Lawson, 2001, pg. 128) People create this lan-guage within their routines that helps you understand their


priorities, and these routines rarely change amongst a single person.

Southern universities, such as Auburn, that have a deep sense of tradition can be seen through the fans. Young

and old, the fans know that it is a ritual to not walk across the school seal on the ground. When people come to the seal they split to walk around the area. You can see large

groups of people walking, and like a “school of fish,” split to open around to the school seal. At Notre Dame University,

football players always tap a sign above the locker room door on their way out to the stadium that says, “Play like a champion today.” The tradition of always doing something

before a game ensures that the team will have a chance at a good game. For sports fans it is even hard for them to

watch their favorite team in another stadium because the people who share the common feeling for the team are not there and the familiarity is not there. People develop these territories of their space and find that the traditions of their

team are not portrayed.

Fig.15 Ritual Diagram


Project:

Location:

Program:

Area:

Year of Design:

Client:

Project by:

Description:

World Trade Center Memorial

Lower Manhattan, New York

Memorial, Reflection Ponds, Garden, Museum, and Visitor Center

16 Acres

2003

9/11 Memorial Foundation

Michael Arad, ArchitectPeter Walker and Partners, Landscape Architect

The memorial is a public place of mourning for people all over the world. Following the falling of the Twin Towers in 2001 a design competition was proposed to seek a design for a memorial for the site. The competition was global and included more than 5, 200 entries. The design being currently developed at the site of the towers is two re-flection pools where the base of the towers met the ground. The reflection pools are lined with every name of the victims in the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the World Trade Center attacks in the past. The area is built for reflection and as a memorial. Gardens of trees and benches surround the remainder of the block. Visiting the site is a very surreal area and example of a public space with very private activities. Most of the guests visiting the area walk through in complete solitude and just take in the information. The Gardens are rarely used because people are so consumed in the names along the fountains and the waterfalls in the middle. The guests are also only able to walk along the hardscape and not along the trees and grass in the area focusing all the attention on the prominent feature of the fountains.

Proximity and Public Space

Fig.16 Memorial Tress Fig.17 Solitude

Fig.18 Memorial Reflections


Project:

Location:

Program:

Area:

Year of Design:

Client:

Description:

Bryant Park and New York Public Library

Midtown Manhattan, New York

Public Park City Block, Plaza, Market, Public LIbrary, Restaurant

New York City Block

Original Design 1884; 1992 Redesign Reopened

Bryant Park Restoration Corporation

The original design of Bryant Park didn’t offer much safety and security to its occupant. The area was secluded from the rest of the street by a wall that lines the perimeter. By having this wall conceal the park, undesired activities increased in the park and made spots within it very danger-ous. A desired characteristic of most public spaces is seeing your entrance and exit before even entering the space; it is this idea of transparency, so that people feel safe within the area they are entering. Bryant Park was redesigned in the late 1980s to bring life back to this square. The walls were removed and a large lawn was placed in the center. Moveable structures are within the park for craftsmen to set up shop and sell their goods and food. During the winter the park is transformed to an ice skating rink. Movies are played on the Lawn during the summer. The Rockefeller Company funds for sanitation and security to keep the area clean and safe for the occu-pants.

Proximity and Public Space

Fig.19 Bryant Park Pre-BCP

Fig.20 Bryant Park Now

Bryant Park now allows for a number of differ-ent functions. The Park can easily transform through the seasons; from a ice skating rink in the winter, to a movie theater on the lawn in the summer.



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

territoy

Being the newcomer into a space is harder than coming to a situation where everyone is new. Every semes-ter in the University of South Florida’s architecture studios the rooms are emptied of students work and the desks are pushed to the wall. On the first day of each semester every student comes in to claim their spaces and claim their desks. Every year the studio transforms into a dif-ferent space; the way each arranges their combination of desks and tables is different from who was previously in that room. People also become territorial of their space and box themselves in sometimes were people cannot reach them without crawling over something. On the other hand when you get a new job where everyone is already established it is much harder to develop your own territory. Most of the time it is easy to find out which desk is yours, but when you enter a communal space which space is yours? At a meeting or in the break room you can easily sit in the wrong seat unknow-ingly. People establish a space that is known to everyone in these situations that have been theirs from the begin-ning. You find in lunch spaces or even classrooms as well; when you have an abundance of seats available, you tend to choose the same seat because of familiarity and conve-nience. While observing people in certain situations in both New York and in Florida , I have found that Floridians are more hesitant to interact with others or share space. Sitting in a restaurant in Times Square, the tables were so close that I knocked elbows with the lady next to me while she ate her food. The tables were six inches or less apart and you had to move your table to either side just to get into the seats. In Florida, restaurants spread their tables out, which could be because of the square footage of usable space is much larger and there are fewer people occupying a space in Florida. At the JFK airport the tables were normally spaced in the cafeteria and there were many of them, yet when a table that could fit four people was only occupied by one or two others would join in and sit at the table without asking if the seats were taken. In the Tampa International Airport this would rarely happen or would be strange for the person previously occupying the space.


People even establish their space in public places where the space is not limited to its activities. In the docu-mentary by William H. Whyte, we see people using these public plazas and parks in New York City and other major

cities. He shows an example of a man who sees an empty movable chair about three feet from another person, the

man takes the chair and moves it slightly to the side, maybe a few inches, and then sits down, obviously claiming his

space. The slight move of the chair was not necessary but the act demonstrated that the man was now determin-

ing where we was sitting was his claimed space, sort of a “social ritual” for us. (1979) Another example is when a

homeless person claims a bench in a park, the man sits at one end of the bench but leaves his belongings on the

ground in front of the empty seat next to him, he is suggest-ing that this is his space and that no one else can enter his

area. The diagrams represent some territory examples in

a library and on public transportation. The seating arrange-ment at a library express different relationships that happen

at the table; collaborative, coexisting, or conversational seating relationship depend on the seat the second per-

son chooses at the table. In a transportation situation, you express willingness to open your area to others if sit in the

inside seat. By sitting in the outside seat and leaving the person to walk over you to get to the other seat, expresses to others that you are not willing to share your row. Many of these ideas were from Bryan Lawson’s book The Language of

Space. (Lawson, 2001)

Fig. 21 Transportation Seating

Fig. 22 Library Seating



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

technology

Technology has changed the way we interact with people because it is something that we have developed as important in our social lives, it is also something we demand from a space. We have less and less face to face contact and people spend more time on our cell phones than with the people. These methods of technology restrict our acknowledgement of who we are with when we are in the present, causing us to be very distracted by the people in our phones. Even though technology has over powered physical contact, people are still displaying these non-verbal ways of communication with people while not really speak-ing with them. “The language we use to communicate through bodily gestures in space and occupation of space is a powerful, subtle, and complex one.” (Lawson, 2001, pg. 129) Some cultures use many hand gestures to describe or help them get their thoughts out. When people talk on the phone they talk the same way, using gestures to the empty space in front of them. Our most common form of communication, emails and text messaging, offer no feel-ings and emotion; these can be heard in a person’s voice when they are speaking on the phone, but can be missed or misinterpreted when being typed out in an email. People are becoming more likely of having a conversation with others through technical devices. People generally go from work to home in their cars, they do not usually know their neighbors and have small interactions with people in stores or restaurants. Some technological features have brought cities together though, such as mass transportation which forces people in cit-ies like New York or Boston from all forms of society to be together and travel to similar destinations. In the documen-tary, Urbanized by Gary Hustuit, they discuss how the bus and public transportation have a bad image. People look at public transportation as something made for the poor. (2011) Florida has given public transportation this similar description of being for the poor because there is not an incentive to use it and we are all in need of cars because the transportation is also very spread out.


Fig. 23 Traffic

Fig. 24 Suburban Street


Project:

Location:

Program:

Area:

Year of Design:

Client:

Project by:

Description:

Casa Familiar

San Ysidro, California

Affordable Housing with Community Centers, Multiuse indoor and outdoor spaces.

14,000 Sq. Ft. Plan

2011

Non-governmental, Non-profit Casa Familiar. Client base for the community would mostly be Spanish speaking Immigrants

Estudio Teddy CruzTeddy Cruz, ArchitectCesar Fabela, Jesus Fernando Limon, Rastko Tomasevic, Megan Willis and Associates

The community is built in the Southern part of Cali-fornia to encourage flourishment of its residents by having markets and what the architect calls, “Living Rooms” on the ground level. The Community is based off the changing fam-ily dynamic and encouraging the grandparent/ grandchild relationship. The housing is senior living with childcare within on the upper floors of the development.

Children and Elderly Community

Fig. 26 Rendering for Living Rooms at the Border

Fig. 27 Concept CollageFig. 25 Photo-collage showing proposed housing, gardens, and church


Project:

Location:

Program:

Year of Design:

Client:

Project by:

Description:

HSSU Early Childhood and Parenting

St. Louis, Missouri

Early Childhood Education (6 weeks- 5 years)Parenting EducationUniversity Research Building

2009

Harris- Stowe State University

LuchiniAD

The program of this center on the Harris Stowe State University (HSSU), is for both Early Child education, Parent-ing Education, and places within the building for these two groups to be together. Since the building is on the campus the students of the education department attend classes, and participate within the building with children. The children’s area consists of classroom and play areas. The building sep-arates the two groups by having two different entrances. The children enter through the side of the building that faces the parking and street, also called the community entrance. The students enter through the opposite side of the building. The center of the building contains a courtyard for the children to play in. The building takes up the entire site so there is no outdoor landscape except for the interior outdoor space. The outdoor courtyard space separates the two age groups which organizes the program. The two functions then meet in the center where they can interact together or ob-serve. The children’s spaces are located around the center courtyard, while the supporting system and University Edu-cation system revolves around the exterior.

Education Center

Fig. 28 Main Entrance Fig. 29 Garden Area with Children’s Play

Fig. 30 Children’s Play


Project:

Location:

Program:

Area:

Year of Design:

Client:

Project by:

Description:

Surry Hills Library and Community Center

Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia

Library and Community Center with Public Park

8192 Sq. ft / 770 Sq. m

2007-2009

Altus Page Kirkland

Francis- Jones Morehen Thorp

The project is built in an urban area, with a diverse community of age and culture. The site is also constricted to the roads that surround it. “The Project’s brief was developed in close con-sultation with the very active local community. The key approach that emerged from these discussions was that the community wanted a facility that everyone could share. Rather than only a library or a community centre or childcare centre, it became clear that it was important to have all of these facilities together in one building, one place.” The architectural theme for the building was “transpar-ency” and has large windows and openings that allow for the community to see the activities happening within. The building being a public building wants to express the “values of the community” which are accessibility, openness, trans-parency, and sustainability. There is also an outdoor public space designed by landscape architects as a grass lawn. To Support the values of the community, louvers were used to not only control sunlight but views as well. The program of the building contains a collec-tions library, public access computers, function facility for the community with verandah, teaching kitchen, and two childcare classrooms. The building is completely controlled by a computer system that monitors the amount of light and ventilation coming through the building. The louver system moves to allow more or less light in and the switching lights on and off when needed.

Multiuse control space

Fig. 31 Multiple Views

Fig. 32 Entrance



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

concept

Companies have been using the way people interact in a space and the knowledge of peoples to their advan-tages when building a successful place. Stores have learned the pattern of the average American shopper, who will shop right to left in a counter clockwise motion. The doors and stores have been laid out to reflect our natural patterns. The stores that cater to this pattern have done better in busi-ness than stores who tried to deflect the way people want to move throughout a store. A study was even conducted to change the pattern in which people shop and have the shoppers enter a door on the left, using the registers as not only a block for the right door but also forcing the shoppers to move clockwise. These stores either found themselves unsuccessful or shoppers going out of their way to start at the right side and move around. In other places though shopping patterns can be found to be different, such as the British, Australian and Japanese shoppers tend to go the opposite way and shop clockwise, most likely based on the way that they drive. Another study of hospital waiting rooms showed that more people are willing to interact and communicate with each other in the seats were not fixed. A waiting room with fixed seats forces people to choose seats that may make for awkward or strange interactions. Many people also become defensive by sitting in a seat and placing their bag or book on the seat next to them communicating to us that they do not want someone sitting there. While in places where the seats could move, a nurse would find the chairs in clusters where people formed small groups so that they could talk to each other. The hardest way to communicate to another person is by sitting next to them. (Lawson, 2001) Studies have also been conducted on the changes of spaces and people’s reactions and changes in behavior. When the people are exposed to the color red, they are better at figuring out problems that require attention to detail or accuracy. People with exposure to the color blue were better at performing more creative tasks. (Lehrer, 2011) An-other experiment was performed that showed how people were able to solve problems in different types of rooms. The results of Joan Meyers- Levy’s experiment exposed that people who were placed in a low ceiling height room were


able to solve mathematical problems while people with a high ceiling were able to come up with more creative an-

swers. (2007) The design of a building has a direct effect the way

we are able to interact within a space. If we can design places that promote these interactions between people and the space they are in, then we can invent new interactions.

Different age groups interact differently to space and we normally make generic spaces to accommodate to all ages

even if that is not how it will be used. Although, there are many that would benefit from the interactions with other age

groups at these developmental or changing years and the design of spaces specifically to their needs. While children have pre-school areas to grow they are ultimately learning

the same way as elderly people are in senior homes. By combining the two groups within a space they can teach and help each other during this critical time in their lives.

Fig. 33 Parti



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

Preschool for Creative Learning

The Preschool caters toward the University Parents that are either working or are students. Student who attend the preschool are placed in one of the four classrooms de-pending on their age level and maturity. The children are also enrolled in either part time or fulltime care. The full time stu-dents eat meals and nap at the facility. The building originally contained an Exploratorium in the main classroom with three classrooms adjacent and a covered patio. The Exploratori-um is now a classroom for the oldest group of children. The large ceiling in the middle allows for echoing of the children’s voices, and makes the thirty students in the room sound like many more. The large classroom of four to five year olds has four teachers with many education student helpers. The smaller rooms are made up of two, three and four year olds. The smaller class rooms are limited to fifteen students maxi-mum. The school runs on two teachers per fifteen students and has two support staff operating office and visitor area. Paula de Silva, the director of the Preschool, in-formed me about the layout of the school and the previ-ous color scheme for the classrooms, was primary colors. She said that the red room was especially difficult for the students because of the intensity the color represents. The school recently changed to a neutral color pallet to create a ‘comforting and homey environment.’ Each classroom is full of family pictures of each child to remind them of home as well. The teachers strive to make each room as interactive and stimulating as possible with many activities throughout the day to keep the children’s attention. Recess is held outside in a large open field that has many play centers to climb on and bicycles to ride. The students at this point are mixed with other classrooms and have this outdoor time multiple times a day. Most of the activities are no more than 15 minutes at a time, except for recess is 30 minutes at a time. Although, there is an abun-dance of balls and outdoor equipment to play with, most of the children gravitate to the trees and dirt to digging; they use their imaginations to make the trees leaves into anything imaginable and pull on the sticks to make things out of.

University of South Florida While visiting the preschool I notice a lot about what

children need in a building. We rarely think about a child’s needs when developing a space, but the furniture, windows,

sinks and countertops all have to be built to the size of a child. Children do a lot of play on the floor and sometime

need individual alone spaces to escape from the over-whelming activities of the classroom. Play, snack time, and

nap time spaces are all needed as well within one class-room. Spaces designed for children encourage their creativ-

ity and development in learning.

Fig. 34 Preschool Sketch

35 A Ritual Language


peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

children

Designing for a specific age group requires attention specifically to what caters to their development. Children need spaces that promote being social with all age groups. As a child, they are learning how to move and use their bod-ies to get around in a space, to build muscles, and test their strengths. Children have imaginations and short attention spans. Spaces must be designed to accommodate their ways of learning. (Lawson, 2001, pg.368-369) Designing for children can be specific for age groups as well. Catherine Fishel wrote a book called Designing for Children, that gives cues to how to design for all stages of child development. She says in her book that the design can promote self-esteem development and reinforce chil-dren’s ability to succeed on their own. “An effective design for a child respects their intelligence. It tells them some-thing about the outside world or about themselves.” (Fishel, pg.11) Children from the preschool seemed to prosper when they were hands on in the activity to learn how to do it by themselves rather than watching the teacher the whole time. Nature is also a very influential part of childhood de-velopment. According to the Building for Life book by Stephen R. Kellert, he write, “The Child observes many normal and abnormal events in nature, helping him or her progress from simple acts of identification and classification to more com-plex conceptualizations and predictions.” (Kellert, pg. 69)Children are participating in less outdoor play then in years past, and technology is becoming more important. The outdoors explains time as in growth of plants, and the sun’s movement to children. Children also learn about seasons and can participate in active play that is not encouraged in indoor facilities.


Children 2-3 year oldEnvironment:

Stimulating EnvironmentSize Appropriate Furniture

Beginning MobilityLearning Based Play

Smaller Groups

Development:Gaining Independence

Defining Boundaries


Stimulating EnvironmentSize Appropriate Furniture

Learning Based PlayActive Play

Development:Gaining Independence

Defining BoundariesMastering Mobility


Stimulating EnvironmentUnrestricted Space

Active PlayLearning Based PlayDefined Boundaries

Development:Expanded Vocabulary

Social Skills

Fig. 35-37 Diagrams



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

elderly

Designing for elderly people requires attention to details and space configuration. For elderly, smaller spaces are ideal because of the decrease of mobility for many. Elderly people are going through a developmentary stage of their life where they are not able to complete certain tasks or have to move differently than before. Spaces for the older generations really need to be designed to reflect the daily usage of the space and users. Designs should be clearly un-derstood so that aging eyes can determine space areas. The NCARB defines that the largest impacts of de-signing for elderly is their loss of balance, cognitive impair-ment, loss of strength, visual and hearing impairment, and sensitivity to temperatures. Simple designs can help with the balance of the elderly along with single story structures. Open floor plans and less hallways allows for the under-standing of spaces, and the blending of indoor and outdoor spaces. Elements that trigger memories will also help a person develop wayfinding ideas about the building. The exterior is also very influential in the develop-ment of spaces for the elderly. Places outside that feel like rooms are easier understood, along with offering views into all the different spaces. Elderly have limited mobility which means designing more meaningful path are better for out-door designs that lead directly to destinations. The NCARB promotes the use of plants that provide seasonal changes to bring people the awareness of cycles of life. Bryan Lawson says, “Old people need old people, but they also need the young; and young people need contact with the old.” (Lawson, 2001, pg. 216) There is a natural tendency for age groups to be clustered in certain areas which causes elderly to live in senior facilities; new areas typically are home to new families with children, where children do not have elderly people living in their neighbor-hoods. Mixing age groups and having everyone in a com-munity is beneficial to every ones development.

“A Ritual Language”Elderly

Environment:Stimulating Environment

Unrestricted SpaceOutdoor RoosSocial SeatingSafe Furniture

Development:Mobility

Navigation Memory

Fig. 38 Diagram


“A Ritual Language”site selection

Site 1:

Location:

Area:

Description:

Sanders Public Library Extension

Tampa, Florida

2000 Sq. ft

Located in an Urban area on the outskirts of Downtown and adjacent to the new Encore project for lower income fami-lies. The Library is fairly small already and is connected to the Booker T. Washington Elementary School by aluminum roofed sidewalks.

Site 2:

Location:

Area:

Description:

Poe Garage Extension to Glazer Museum

Tampa, Florida

2000 Sq. ft

Located in an Urban area of Downtown and adjacent to the Glazer Children’s Museum and Tampa Art Museum. The parking garage spans over the railroad tracks and connects to the upper floors of the building. There is only two levels of the parking garage that span the site. Although there are not many families living in downtown many parents bring their children to the museum or park daily.

Site 3

Location

Area

Description

site selection

University of South Florida CoTA Lawn

Tampa, Florida

28,500 Sq. ft.

The site is locate on the University of South Florida near the center of campus. The surrounding campus buildings are a gallery, fine arts facility, and the music building. The

Southern edge of the site is the great lawn on campus. The campus was designed based on a very orthagonal grid, but as the campus has developed students have carved

diagonal paths within the lawn and created paths to the new buildings.


Fig. 39 Poe Garage Map Fig. 40-42 Process Model

Fig. 43 USF Fine Arts Map


site selection

Site 4:

Location:

Area:

Description:

University Research Park

Tampa, Florida

Proposed amongst an already proposed Research Park in the South- West corner of the University of South Florida Campus. The site is adjacent to one of the main entrances of campus as well as a HART line Public Bus stop. The accessibility to the public as well as the campus is offered within this site. The site is also adjacent to the University’s Botanical Gardens to accentuate activities within the new proposed building’s gardens. The adjacency to the gardens provides for an interaction between both the children and the elderly in this space. Outdoor activities are important to all of our development and connecting these educational activities to a greater garden space is very ben-eficial to this new research center. The proposed buildings for the site are a part of medical and engineering research, making this research center as an influential and similar building type.


Fig. 44-46 Site Analysis Fig. 47 Parti


program

Description:

Type of Project:

The space will provide for a combined space for both elderly and young children as they can interact and act separately. The space will be a place for research of the interactions of two different age groups, with the combined interaction of a research facility for students of the university to observe. The idea behind the space is to gradually com-bine the two groups into a central area where they elderly and children can interact together. The premise behind the project is that more and more children are being raised by someone besides their parents. Most of the time children are being taken care of by grandparents while both parents are working full time jobs. There is a strong relationship between a child and their care taker and an importance of that grandparent figure in their lives. The program created accentuates this bond between the two age groups and al-lows for them both to function on their own.

Two Story Community/ Research CenterTotal Square footage: Interior: 10,750 Sq. Ft. Research Space: Office: 710 Sq. Ft Classrooms: 2000 Sq. Ft Restrooms: 495 Sq. Ft Exterior Observation: 240 Sq. Ft Administrave Lobby: 200 Sq. Ft Exterior: 240 Sq. Ft Interior: 4000 Sq. Ft. Children and Elderly: Combined Lobby: 440 Sq. Ft Garden Area: 2440 Sq Ft Children Space: Outdoor: 200 Sq. Ft Indoor: 2,500 Sq Ft Children classrooms: 1,930 Sq. Ft Lobby: 200 Sq. Ft. Administration: 100 Sq. Ft Restrooms: 260 Sq. Ft. Outdoor space: 200 Sq. Ft.

Researching Interactions

Elderly Space: Outdoor: 560 Sq Ft Interior: 2,770 Sq Ft Elderly Rooms: 2,260 Sq. Ft. Lobby: 182 Sq. Ft. Administration: 182 Sq. Ft. Restrooms: 144 Sq. Ft. Outdoor Space: 560 Sq. Ft.

Fig. 48 Layered space

Fig. 49 Materiality

Fig. 52 Transparent EntranceFig. 50 Charrette Plan Fig. 51 Division of Space

Fig. 53 Process Section



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

design approach

The idea of filtering comes into the design as the two groups are filtered into this common space from the outside. Each age group has its own entrance into the building which allows for a separation of program for the first few stages of the research. Both age groups have different demands from a space. The accessibility to the site is thru car from the north or pedestrian from the south. The Site being situ-ated amongst the College buildings will add an extra layer of people within the space. The professors and college students interacting with the space will greatly affect the research aspect of the building. The entrance is the same for both age groups, but along the path they are separated branching off to their separate areas. The children have the longer path to get them acclimated to the space and familiar with their environ-ment, as their parents are dropping them off for the day. The two groups would share a common space inbetween their buildings that would be a garden. The garden is another layer to the idea of filtering. The classrooms are lined with glass so the occupants can look into the garden space and see into each other’s rooms. The plants in some areas of the site come up above the windows providing some privacy and protections for occupants to have sepa-rate individual spaces.


Fig. 54 Entrance Perspective

Fig. 55 Adult Perspective

Fig. 56 Child Perspective



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

design approach“A Ritual Language”

Fig. 57 Filtering Multiple Views

Fig. 58 Filtering Levels Fig. 59 Children’s Play


design approachFiltering of old and new within a space.

The Design of the porject is based on the devel-opment of these filters. The filter represents the bringing together of two different groups of people. Time, memory, size, and location all filter our idea of spaces. As the chil-dren and elderly are transitioned into this space they find themselves going through different experiences that repre-sent the functions to happen in those places. The construct represents this filtering as something old and new is brought together and manipulated to form something new.

Fig. 60 Filtering Construct

Fig. 61 Industrial Intervention

Fig. 62 Deterioration


design approach“A Ritual Language”

The design is to have the research center overlap-ping the children’s wing. The research center is along the road and offers an added layer of protection to the children within the facility. Anyone to enter the children or elderly wings must enter the main entrance. The research center overlooks the interior garden to observe the interaction that may happen between the elderly and the children.

Fig. 63 Process Model


Fig. 65 Process Section Model



Main Entrance Garden The Main Entrance garden is created to allow both the children and elderly a place of relaxation before they enter the group spaces. The seating around the gardens is a place for refuge and for the children to sit with their parents before entering into the common space with other children.

Fig. 67 Entry

Fig. 68 Entry Model

Fig. 69 Entry Section Model

55 A Ritual Language

Children’s Path

The image depicts the experience a child would have walking to one of the two classrooms. The children space would be open to all views and promote light coming in to guide the path.

The section is of the children rooms and research center relationship. The research center overlooks the gar-den below as the children and elderly interact.

Fig. 70 Children’s Path

Fig. 71 Cross Section


Elderly Garden View

Fig. 74 Garden TreesFig. 72 Entry Garden Rendering

Fig. 73 Entry Sketch Model


Communal Garden

The Communal Garden was created to influence the interaction of the elderly and children within this research

center. The Garden functions as a learning area for the two groups and large group gathering. The space can be trans-

formed into many different activities. The garden is also a place where the occupants can experience the outdoors

and have a connection with the gardens across the street.

Fig. 75 Communal Garden Rendering

Fig. 76 Longitudinal Section Fig. 77 Garden Detail


Ground Floor Plan

The plan depicts the three distinct sections of the building and the relationship to the interior garden space. The “filtering” gardens are also presented in texture to show how they influence the surrounding building.

Ground Floor1_ Classroom

2_ Research Lobby3_ Children’s Classroom

4_Children’s Outdoor Play5_Administative

6_Lobby7_Garden

8_Entry Garfen Seating9_Elderly Garden Seating

10_Elderly Outdoor space11_Group Space

12_Meeting Room13_Event Space

14_Kitchen

1

2

3

4

35

6

8

76

5

5

9

1011

12 14

13

10

10

Fig. 78 Final Model

Fig. 79 Ground Floor


Second Floor

The plan depicts the three distinct sections of the building and the relationship to the interior garden space. The “filtering” gardens are also presented in texture to show how they influence the surrounding building. The research centers influence with the garden space is present in this drawing.

Second Floor1_Classroom

2_Lobby3_Administrative Offices

4_Outdoor Viewing Platform5_Conference Room

6_Outdoor Garden

1

2

5 43

6

1

Fig. 80 Model Plan Diagram

Fig. 81 Second Floor



peoplehistory



territoryintimate

publicsun

technologycase


filtertime




precedent language

observationsite

Conclusion

The process of designing for two different age groups simultaneously is difficult because of the demands of each from a space. Bringing both the elderly and the children together within a space is logical because the two groups are going through some of the same developmental changes. Hopefully the two can teach each other different aspects of their lives. Children have this ability to absorb so much information so easily that they can help teach elderly these new technological advances that have developed. Nature is one part of life that the elderly can not feel overwhelmed about. While gardening in this space and learning about the outdoors, the elderly and children can share stories. The elderly move slower so I can see them sitting in the covered area and watching the children play. By functioning within the same space the two age groups can help each other, the elderly’s quality of life would increase by being involved in social and interactive activities. Children would gain a respect for nature as well as their elders; many children are from unique family situations that does not in-clude grandparents, so they never have that experience with a grandparent. The studies and research completed are represented within the building through the areas of the entrance, pro-cession, and views. The precedent and case studies have been influential in the development of these areas and the ultimate idea for this building type. People have developed these interactions and languages to the ways in which they move through a space and it is important for generations to experience the diversity of people. The Research Center is a prediction for a new form of care for our elderly and children to improve our understanding of the other ways of teaching and continuing education through different stages of life.


Fig. 82 Final Model


Films and Documentaries:

Books:

works cited

1. Shaefer, S. C. (Director). (2006).Contested streets [Documentary]. United States: Cicala Filmworks.2. Greene, G. (Director). (2007). Escape from suburbia [Documentary]. United States: s.n.].3. Klodawsky, H. (Director). (2009). Malls r us [Documentary]. United States: Icarus FIlms.4. Whyte, W. H. (Director). (2005). The social life of small urban spaces[Documentary]. United States: Direct Cinema Ltd..5. Hustwit, G. (Director). (2012).Urbanized [Documentary]. United States: Plexifilm.

1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Lan-guage: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press2. Bon, I. (2012). Designing library space for children. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.3. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (1992). Chapter 1: The Value of Public Space. Public space (pp. 3-21). Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press.4. Dimitrius, J., & Mazzarella, M. (1998). Scanning the Environment: Seeing People in Context. Reading people: how to understand people and predict their behavior-- anytime, anyplace (pp. 76-102). New York: Random House.5. Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Chapter 1. Loose space: possibility and diversity in urban life. London: Routledge.6. Fishel, C. M. (2001). Designing for children: marketing design that speaks to kids. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport.7. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.8. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension([1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.9. Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.10. Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space. Oxford: Architectural Press.11. Madden, K., & Schwartz, A. (2000).How to turn a place around: a handbook for creating successful public spaces (p. 16-77). New York, NY: Project for Public Spaces12. Maxwell, L. E. (1998). Designing child care settings: a child-centered approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension :.

1. Arreletes Day Care Centre/ Xavier Vialta Studio. (2009, January 25). Arch Daily. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from www.archdaily.com/12360/arreletes-day-care-centre-xavier-vilalta-studio/2. Child Care Center Design Guide. (n.d.). U.S. General Services Admin-istration. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/designguidesmall.pdf3. Designing for Children | Information & Design. (n.d.). Information & Design | Designing for humans. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://infodesign.com.au/usabilityresources/designingforchildren/4. Designing for the Elderly. (n.d.). Designing for the Elderly. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from www.architectureaddition.com/designing-for-the-elderly.php5. FAIA, MRAIC, AICP, B. P., Hoglund, FAIA, J. D., AIA, AICP, D. K., Cohen, AIA, E. R., & Kliment, FAIA, S. A. (n.d.). Accommodations For Seniors.How to Turn a Place Around | Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). Project for Public Spaces | Placemaking for Communities. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.pps.org/training/httapa/6. HSSU Early Childhood & Parenting Education Center/ LuchiniAD. (2011, August 17). Arch Daily. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from www.archdaily.com/157899/hssu-early-childhood-parenting-education-center-luchiniad/7. Surry Hills Library and Community Centre/ FJMT. (2010, April 25). Arch Daily. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from www.archdaily.com/57339/surry-hills-library-and-community-centre-fjmt/8. Lehrer, J. (n.d.). The Psychology of Architecture. Wired.com. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/the-psychology-of-architecture/>.9. Meyrers-Levy, J. (n.d.). Journal of Consumer Research. The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/711 10. Pickett, P. (n.d.). 5 Ways Stores Use Science to Trick You Into Buy-ing Crap | Cracked.com. Cracked.com - America’s Only Humor Site | Cracked.com. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.cracked.com/article_18805_5-ways-stores-use-science-to-trick-you-into-buying-crap.html11. UrbanSpaceInitiative . (n.d.). Historical Overview of Public Urban Space. Retrieved October 11, 2012, from www.urbanspaceinitiative.com/historical-overview/

Online Resources


Documents

A Ritual Language