Graduate Thesis, Joel Dickson

i

KINETIC COMMUNITYEnabling Social Connection In Portland Oregon’s Single Family Residential Blocks Through

Transforming Kinetic Architecture

ii

iii

Thesis document submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture

Portland State UniversityPortland, OregonJune 2013

KINETIC COMMUNITYEnabling Social Connection In Portland Oregon’s Single Family Residential Blocks Through Transforming Kinetic Architecture

byJoel Dickson

iv

v

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURECOLLEGE OF THE ARTS

The undersigned hereby certify that the Masters thesis of

Joel Dickson

has been approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture

Thesis Committee:

Chair : Margarette LeiteAssistant Professor School of Architecture

Date

Travis BellAssistant Professor School of Architecture

Date

vi

vii

Acknowledgements

I cannot express enough gratitude to my thesis advisors, Margarette Leite and Travis Bell, who were constant sources of enthusiasm and clarity. I could not have been more fortunate than to have a pair of like-minded advisors to fuel my curiosity and creativity. Thanks to Matt Bietz for sharing a beer and honest advice as well as being a design-build hero. Acknowledgements to Greg Cain for offering technical advice in the event that I should need it; the assurance of being able to utilize his experience provided enough confidence for me to solve any technical issues on my own (with a little help from my advisors). Thanks to Jeff Schnabel for your delicious metaphors that simplified our quagmires and for being so patient. Thanks to Clive Knights, Rudy Barton and the countless faculty and adjunct that have made the School Of Architecture such an amazing place to learn and grow. Special thanks to my wife, Stephanie Fjeld, for being so supportive and understanding despite the long nights and for encouraging me to pursue my passion.

viii

ix

Abstract

Portland’s single family residential neighborhoods are typically comprised of segmented lots divided by isolating fences while the front condition of these homes is hindered by traffic. Although the fences between homes provide a level of privacy and security, their static condition impedes the possibility of sharing space and neighborly interaction. This thesis will attempt to explore how kinetic interventions can transform the divisions of our neighborhoods into the very elements that unite community, evolving backyard spaces into a social dialogue of collective spaces that transform and enable the temporal changes of social events.

x

Table of Contents

1.0 Thesis Question ...........................................................................................................................................2

2.0 Critique of Suburban Spaces ...........................................................................................................3-6

3.0 Case Studies of Shared Spaces ....................................................................................................7-183.1 Radburn N.J.3.2 N Street Co-housing3.3 Schindler-Chase House 3.4 Delta Shelter(Kundig Olson)3.5 Case Study Summary3.6 “Shelter of Playground”

4.0 Why Kinetic? ................................................................................................................................................20

5.0 The Evolution of a Neighborhood Block ............................................................................ 21-24 5.1 Scale and Typologies of Portland Blocks5.2 The Evolution of a Portland Block

6.0 A Social Anatomy of Two Houses........................................................................................... 25-306.1 Unveiling Domestic Spaces to Enable Social Connection6.2 Transforming the Volumetric Structure6.3 From Segregated Space to Enlivened Place

7.0 Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 31-44 7.1 Place in Motion7.2 Study Models7.3 Transparency Studies7.4 Detail Development7.5 Building at Full Scale

8.0 Expanding the Possibilities ........................................................................................................... 45-548.1 From Fence to Furniture8.2 Integrated Lighting8.3 Canopy8.4 Gateway8.5 Kinetic Garage

9.0 The Potential Implications of the Design to the Neighborhood Block ............. 55-609.1 Suburban Acupuncture9.2 A Growing Kinetic Fabric9.3 A Fully Activated Block

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 61-62

List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................................... 63-65

xi

1

FIGURE 1: PORTLAND YARDSCAPE

2

1.0 Thesis Question

How can kinetic architecture transform common single family backyards from a spaces of isolation to places of social and physical connectivity?

3

FIGURE 2: NEIGHBORHOOD ISOLATION

4

The term “detached single family residential” references a classification of residential building that for over thirty years has comprised more than sixty percent of the American housing stock. This common building typology is not only physically but also socially detached. Despite the relative close proximity of houses in suburban neighborhoods, there is little social or architectural connection or relationship between neighboring houses. These spaces are comprised of segmented blocks or tracts of lots surrounded by roadway on the fronts of houses and divided by fences in the back yards.

In 1961, Jane Jacobs described the suburban living experience as “isolated and privatized.” Her critique of these spaces was focused on how connections to these places were weakened by the lack of public interaction, diversity of activities, and population densities(Jacobs, 1963). The isolation in suburban spaces is the result of the unconscious evolution of these spaces through complacent repetition of speculative design. The intent to create a “loose fit” design that would appeal to a broad range of real estate buyers has created generic design responses. The desire

2.1 Detached Single Family

2.0 Critique of Suburban Spaces

for privacy in yard spaces is a reaction to the automobile and to a valid need for privacy from the conditions it has created, but the current design response to this desire for privacy precludes our ability to connect to others.

5

FIGURE 3: REVEALING THE SPACE BETWEEN

6

Renee Chow attributes what she sees as a general sense of the suburban isolation and lack of community to the suburb’s “volumetric structuring,”

“....which minimizes ways of sharing. A volumetric approach to housing emphasizes the house’s perimeter as a separation between public and private as well as interior and exterior space. By defining autonomy and privacy with bounding forms, volumetric suburbs isolate households within shells. Ways of living are now centripetal, centered inside the house at the hearth or television or in the private back yard.”(Chow, 2002)

Chow suggests this “cellular” or “volumetric” approach to design is in opposition to the conception of place as an interwoven continuity of fabric.

Space/Scale/Barrier/Context2.2 Scale/Barrier/Context

2.0 Critique of Suburban Spaces

FIGURE 3.1: “VOLUMETRIC STRUCTURING”

7

FIGURE 4.2: SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONFIGURE 4 :MAP OF RADBURN, N.J.

8

Radburn, founded in 1929, was designed in response to the prevalence of the automobile. Borrowing ideas from England’s Garden City, The primary goal of Radburn was to separate pedestrian activity from vehicle traffic. This separation is achieved by inverting the conventional direction that homes face. People arrive via automobile at the backs of the houses creating a park-like expanse for the fronts of the houses with winding pathways and trails which lead to a park, tennis courts, softball fields, swimming pools, and an archery plaza. The streets of the development are arranged as a network of cul-de-sacs that branch off of circulation roads. In cases where roadways intersect pedestrian paths, pathways are tunneled under the roadway. In this front yard condition, homes relate more directly to each other as their dialogue is not impeded by a wide stretch of transient automobile traffic. Thresholds of privacy are loosely defined by low fences, trees and shrubs, preserving connection through permeability and visibility.

FIGURE 4.3: ADVERTISEMENT FOR RADBURN

FIGURE 4.4: FRONT YARDS AND PATHWAY

3.0 CASE STUDY

3.1 RADBURN, N.J.

9

Porchscapes | Fayetteville, Arkansas10 11U N I V E R S I T Y O F A R K A N S A Scommunity design centeruAcdc

“The site is essen-t ia l ly designed to function like a sponge, recharging and evapotranspir-ing treated runoff af ter its initial absorption during a storm event.”

The Shared Street: From a Traffic World to a Social World

Streets are designed as multipurpose landscapes to calm vehicular traffic, provide LID management functions, and reclaim social functions lost to the automobile’s dominance. Modeled after the Dutch woonerfs, shared streets have a remarkable record of safety where they are implemented. Streets are key components of the stormwater runoff treatment train, incorporating bioswales, sediment filters, and infiltration trenches. This eliminates costly curbs, gutters, pipes, and catch basins in conventional civil-engineered sys-tems, which often flood at a 50-year event. Streets and attending green spaces are recombined as a treatment network to create “productive park” spaces, sponsoring active passive and active recreation. Since coverage of more than 30% of the site by hard surfaces for walks, roads, and roofs leads to irreversible water-shed degradation, pervious surfaces for parking and walking are used in place of asphalt. The site is essentially designed to function like a sponge, recharging and evapotranspiring treated runoff af-ter its initial absorption during a storm event.

Shared streets deliver numerous social services (e.g., traffic safety, recreation, aesthetics, crime prevention, conviviality) and, unlike conventional streets, do not constitute an environmental liabil-ity. The street becomes a net producer of ecologi-cal and urban services. Solving for such multiple bottom lines represents the next frontier of housing affordability: regenerative neighborhood infrastruc-ture. Since individual property value is contextually created through collec-tive environmental and social forces, neighborhood infrastructure is the key to sustained homeownership. What better way is there to leverage the in-vestment of low-income home owners and ensure the same rate of equity appreciation enjoyed in other market grades of housing?

FIGURE 5: AERIAL RENDERING FIGURE 5.1: AERIAL ILLUSTRATION OF “SHARED STREETS”

10

The University of Arkansas Community Design Center’s Porchscapes is a 43-unit Habitat for Humanity residential neighborhood project aimed at a “triple bottom line” strategy addressing affordability, environment and social capital. Part of the strategy was to utilize the streetscape in an attempt to use the Dutch woonerf or “living street” where shared streets are designed as parks, combining pedestrian gathering spaces, landscaping systems and parking with traffic throughways. Permeability in paved surfaces is combined with landscaping to provide water absorption and create the traffic calming that allows for the mixing of pedestrian and automotive spaces. The designs also try to create a modern interpretation of a front porch community with natural

parks surrounding the development. Attached units in the development are arranged in an open courtyard fashion. The intent of the social component of the design is to create the incentive for low income homeowners to be personally invested in their homes and community by promoting more community engagement through design. The connection to place is given more meaning through the strengthened connection between the people who live there.

3.2 PORCHSCAPES, FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS

3.0 CASE STUDY

FIGURE 5.2: ILLUSTRATION OF SOCIAL POROSITY

11

N Street Co-housing started in 1986 when Kevin Wolf and his Wife Linda Cloud purchased the house next door in a mid-century suburb in Davis, California. The couple took down the fence between the houses starting a trend of shared space in the block that now includes 19 houses. The Co-housing community seeks to create a community of shared resources and cultivate personal relationships. The shared spaces host a variety of activities from gardening,

community meals, live music events, socializing and play. The connected/open mode of living lead to establishing rules and goals governing the purposes of and behavior in these communal spaces. Participants in the community are required to contribute percentages of their yards to pathways and shared amenities as well as paying dues and the establishment of work contributions.

3.3 N. STREET CO-HOUSING, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA

FIGURE 6: SHARED YARDS IN N STREET COHOUSING FIGURE 6.1: BEE KEEPING FIGURE 6.2: HARVESTING GARLIC

12

Eleven guiding goals of N Street.

• Develop a common house and other facilities that meet the priorities and needs of the evolving community. • Develop an attractive, safe, integrated, ecologically sound, and friendly village atmosphere that meets the needs of children and adults. • Develop and maintain group processes, including celebrations, rituals, and decision and policy making that encourage participation, social interaction, emotional support and diversity. • Welcome diversity in age, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, ethnic/cultural background, economic status, and occupation. • Pursue policies, attitudes, and practices to conserve and share resources and lessen the community’s negative impact on the environment. • Help make members feel at home in the community through established institutions. • Maintain affordability within the community. • Participate in activities and decision making that affect our neighborhood and local environment. • Help other communities grow. • Encourage cooperative child care and after school activities for community members. • Encourage people to get more involved in the community, not just participate in structured activities (play and hang out).

3.0 CASE STUDY

FIGURE 6.1: BEE KEEPING FIGURE 6.2: HARVESTING GARLIC FIGURE 6.3: COMMUNAL DINING FIGURE 6.4: COMMUNITY GARDEN

13

FIGURE 7: AXONOMETRIC

14

After returning from a camping trip in Yosemite National Park, Rudolf Schindler was inspired to create a house that embodied the spirit of his camping experience. The Schindler Chase house was conceived as a series of interconnected loosely programed spaces where the connection to the outdoors was strongly emphasized. The home was designed for two couples with shared kitchens and outdoor courtyards. The plan utilized a series of L-shaped footprints that connected at a central shared kitchen. Connections between spaces were enhanced with large sliding doors which nearly dissolved some of the division

between interior and exterior spaces, transforming the building into a highly permeable landscape. The courtyards hosted outdoor fireplaces. Rooms were not defined by their functions such as living rooms and bedrooms. The house was an innovation in social design which was directly influenced by Schindler’s sociopolitical ideologies. The house hosted many social gatherings of famous artists, dancers and designers. Schindler’s friend, partner and rival, Richard Neutra lived in the Chase studios with his wife and son for five years. Pauline Schindler left the house during this period in August 1927

following strained relations between Neutra and Schindler. She returned to the house in 1930 and lived in the Chase studios until her death in May 1977. Perhaps the success of Schindler’s sociological design lies in the houses ability to adapt to diverse and frequently changing inhabitants. The flexibility in his design might be primarily attributed to a “loose fit” or “open” design. The design’s weakness might be its prioritizing openness over privacy?

3.4 SCHINDLER CHACE HOUSE, HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA

3.0 CASE STUDY

FIGURE 7.1: COURTYARD SPACE FIGURE 7.2:LIVING SPACE AS EXTENSION OF OUTDOORS

15

FIGURE 8: LARGE DOOR OPENING TO DECK FIGURE 8.1: HUMAN CONTROL OF KINETIC SPACE

16

3.5 DELTA SHELTER, MAZAMA, WASHINGTON

Olson Kundig is a design firm that is well known for its innovative kinetic designs that empower people to transform architecture. These transformations are typically aimed at transforming the relationship between the interior and exterior of a built environment. In the case of Delta Shelter the designers used sliding panels to modulate privacy and views from the house as well as to transform the interior/exterior condition through a large rotating door that opens to a second story balcony.

The firm’s designs celebrate the mechanisms and the wonder of architectural motion. Their projects are experimental, experiential, beautiful, and lively, but they also represent fairly expensive solutions that typically serve a single wealthy person or family.

3.0 CASE STUDY

FIGURE 8.2: TRANSFORMING VIEW/PRIVACY FIGURE 8.3: MECHANICS OF MOTION

17

Most of the case studies analyzed in this thesis are examples of social integration in a communities that were either pre-designed or adapted to an existing community such as the N Street Co-housing. In each of these schemes a choice is consciously made about the boundaries of privacy that results in a fairly permanent condition. None of the designs address the possibility that these common spaces could change or conform to the dynamic social needs of the people living in them. N street Co-housing uses guiding principles, rules and monthly dues as boundaries instead of fences. People in the block who wish to be a part of the N Street community must buy into their rules and lifestyle in order to participate, and in doing so, they sacrifice a certain degree of privacy. The Schindler Chase house was designed as a social experience inspired by a camping trip; however, the campsite

are easily changed and highly adaptive. The arrangement of this home proved highly effective for social situations such as parties, but was lacking in privacy. This may explain why many of the people living there did not stay in the house for extended periods. Ultimately, Schindler’s design for the house was a socially prescriptive one that loosely fit the live/work lifestyles of its inhabitants in a contiguous network of spatial armatures connected by a shared kitchen. The design strategy for Radburn N.J. took aim at the root of the problem that had maligned the social fabric of American suburbs, namely, the automobile. This design inverted typical the orientation of homes by placing the automobile in a subordinate relationship to social space. The problem with the social spaces created between the homes at Radburn is that, although they don’t involve high privacy fences, most yards

are bounded by some sort of hedge or low fence and a pathway creates a clearly defined division between homes on each side of the path. Although the return of visibility creates opportunities for chance encounters, the spaces are formally divided along lot lines as private territory in an inflexible manner. The Delta house serves as an example of how kinetic architecture tends to address the social condition of communities, that is to say, it doesn’t. Most kinetic designs tend to serve a single household or person in order to transform a condition between the interior and exterior of a particular space. In the case of the Delta house, this modulation does involve issues of privacy and view, but the home exists on a secluded site. The privacy is not in relation to a dialogue of two or more houses, but one of the interior and exterior of a single home.

3.5 Case Study Summary

18

In David Leatherbarrow’s sixth chapter of Architecture Oriented Otherwise entitled Sitting in the City, the author compares a series of case studies that reflect the emergence of theories that were influential in transforming our preconceived notions of space and social dynamics. He compares the theories and designs of Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Joseph Frank and Rudolf Schindler. Key elements of relevance in these theories were very much present in Schindler and Loos’s theories regarding statically defined space.

“Wright’s arguments in favor of plasticity and organic synthesis-verging spatiality-were based on his criticism of boxed-in enclosures. Schindler repeated this criticism and likewise proposed a ‘fluid’ alternative, in which settings could be freed from their traditional moorings and allowed a striking degree of leeward drift. In both cases the ‘box’ was a symbol for settings that were closed in on themselves………..Even more than Loos, he (Joseph Frank) was against atemporal or unchanging character of such a synthesis or ‘system’; thus the assimilation of ages in his modernity and his acceptance of ‘the occasion’ and ‘accident’ as a part of project making.”

Leatherbarrow discusses the decisions of placing in the process of design as a preference of probability in the best cases. He references through his examples the potential for flexible spaces with fixed and moveable furniture to allow for space to be used in a variety of ways. He discussed Schindler’s evolution in the way we perceive the house as ‘Shelter or Playground’, a shift in thinking that takes space from a defensive perspective to one of optimistic potential and joy. It is this change in perception that I hope to employ in the activation of our defense oriented back yards, a shift in thinking about the and relationship between spaces and people and how we might be empowered through architecture to physically move/remove existing boundaries to create new relations.

3.6 “Shelter or Playground”

3.0 CASE STUDY

19

20

Why Kinetic?

My initial interest in exploring kinetic architecture was based on its ability to adapt and transform. This capacity for flexibility seemed like fertile ground on which to investigate the ever-changing human condition in ways that static architecture does not. Conventional architecture makes decisions that preference certain conditions or desires above others despite the fact that those conditions and desires are in constant flux. My hope is to create an architecture that transforms to negotiate between the typically prescribed conditions of traditional design and the potentials

that are ignored by convention. With this thesis I hope to use the untapped potential of an architecture that moves to serve people that it doesn’t typically serve in ways that it doesn’t typically serve. This potential has been explored by investigating the conventions of how we live in order to find ways in which our practices are in opposition with possibilities. Special attention has been given to understanding what the current and common agendas of kinetic architecture are in order to understand where the new territory for design exploration

might lie. Kinetic transformation can allow architecture to conform to the lifestyles of the people that inhabit the built environment rather than requiring that people’s lives conform to the limiting prescriptions of architectural convention. Kinetic architecture creates the possibility for change, but in doing so, it also allows for “changing back.” That possibility gives the user the opportunity to tentatively experiment with unknown territory in ways that don’t require permanence.

4.0 WHY KINETIC?

FIGURE 9: HUMAN MOTION

21

N

Rectangular With DiagonalAverage Size:200’ x 350’-600’

Dominant Location:Streetcar Era Neighborhoods

Long Rectangular

Average Size:200’ x 600’-1200’


Rectangular



Original Square

Average Size:200’x200’

Dominant Location:City Center, Central East Side

Irregular Shape

Size:Variable

Dominant Location:East Side

Shapes for these blocks were often designed in response to landscape constraints and early development of wealthy neighborhoods.

FIGURE 10: MAP OF PORTLAND BLOCK TYPES

22

Portland’s first platting created 200’x200’ blocks which now constitute Portland’s inner west side. At the turn of the century, when Portland incorporated the east side of the river, the scale of the blocks was extended to longer blocks that were typically 200’x400’. These are often referred to as the “streetcar era” blocks. Longer blocks allowed for more continuous service for street cars(less stops) and also provided access for fire trucks via alleyways. The majority of Portland’s detached single family residential homes occupy these mid-size rectangular blocks.

Portland’s irregular shaped blocks are typically part of early up-scale developments such as Ladd’s Addition and Laurelhurst. Other odd-shaped blocks typically derive their shapes from geographic constraints. The purpose of this mapping exercise was to determine the prevalence and locations of Portland’s block types. Determining the frequency of block shapes informs a better understanding of the scale and shape of the inner blocks of our residential neighborhoods. With this knowledge I have chosen to focus on the most common block shape, the rectangular block.

N

Rectangular With DiagonalAverage Size:200’ x 350’-600’


Long Rectangular



Rectangular



Original Square

Average Size:200’x200’

Dominant Location:City Center, Central East Side

Irregular Shape

Size:Variable

Dominant Location:East Side

Shapes for these blocks were often designed in response to landscape constraints and early development of wealthy neighborhoods.

5.1 Scale and Typologies of Portland Blocks

5.0 THE EVOLUTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK

23

Much of Portland’s neighborhood blocks are comprised of many layers of development over the past 100+ years. The majority of the blocks were platted at the turn of the century in the “street car era.” These rectangular blocks were typically first sparsely populated by farm houses; the adjacent lots would likely have been used for agricultural means until the lots were built. These early homes didn’t have indoor plumbing and sewage connections and as a result bathroom and kitchen additions were typically added to the backs of these homes when the use of indoor plumbing became a necessity. The early homes such as the Farm houses, Victorians, Fousquares, and Craftsmans often featured front porches focusing the social nexus of the homes at the front of the house. With the invention of the Model T, the automobile became more affordable and the streets in neighborhoods became automotive thoroughfares and less desirable places for social engagement.

The end of the “front porch era” meant that many of the front porches were to the interior of the home. The outdoor social space then moved to the more private and isolated back yard. The front of the house became a place for cosmetic landscaping, creating a new industry for lawn care and landscaping targeted at maintaining the image of transitory spaces that people rarely occupied. (Schroeder, 1995). Since the dominance of the automobile front porches have been scaled to proportions that render them socially awkward, serving primarily as cosmetic porches. (Chapin 2011) The post-war era of the 1950s resulted in the largest increase in suburban housing as a response to the housing needs of returning soldiers. The housing boom spawned a new generation of residential developers who were keen to formulate repeatable designs that met home buyers’ needs while insuring ease of construction and profitability. This desire

of a portland neighborhood blockHISTORIC EVOLUTION

1

1900’s

Living Rooms

Kitchen/Dining Rooms

Covered Outdoor Spaces

Non-Social Interior Spaces

Detatched Garages

Fences

N of a portland neighborhood blockHISTORIC EVOLUTION

1920’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

22


1930’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

3

5.0 The Evolution of a Portland Oregon Block

FIGURE 11-11.7: TIME LAPSE OF A PORTLAND BLOCK WITH DIAGRAM OF SOCIAL SPACES

FIGURE 11.9: STREETSCAPE OF THE STUDIED PORTLAND BLOCK

FIGURE 11.8: FLIP BOOK EVOLUTION OF A PORTLAND BLOCK

24

for repeatability resulted in tract housing and the homogeneity of the suburban landscape as well as ossifying the suburban conventions of isolated spaces. My research into the evolution of a single Portland block was aimed at understanding how the block transformed over time and how the social spaces of the homes’ interiors could be networked to create a fabric of interactively connected spaces. I researched the city records for each house and determined when the houses were built and derived where kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and living rooms were located based on plumbing plans and window sizings from photos. The placement of garages and exterior shade structures was derived from city CAD files and satellite images. The resulting spaces were diagrammed with private or non-social spaces represented with cool blue tones and more socially active spaces(living rooms and kitchens) were diagrammed with warm colors such as orange and red.


1950’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

5

55 55 55 55

Temporary housing was removed and new houses were constructed by Portland Housing Authority as housing for returning military(1953).


1960’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

6

6


1940’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

4

Moved(including the garage) in April 1942 from 8944 n Fiske. Full cement basement was constructed before the move.


1970’s

Living Rooms




Detatched Garages

Fences

N

7

5.0 THE EVOLUTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK

25

Bathrooms

Bedrooms

Mudroom

Pantry

Living Rooms

Front Porches

Social

Outdoor Social

A Social Anatomy of Neighboring Houses

Private

Utility

Kitchens

Proposed Patios

Proposed Shared Space

Garden

1

1

1

7

7

7

2

8

8

8

9

10

10

109

2

2

3

3

3

4

44

4

5

5

6

6

{{

{

{

FIGURE 12: DESIGNING TO SOCIAL CONDITION

26

Zooming in closer on a pair of residential houses allowed further exploration of the social dynamics of neighboring homes at greater detail in order to understand how to create a connection between two spaces that weren’t designed to relate. The primary goals in this design exercise are to strategically locate a connection that respects private areas of the homes, and creates meaningful space in closed and open conditions. Landscaping of these outdoor spaces becomes an important tool to define inhabitable spaces

through a variety of soft boundaries that utilize plants as layers of privacy thresholds. These thresholds act in the same manner as some of the previously mentioned case studies by creating porous boundaries that preserve views and connection while defining space. Much of these plantings are envisioned as garden plots that both encourage social or cooperative gardening as well as provide food for social engagements such as outside dining and parties. Determining common interests between neighbors

is critical to understanding how they might inhabit the space and to defining what activities would occur there. Gardening and meal-sharing are concepts borrowed from the N Street Co-housing case study because these social activities are a common way in which people socialize in open neighborhoods. (Chapin 2011) Creating a connection based on food as a social medium allows one to see the kitchens and spaces between them as key place-making components in the design intervention.

6.1 Unveiling Domestic Spaces to Enable Social Connection

6.0 A SOCIAL ANATOMY OF TWO HOUSES

27

FIGURE 13: SECTION

28

In transforming the cellular nature of the suburbs into an interconnected fabric, it is intended that the connections between places become places themselves, rather than transitory thoroughfares between destinations. Rather than creating threshold conditions or discreet middle-ground conditions, the hope is to transform the very boundary objects themselves into architecture that creates inhabited, connected place. The transformation of the spaces themselves can transform the way we perceive the space and relationships between houses, from static and isolating to dynamic and active. Kinetics can empower people to transform spaces like the conventional fenced back yard into more socially active shared space without committing to a co-housing lifestyle; for example, avoiding the rules, goals, politics and/or dues associated with shared living arrangements. Socializing and privacy are both common human needs, but our design conventions consider these to be

in opposition. Kinetic solutions offer choice, rather than prescribing privacy over social connection. The desire for privacy or containment of space is provided by the architecture, but the desire for social connection is also accommodated and activated through the use of trasformational, kinetic architecture. Neighborhoods, much like relationships between people, are ever-changing. Gone are the days when neighborhoods were comprised of houses inhabited by several generations of one family. In a 2007 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, less than 28% of American households had been in the same house for more than 20 years. This continually evolving transition of neighborhoods means that the social chemistry of neighborhoods is also in flux. This change supports an argument for an adaptive solution to allow for greater sense of community connection as well as the choice to allow those relationships to evolve naturally.

6.2 Transforming the Volumetric Structure


29

FIGURE 14: CONNECTED SPACE

30

What happens when socially segregated spaces become activated by people when neighbors become connected socially? Does the connection to others enhance community and peoples’ investment in place? Writer Annie Leonard describes her experience living in a fenceless community:

“When we were younger we all lived together in a big house in Washington, D.C. One couple moved out west for grad school at UC Berkeley, and over the next two decades, as other houses on the block became available, we all migrated. We tore down the fences in our back yards to have one huge shared garden; because so many in the community are avid gardeners (I’m not), I like to say that I live in a Monet painting with my best friends. We share Stuff all the time. We only need one barbecue, one table saw, one lawn mower, one fax and scanner. Because we share so much, we buy and consume and throw away less Stuff. Sure, we save money and conserve resources, but the real benefits are not material. We share advice. When we face difficult decisions in our personal or professional lives, we have a set of trusted, time-tested life coaches. I had five sets of parents to watch as role models in parenting. We swap services. Someone who is good at baking makes almost all the birthday cakes; another who is handy with a wrench is there in plumbing emergencies. We carpool. We watch each other’s kids. We host parties together, sharing the costs of setup and all pitching in to clean up the next day.

When I was facing the final deadlines for my book’s manuscript, I got really sick with a 102 degree fever. One friend drove me to the doctor; another watched my daughter ; a third brought flowers. Next time someone else in the community gets sick, I’ll reciprocate—not out of obligation but for the sheer joy of sharing”(Leonard 2013).

6.3 From Segregated Space to Enlivened Place


31

FIGURE 15: ACTIVE SHARED SPACE

32

7.0 DESIGN

33

FIGURE 16: ANIMATION

34

In order to better illustrate and understand the experience of these transforming back yard spaces from a dweller’s perspective I composed an animation. The short film shows how a fence transforms into a small pavilion, one of the fence panels opens while another transforms into a set of folding chairs and the resulting space is transformed from two isolated spaces to reveal a defined, central, connected space. People emerge to greet each other and socialize, and, after fading from the scene, the space transforms back into two private yards.

Aside from a patio space, which seems to hug the lot line, and a pair of columns extending above the fence, the back yard space in its closed condition is not a far departure from a conventional back yard space. The familiar was intentionally designed in order to show that an architecture can accommodate conventions as well as provide for new modes of inhabiting space.

7.1 Place in Motion

7.0 DESIGN

FIGURE 16.1: ANIMATION CELLS

35

The intention with this first study model was to create motion of transformation that avoided impeding the space of persons operating the mechanism. In this first attempt, the panels slide up a track that allows the panels to tilt open with gravity once they reach a predetermined height. The resulting effect is that the fence panels rise up and blossom out into a roof canopy.

The primary problem with this design was that the canopy would be unstable under windy conditions. The canopy was designed to be supported by cables that would hold up the canopy through tension in its open position, but they would have no compressive strength to keep the canopy down if the forces of wind were trying to push the canopy up.

FIGURE 17-17.6: STUDY MODELS

36

The second study model employed a more stable mode of mechanical transformation. This strategy eliminated the channel track system and replaced the cables with rigid arms, allowing the panels to swing outward

as the sliding beam was pushed up the columns. The resulting motion allows the panels to rotate in smooth transition with the rising of the beam. This model was also used to investigate how the patterning of boards could create differing opacities/privacy as the fence transformed from a closed fence to an open pavilion.

7.2 Study Models

7.0 DESIGN

37

Elevation

Reflected Ceiling PlanTransparency Studies

FIGURE 18: TRANSPARENCY STUDIES

38

either side of the fence, giving users the ability to control their privacy. The louvered boards could also allow them to control shading in the roof of the pavilion when in the upright position.

One of the design considerations explored in this thesis includes how people might negotiate the activation of these spaces through a segregating fence. The primary strategy developed to address this issue is to challenge the opacity of the fence. This can happen in two ways, either by creating places where view is strategically revealed (a prescriptive or permanent solution) or by allowing portions of the fence to be manipulated to reveal views and establish dialogues between neighbors (a dynamic and flexible solution).

With the prescriptive or static solution, choosing where to reveal views is best employed as a design specific exercise that in itself would likely occur as a negotiation between neighbors in consideration of site and privacy to derive an ideal location. The transparency can be strategically placed near the mechanisms of deployment, potentially revealing only the parts of the human body necessary for communication and concealing all else. Another dynamic solution employs the use of louvered fence boards that could be manipulated on

7.0 DESIGN

7.3 Transparency Studies

FIGURE 18.1: VIEW THROUGH FOLDING CHAIRS

39

FIGURE 19: OFFSET FENCE CONCEPT FIGURE 19.1: DETAIL OF CABLE SYSTEM

40

7.0 DESIGN

FIGURE 19.2: ELEVATION STUDY

41

6.5”8”

Contoured Wheels

Cable or Pivoting Arm

Early designs utilized a wide flange column where the edges of the wide flange would be used as a track system that would help to keep the cross-beam parallel so the beam would not bind as it rises. The surface of the wheels would have been contoured to fit and roll on the edges of the beam. The wheels would be held in place by a bracket that wrapped around the column and connected to the cross-beam.

Issues with this design:

•Because the sliding bracket wrapped completely around the column, other fence panels could not attach to the column.

•Wide flange beams are less readily available and much heavier than smaller members of steel.

•Contoured wheels might wear unevenly and have a short lifespan.

•There is no convenient/safe place for counterweights (counterweights would mean that less force would be required when raising the fence).

7.4 Detail Development

FIGURE 20: FIRST GENERATION DETAIL DESIGN

42

Benefits of the Cruciform Column:

•The interior space in the cruciform column can be expanded to accommodate counterweights

•These columns can be made of more readily accessible steel members

•They can be assembled as two welded halves that can be bolted together (easier transport/lighter weight)

•The back side of the slider can be left open so that attachments can be made to the columns

1” Flat

1” Channel[Welded to Angles]{Acts as tracks for wheels}

Pieces are welded to form a rigid shell that keeps the vertical moving systems parallel.

Spacers[Bolt connection]

Space for Sliding Counterweight

1” Angle

2” Angle

2” Caster wheels or sport wheels[in-line skate, or skateboard wheels]

Cable and pulley systems for counterweight and crank system.

7.0 DESIGN

FIGURE 20.1: SECOND GENERATION DETAIL DESIGN

43

FIGURE 21-21.6: FULL BUILD KINETIC PAVILION IN MOTION

FIGURE 21.7: TRACK DETAILS

44

The design evolved more fully during the fabrication process as new solutions presented themselves. The cross-beam was transformed into a lighter truss structure. Since weight was reduced for the vertical moving components, less weight was need for counterweights. The wheel brackets were also simplified which reduced the number of wheels necessary and saved some more weight. The interior radius of the angle iron was used as the tracks for some very smooth rolling and less

expensive wheels (Inline skate wheels that were repurposed from a thrift store). Building a design element at full-scale allowed me to better solve function and feasibility as well as to determine the potential cost of this kind of solution. The full scale build also more clearly illustrated the experience of transformation. It is my intent for the full-scale mock-up to be installed in a Portland neighborhood fence in order to fulfill its design intent.

7.0 DESIGN

7.5 Building at Full Scale

FIGURE 21.7: TRACK DETAILS

45

FIGURE 22: FENCE PANEL

FIGURE 22.1: SKETCH OF FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO TABLES FIGURE 22.2: SKETCH OF FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO SEATING

46

The beauty of the transforming fence is that it takes a boundary object such as a fence and inverts the problem (isolation) into the solution (a place for connection). In exploring the potential of “inverting the problem” I wanted to explore some options for the transformation of boundary objects into different elements that support the cohabitation of these transformed spaces. One of the strategies included the creation of fence panels that could be removed and transformed into outdoor furniture such as tables and chairs. This design idea strengthened the concept of the fence that transformed into a pavilion, not only by providing the furniture to inhabit the space, but by helping to dissolve the fence around the pavilion. Obscuring the division of the fence line allows for a new middle-ground space to be defined without the visual and psychological barrier created by an implied line. It is important, in the creation of these shared territories, that the transformed spaces be perceived as an intentionally designed space free from the traditional division of lot lines.

8.0 EXPANDING THE POSSIBILITIES

8.1 From Fence to Furniture

FIGURE 22.3: FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO SEATING

47

FIGURE 23: NIGHT LIGHTING

48

For night time entertaining, kinetic pavilions can integrate a light source into the panels. Photovoltaic strips could charge batteries during the day powering L.E.D. strip lights at night. The lighting could be used as a signal, inviting neighbors to social gatherings. Lighting would extend the time that people could inhabit the space as well as the season. Lighting could become festive with seasonal lighting, Lighting strands or variable colors via RGB L.E.D..

8.2 Integrated Lighting


49

FIGURE 24: CANOPY CONCEPT

50

A simple water-proofed canvas sheet can be attached to the pavilion’s panels before deployment turning the pavilion into a more intimate space and allowing the possibility for inhabiting the pavilion during times of moderate rain. Modifying the design with simple additions can extend the flexibility and adaptability of the structure.

The design can be modified to provide an evolving customizable structure that accommodates a variety of design needs for the members of the neighborhood. As people begin to reconceive their neighborhood spaces so can the kinetic designs be reconceived to accommodate new activities.

8.3 Canopy


51

FIGURE 25: GATEWAY CONCEPT

52

Community relationships don’t have to be confined to internal spaces within each block, but could be facilitated at opportune locations at the edges of block’s boundaries creating gateways into these shared spaces. These could help to establish a network of blocks. Neighborhood block parties might block the streets with block party permits creating a highly permeable pedestrian network. As people are able to connect and socialize community is strengthened, people become invested in each other and the spaces they inhabit.

8.4 Gateway


53

Opening the structure provides a porous connection between neighbors and creates a place to gather.

Wall is re-used in door assembly, maintaining the character of the building and reducing waste.

Steel frame replaces sheer to create a more open structure and provides support for large pivoting doors.

Cable cross-bracing enhances sheer where openings are not needed.

FIGURE 26.1: GARAGE TRANSFORMATION

FIGURE 26: EXPLODED AXONS OF KINETIC GARAGE

54

A common barrier object in Portland’s residential blocks is the garage. Garages aren’t typically socially active spaces and their design reflects just that. Their intended use is to shelter an automobile, but they are often just used for storage or remain empty. These spaces are not only socially inactive, but are barriers that block the connectivity of the block; they are, as Renee Chow would describe them, ‘volumetric structure”. In the spirit of inverting the problem, the goal was to take these spaces/barriers and convert them into porous spaces of inhabitation. The

buildings are typically suitable in size for entertaining guests, but lack any connection to neighbors within the block. Opening up the buildings with large scale doors can allow the buildings to become conduits of connectivity as well as gathering spaces. Garages are often sited next to each other along a lot line; in these cases a transformative design of these structures could be coordinated to create a more unified, cohesive pair of buildings that can return to a somewhat basic garage. The space could still be utilized for discrete storage as there is plenty of room in the rafters and along walls that aren’t occupied by an opening.

Mesh Fabric

Removable Posts allow fences to be completely removed.

Cross access

Multi-modal Transformation

Three Lot Participation

A Strategy For The Four Corner Condition

Fences transform into shelters that act as gathering spaces.

Sections of fence can be transformed into chairs and tables.

Garages are retrofitted to provide porosity and places for people to gather in inclement conditions helping to extend the seasonal for outdoor social activities.

or

Rolled Slats

8.5 Kinetic Garage

FIGURE 26.2: GARAGE IN CONTEXT


55

FIGURE 27: THE FIRST TRANFORMATION

56

Like any change in the status quo, people are often apprehensive to embrace social change. This proposition requires a particular set of circumstances in order for it to take seed. It would take two neighboring households that see the faults of the boundaries between them and the potential of enabling connection to be successful. However, unlike planned

fenceless communities and adapted solutions such as N Street Co-housing, a kinetic solution doesn’t require a sacrifice of lifestyle. There is no “leap of faith” that permanent removal of fences requires. Spaces are adaptive to and expressive of human desires for social activity or privacy. The very spaces themselves become ever-changing organisms, reflecting the relationships of the people inhabiting them.

9.1 Suburban Acupuncture

9.0 THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK

57

FIGURE 28: THE GROWTH OF A KINETIC COMMUNITY

58

As the potential advantages of this kind of intervention are experienced this idea could spread to other neighbors who wish to connect to the emerging network of kinetic spaces. These spaces might not always develop into a completely contiguous networks throughout a block, but rather into aggregates of spaces that are periodically activated. These could serve as examples of how an alternative design solution can change the way we perceive relationships within our neighborhoods. However, when the participation approaches the full-block scale, spaces between homes have the ability to transform into large park-like

expanses. As spaces begin to open to one another, the fact that they were never designed to relate to each other becomes apparent. Landscaping design becomes a powerful tool for creating defined spaces and thresholds of privacy while maintaining openness and visibility when the spaces are activated. Buffers of privacy and filtered visibility can be achieved through taller evergreen plants which can help to restore a sense of privacy around bedrooms and bathrooms that might face the backyard. Portland, Oregon is a progressive city that is not afraid to embrace alternative lifestyles that

challenge conventions. Co-housing is not a new concept in Portland and many backyards have been transformed into urban farms. The city modified its laws to allow for raising modest numbers of farm animals within city limits. Building codes were modified to allow for accessory dwelling units. Laws were written to allow for food carts, spawning a culinary trend that fueled the growth of emerging micro-industries. The city government and its citizens are willing and ready to pioneer changes in lifestyle.

9.2 A Growing Kinetic Fabric


59

Mesh Fabric

Removable Posts allow fences to be completely removed.

Cross access

Multi-modal Transformation

Three Lot Participation

A Strategy For The Four Corner Condition

Fences transform into shelters that act as gathering spaces.

Sections of fence can be transformed into chairs and tables.

Garages are retrofitted to provide porosity and places for people to gather in inclement conditions helping to extend the seasonal for outdoor social activities.

or

Rolled Slats

FIGURE 29: A FULLY KINETIC BLOCK(DESIGN OPTIONS)

60

A fully activated block would require a unique grouping of households, but could create a highly porous fabric with the potential for creating dynamic park-like settings between homes. Looking at a full block allows us to see built infrastructure, such as fences and garages, as opportunities for transforming divisions into porous places of inhabitation, pathways enabling connection or open space itself. Opening space by utilizing a fence that can easily be removed and reinstalled could be a strategy for obscuring the definition of lot lines that create a sense of segregation. Unlike tract housing neighborhoods, each of Portland’s blocks are unique. These diverse spaces would have diverse design opportunities, resulting in a wide range of site specific, socially determinate design responses.

9.3 A Fully Activated Block


61

FIGURE 11-11.7: TIME LAPSE OF A PORTLAND BLOCK WITH DIAGRAM OF SOCIAL SPACES

FIGURE 11.9: STREETSCAPE OF THE STUDIED PORTLAND BLOCKFIGURE 11.8: FLIP BOOK EVOLUTION OF A PORTLAND BLOCK

Bibliography

Chapin, R. (2011). Pocket neighborhoods: Creating small-scale community in a large-scale world. Newtown, CT: Taunton Press.

Chow, R. Y. (2002). Suburban space: the fabric of dwelling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Emrath, P., & Ph.D.. (n.d.). NAHB: How Long Buyers Remain in Their Homes. National Association of Home Builders. Retrieved June 3, 2013, from http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=110770&channelID=311

Riera, O. O., & Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects. (2001). Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen: Connecting architecture + art + craft in twelve residential projects. New York: Monacelli Press.

Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass frontier : The suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, J. (1963). Death and life of the great american cities. S.l.: Random House.

Kronenburg, R. (2007). Flexible: Architecture that responds to change. London: Laurence King

Leatherbarrow, D. (2009). Architecture oriented otherwise. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Porchscapes: Between Neighborhood Watershed & Home. (May 01, 2009). Architectural Record, 197, 5.)

Schroeder, F. E. H., & Shapiro, H. D. (January 01, 1995). Front Yard America: The Evolution and Meanings of a Vernacular Domestic Landscape. Technology and Culture, 36, 4, 1042.

Smith, K., & Mudford, G. (2001). Schindler House. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Sweeney, R. L., Sheine, J., & Sakamoto, T. (2012). Schindler, Kings Road, and southern California modernism.

62

LELIEVELD MSc., C. M. J. L., VOORBIJ, MSc., Ph.D., A. I. M., & POELMAN, MSc. Ph.D., W. A. (n.d.). Adaptable Architecture. TU Delft, Berlageweg, The Netherlands,. Retrieved from http://tmu-arch.sakura.ne.jp/pdf/26_proc_bsa_e/Proceedings_pdf/245-252%20031SS_B2-2.pdf

Leonard, A. (2013, April 23). Why Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors: Annie Leonard’s Backyard Commune | Living on GOOD. GOOD | Ideas and Tools for Progress. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://www.good.is/posts/why-good-fences-make-bad-neighbors-annie-leonard-s-backyard-commune

Santo, Yasu, Frazer, John H., & Drogemuller, Robin (2011) Active buildings : what can we do about buildings that simply stand still? In Herr, C. M., Gu, Ning, Roudavski, Stanislav, & Schnabel, Marc Aurel (Eds.) Circuit Bending, Breaking and Mending, CAADRIA, University of Newcastle, Australia, pp. 301-310. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/43860/

Zuk, W., & Clark, R. H. (1970). Kinetic architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

63

List of Tables and Figures

FIG 1: PORTLAND YARDSCAPE .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

FIG 2: NEIGHBORHOOD ISOLATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

FIG 3: REVEALING THE SPACE BETWEEN................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

FIG 4 :MAP OF RADBURN, N.J...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7


FIG 4.2: SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................7


FIG 4.3: ADVERTISEMENT FOR RADBURNJ. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................8


FIG 4.4: FRONT YARDS AND PATHWAY. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................8


FIG 5: ARIEL RENDERING. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

University of Arkansas Community Design Center, porchscapes. (n.d.). University of Arkansas Community Design Center. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from http://uacdc.uark.edu/project.php?project=40

FIG 5.1: ARIEL ILLUSTRATION OF “SHARED STREETS”..................................................................................................................................................................................9


FIG 5.2: ILLUSTRATION OF SOCIAL POROSITY ...............................................................................................................................................................................................10


FIG 6: SHARED YARDS IN N STREET COHOUSING. .....................................................................................................................................................................................11

N Street Cohousing. (n.d.). N Street Cohousing. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from http://www.nstreetcohousing.org

FIG 6.1: BEE KEEPING. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11


FIG 6.2: HARVESTING GARLIC. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12


All un-cited images are by author

64

FIG 6.3: COMMUNAL DINING. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12


FIG 6.4: COMMUNITY GARDEN ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12


FIG 7: AXONOMETRIC .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Schindler-Chace House. (n.d.). Schindler-Chace House. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://kingsroadhouse.blogspot.com/ org

FIG 7.1: COURTYARD SPACE. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14


FIG 7.2:LIVING SPACE AS EXTENSION OF OUTDOORS. .........................................................................................................................................................................15


FIG 8: LARGE DOOR OPENING TO DECK ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Olson Kundig Architects -Projects - Delta Shelter. (n.d.). Olson Kundig Architects . Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com/Projects/38/Delta-Shelter

FIG 8.2: TRANSFORMING VIEW/PRIVACY. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................16


FIG 8.3: MECHANICS OF MOTION. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16


FIG 9: HUMAN MOTION. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Thompson, H. (n.d.). Heidi Thompson Photographs of Female Body in Motion. Heidi Thompson, Canadian Abstract Artist & Author of Calm Focus Joy. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.heidithompson.ca/nude.htm

FIG 10: MAP OF PORTLAND BLOCK TYPES. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................21

FIG 11-11.7: TIME LAPSE OF A PORTLAND BLOCK WITH DIAGRAM OF SOCIAL SPACESJ. ..................................................................................23-24

FIG 11.8: FLIP BOOK EVOLUTION OF A PORTLAND BLOCK ..............................................................................................................................................................23

FIG 11.9: STREETSCAPE OF THE STUDIED PORTLAND BLOCK. .................................................................................................................................................23-24

FIG 12: DESIGNING TO SOCIAL CONDITION..................................................................................................................................................................................................25

FIG 13: SECTION. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27

FIG 14: CONNECTED SPACE. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29

65

FIG 15: ACTIVE SHARED SPACE. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................31-32

FIG 16: ANIMATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33

FIG 16.1: ANIMATION CELLS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33-34

FIG 17-17.6: STUDY MODELS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35-36

FIG 18: TRANSPARENCY STUDIES. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................37

FIG 18.1: VIEW THROUGH FOLDING CHAIRS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................38

FIG 19: OFFSET FENCE CONCEPT ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................39

FIG 19.1: DETAIL OF CABLE SYSTEM .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................39

FIG 19.2: ELEVATION STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40

FIG 20: FIRST GENERATION DETAIL DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................................................................................41

FIG 20.1: SECOND GENERATION DETAIL DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................................................................42

FIG 21-21.6: FULL BUILD KINETIC PAVILION IN MOTION ..............................................................................................................................................................43-44

FIG 21.7: TRACK DETAILS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44

FIG 22: FENCE PANEL ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45

FIG 22.1: SKETCH OF FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO TABLES .............................................................................................................................................................45

FIG 22.2: SKETCH OF FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO SEATING ........................................................................................................................................................45

FIG 22.3: FENCE TRANSFORMING INTO SEATING ........................................................................................................................................................................................46

FIG 23: NIGHT LIGHTING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................47

FIG 24: CANOPY CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................49

FIG 25: GATEWAY CONCEPT .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51

FIG 26: EXPLODED AXONS OF KINETIC GARAGE .......................................................................................................................................................................................53

FIG 26.1: GARAGE TRANSFORMATION. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................53

FIG 26.2: GARAGE IN CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54

FIG 27: THE FIRST TRANFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................55

FIG 28: THE GROWTH OF A KINETIC COMMUNITY ..................................................................................................................................................................................57

FIG 29: A FULLY KINETIC BLOCK(DESIGN OPTIONS) ...............................................................................................................................................................................59

Documents

Graduate Thesis, Joel Dickson