Through the process of working on the redesign of my church I spent time working on the structure of both buildings. In the understanding of this structure several things changed on the way the elevations were composed as well as the interior as a whole. These drawings are still in progress but I wanted to give an understanding of what I was working on. The drawings below are 1’ = ¾” which means the drawings are approximately 30 inches tall. After Critique Friday these drawings will be better detailed and give a clear understanding of the way that the structure will work.
The first drawing is a section cutting through the nave of the church looking toward the east and the apse. The second image is a in process section of the train station. Which is taken through the rear train shed.
I apologize for the amount of time that it has been since my post following the midterm critique two weeks ago. Since then, one week of spring break and one week of classes have passed. Spring break I spent working on a redesign of the church which is the primary purpose of this post.
At the post critique review I sighted several challenges with the past design of my church which included: dealing with the programmatic challenges, and considering the opportunity to fill up the entire depth of the site with my building. Through these changes it was important to constantly keep a view of the building and the siting of the building as it related to the community.
Through these changes you can see that I redesigned the way that the church interacts with the streetscape by pulling a portico forward with ionic columns supporting it. That columnar grid then expresses the opportunity to relate through the entire length of the church in the column center lines which run along the edge of the nave. I took the opportunity to place side aisles along the church, which as you can see through the section enable the opportunity to light the nave through clerestory windows.
Because of an in-house critique yesterday, the last week has been spent pushing in working on a range of drawings for both buildings. The understanding of this critique was to spend time with fellow graduate candidates, seniors, and professors talking about some of the issues pertaining each of our specific projects.
Overall, I believe that this critique was very helpful in answering some of the questions that I had been struggling through working with Dr. Miller my design professor. Probably the most interesting comment that I needed to field through the critique was one by a fellow student who entertained the idea that the dome on my building looked like a WWI German Helmet with a spike in it. What do you think?
Through the comic interlude in this comment we spend some time trying to resolve the understanding of the dome and the way that the structure was able to relate to the dome. One of the challenges with the dome was that it felt too heavy which meant that it would become something that would become resolved through a more massive structure under the dome at the crossing. Also the idea was thrown out to push it towards the idea of a wooden dome which would slightly change the proportions of the dome and enable it to appear lighter and have less of an impact on the structure through the crossing.
Switching over to the train station I was subjected to a long conversation pertaining to the structure which I still am slightly confused about. The challenge with the train station is the expression of the structure on the front of the building which shows the idea of a ridge that runs parallel to the front of the building as seen in precedents like the Kansas City Union Station in Kansas City, as well as, the Washington D.C. Union Station. I will post pictures from this discussion as well as some solutions on how to solve it.
Finally part of this critique dealt with backing out from the idea of building design back into context to enable an ability to understand the way that the two buildings relate according to their context. As you can see there is a public square that I have created in front of the train station which is on axis with the public square of the Church. Originally I was seeking to get a better connection with the two public square and somehow enable the connection of the squares to read as one. I may look into this Idea by eliminating the trees between the two squares as well as creating a change in the material of the street to match the squares rather than the access of the street. Below is the current plan.
It is in high hopes that in the next couple days I will be able to expand the understanding of these challenges, as well as, show some progress on rising above them.
One of the challenges of designing classical architecture in a modern world is the constant scrutiny of the public as well as other architects. These critics view the idea of classical architecture as unnecessary ornament that is applied to the building separate from any actual structural capacity. We have been challenged by our studio professor to develop a understanding of the structure as it relates to the forms of the building types that we are choosing to design.
The Style paper is an expression of the undeniable link that is present between the exterior of the building and the interior through the structure that is necessary for the building to stand. Through this understanding of structure it is important to understand the structural language that will appear in the expression of classical architecture. This is a working draft of my document and it will continue to develop throughout the entirety of the project.
One of the challenges that I have been dealing with in my church design is the tectonic understanding of the entablature on the exterior and how that in turn relates to the interior. While looking at this challenge with the civic expression through the interior versus the exterior of the building, I chose to upgrade the order used on the interior from Doric on the exterior to Corinthian on the interior. This choice had more challenges than I realized especially with understanding the order on the inside and how that relates to the exterior.
As can be seen in the above image, I have extended the tectonics of the Doric order on the exterior through to the structure of the roof. You see that the tectonics relate directly to the parts of the Doric entablature the Architrave relates to a structural idea of a beam running along the structure of the bearing wall. The Frieze is representative of the idea of a beam running perpendicular the face of the wall. Finally the Cornice is representing the rafters as they come down and meet the bearing wall.
In the image below is a compilation of several attempts to solve this relationship challenge between the interior and the exterior.
Through the research into several different ideas for the expression of the structure of the building to be shown in the elevation, I settled on looking at the precedent of Christ’s Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As you can see through the image of the church along the nave there is a trabeated structure that is used to express the load from the rafters and a more obvious wall based architecture on the apse elevation.
This idea can also be seen through the expression of the elevations of my building. The challenge with figuring this out is the discrepancy between the interior and exterior elevations of the building. The primary choice I needed to make was to determine whether to use rectangular window or arched windows. Below are the drawings that I made to determine the best way to design the windows. In the end I decided going with the arched windows. The following image is a composite of the two windows beside each other drawn with pilasters flanking them.