Final -Winter

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/arch586s16cheng/files/2016/03/RASHED_FINAL_POSTER-1q9i5oi.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]

Concepts Reflection:

Organization
The spatial configuration of the incubator center is meant to attract as many people as possible from different groups and backgrounds. Every edge of the project reflects what the adjacent natural and urban elements need. For instance, on the TriMet stop edge, the design response is providing a spacious entry portal to the sculpture garden with a wide path that eventually lead to the river and river walk. Also, because this edge would be approached by mostly employees and
visitors of the Incubator Center, both buildings have their main entryways on this side. Another example of a site challenge is connecting Tilikum bridge to the project program. The goal was achieved through designing a pedestrian bridge that would allow the public to be welcomed through a café on the third floor with the terrace that overlooks the river and also allows pedestrians to reach the sculpture garden or walk on the façade of the actual maker space and be able to witness live making through the glass wall.

Nature
One of the main goals of the design is not to manipulate the water edge in order to minimize the potential harm that might be caused to the fragile natural habitats. Moreover,  the two building
envelopes and garden canopies are not only designed to control sunlight but also slow down water runoff towards the river. Needless to say, daylight is a profound aspect of the design. The heights of masses are organized to increase toward the north side and decrease toward the
south. In order to allow more daylight into the central garden and the retail shops at the ground floor of the north building. Moreover, different daylight strategies are present on the building facades and roofs. South glass walls have a second skin of horizontal shading devices; east facades have vertical shading devises, and north glass walls with no shading in order to maximize northern light. Also, roofs have deep apertures that allow daylight rays to move as an indication of time.

Experience
The incubator center was not obviously meant to accommodate makers only but to also give a critical attention to the public visitors. Furthermore, it is a goal for success of the design to be able to engage and inspire the public into the practice of making. The project offers a variety of experiences that are available for every day pedestrians to enjoy; however, the connection between pedestrians and makers is not always a direct visual one but a gradient of purely sensual to totally visual experience. In order to not overwhelm general visitors with the complications of making, they are first welcomed into a peaceful and beautiful garden that incubate
inspiring sculptures and art installations that would hopefully raise their desire of learning how such craft could be achieved. The next step for visitors who are interested in making is to attend
crafting demonstrations that are provided in the public section at the ground floor of the maker space building. Moreover, the closest visual experience for the public is taking a journey around the elevated pedestrian façade band that allows them to see makers working and feel very close to the heart of the makerspace.

Material Tectonics
The materials of the project whether structural or finishing are chosen to represent the marriage of the natural and industrial heritage of the central east side quadrant. Since, the core soul of
the maker space is very industrial, the structure and interior finishes are manufactured materials such as concrete and steel. On the other hand, the exterior finishes and facade materials respond to the natural sittings of the site such as stone, glass, green walls,  and facade vegetation.

Facade
The facades of the incubator center are designed to have an interesting complexity that not only is visually attractive but also experiential. Looking at the facade of the south building from the
sculpture garden makes the viewer perceive the building as a larger beautiful sculpture, however an inhabitable one. Looking closer to the scene elements, the canopy above the sculpture garden directs the eye to the most defined roof-canopy that almost reads as a cloud. Below that there are tall clear glass walls that resemble rain and water. The base of the facade represents earth and
topography with stone walls that have ivy plants and small shrubs grown on them. Also, the facade base has openings that give the feeling of caves or tunnels that would either take you to where hand crafted products are sold or even beyond the maker space!

Notes from the review:

• Make a clear diagram of adjacent site elements. This diagram explains two types of a connection between each element and the other, which are the pedestrian and visual connections.
• Howard Davis suggested that the public should be invited into the enclosure of the maker space in order to strongly inspire them about making. 
• A response diagram that explains the journey for a direct visual connection between the public and the maker space.
• Another point was to draw a diagram that explains the idea of rental working spaces and their sizes and positions in a simple way
• It is important to include section and plan programmatic diagrams that show the spacial configuration of the maker space.
• Diagrams that would give the presentation extra clarity:
• A parti’ diagram would give a clear and simple idea of the plans.
• A diagram that shows the idea of the public “sensing” the beauty of making rather than being totally exposed to it.
• An illustration/ diagram that explains the gradient of the public/ private relationship and the density of use shown in section.

Overall, the presentation was clear and successful enough explaining major design intentions and concepts as well as the urban response. Generally, the presentation mostly needed diagrams and illustrations that would explain spacial configuration ideas and secondary concepts.