core.form-ula

image ©EASTON + COMBS

On Fri the 22nd of 2010 we had an opportunity to sit down w/ EASTON + COMBS and discuss their entry into this years MOMA P.S. 1 Young Architects Program.

CF: What was the initial design approach?

E+C: In our project entry for the 2010 YAP we began by conceptualizing this year’s shift in the theme to include some consideration of sustainable design issues.  One of the critical questions we have been investigating is the role of innovation within architecture’s response to sustainability, and we saw the PS1 project as an extension of this research. Innovation and the defining concerns of budget and the schedule, were therefore our primary points of departure, which quickly intersected through questions of material research, fabrication and efficient assembly methodologies. We felt very strongly that a successful design proposal must raise the bar simultaneously in the aesthetic character of the courtyard and in terms of a truly innovative agenda regarding sustainable design. Given the new criteria set forth by the MoMA and PS1 committee we also saw the commission as an opportunity for the MoMA to play an active role in addressing the larger question of sustainability in design culture in the 21st century.

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

CF: How was your position defined in terms of ‘Sustainable Practice’?

E+C: As we set forth we understood almost immediately that the project must be considered from a material efficiency and material effect point of view. The convergence of sustainable issues with structural, aesthetic and material innovation seems rare in the current climate. Our sense has been that the issue of sustainability has drifted into the territory that architects struggle to address with an innovative spirit. We find this understandable, as the question of sustainability in architecture takes on the true implication of the famous ‘wicked problem’; a problem in which the issues and implications of design decisions are not clear and a solution can only be defined as ‘better or worse’.

Stepping back from all of this we thought about the role of architecture throughout history to produce breakthroughs that combine innovations in material process with social affect. The story of the rise of stained glass use in religious gothic architecture served as an important analogy for our design approach. We were intrigued by the idea that stained glass was a material technology which was much older when it was first experimented with as a window material. It was the desire to extend the idea of painterly narrative across the window portal that lead to a breakthrough in it’s use and widespread subsequent adaptation in religious (collective) gothic architecture. Hence, without the need for social narrative to extend the painterly surface of architecture across the window portal of the gothic church the breakthrough of material innovation and novel application would not have taken place then.

Similarly, we were interested in our design picking up on the narrative capacity of color, luminous space and visual field effects to suggest new environmental conditions. We were attracted to the possibility of the architect as an ‘environmental curator’. Given the nature of the site and program we found that the intersection of environmental performance and the production of ‘atmosphere’ provided a real opportunity to construct a dynamic spatial canvas that could be staged for playful, intimate and collective occupation.

The main proposal consists of an approximately 100‘x70’ canopy structure 15’ high. Our idea of the ‘architect as environmental curator’ addresses the connection between atmosphere and environmental performance and centers on nine nested rooms or spatial chambers that are dispersed throughout the canopy system. These chambers are similar in scale and geometry but achieve very different character of social arrangement and mood due the their solar orientation, polychromatic differences in their surfaces, and the way they open to the larger canopy space. This constellation of factors set up a dynamic shift of color and environmental effect, thus bringing an ever changing play of atmospheric and environmental readings to the space and social-scape. For example, a predominately blue chamber may infer coolness or wetness but the orientation and solar exposure may produce a very different environmental sensation depending on the time of day and weather. Given the larger field of chambers and the migration of surface color, the actual environmental effects and projected atmospheric conditions will dynamically shift throughout the day, and along with this the social dimension of the structure will rearrange accordingly.

We studied this projected phenomena with a great deal of precision. We used photometric analysis to study the diffusion of colored light across the ground plane to anticipate atmospheric shifts and the affect this may have on the social scape of the space. At the same time we employed environmental analysis tools to study the overall solar exposure which helped identify how areas of shading would coincide with polychromatic intensities at different times of day. We found that this would promote a whole range of participation shifts in the way we understand environmental comfort and atmospheric intensity.

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

CF: How did materiality become central to the design’s sustainable agenda?

E+C: We were interested in plastics and the question of sustainability in relation to the larger political questions that material processes involve. Although plastics require initially high energy to manufacture they are 100 percent recyclable as a building product, are lightweight and easy to transport. Eventually, Bioplastics will offer the advantages of plastics made from biodegradable biomass sources.  We negotiated with manufacturers of polycarbonate panels to take back all of the product we needed at the end of the installation for reintegration in the manufacture process. More importantly, the polycarbonate cellular panels that are on the market today have an exceptionally high strength to weight ratio. This lead us to remember Buckminster Fuller’s question; ‘ how much does your house weigh’ on the shift of the manufacturing sector into rise of domestic consumption in the 20th century. Fuller’s question and proclamation was a prescient observation that until recently has been overlooked in the culture of abundant energy. We considered weight in relation to the structural system, the material delivery, construction management, impact on labor, and total environmental affect. It turns out that the entire scheme weighs less that 13,000 pounds. Each chamber and span cover (15’ high x  25’ total span) weighs just under 1,500 pounds. To put this in relative terms, the lightest automobile on the market in North America is the Smart Car which weighs more that a single span element of our design at 1,600 pounds. The next lightest building material is glass, which not only would be five times as heavy as the equivalent structure, but is also in-fact much more environmentally stressful – it’s manufacture consumes twice as much energy; saves less energy from recycling; produces three times more air pollution; and is more expensive.

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

CF: What is the structural system and how does it perform?

E+C: The structural system is based on a structural skin idea with non-hierarchical interdependency of members to create a robust feather weight structural system that can be adapted to many spatial circumstances. We worked with Robert Otani of Thornton Tomasetti within Finite Element Method to understand the strength of the polycarbonate material as a building block of a lightweight structural skin system. The principles of the structural skin are simple, and we have learned from diverse avant-garde 20th century structural experiments such as Robert LeRicolais’ isoflex system and others. The real interest for us is not the structural system per-se, rather a structural system rendered through a featherweight high performance material. The polycarbonate panel readily available on the market is advertised as a wall covering or flat mounted skin. It’s really designed to be used as a wall system, with the cross section providing exceptional performance in the lateral load axis. We started with a buckling analysis that helped us identify the strength and weakness of the product. This lead to an understanding of where to introduce lateral stiffeners to produce the cumulative performance of the structural skin. The system is also laced with a nylon bracing weave that can be reinforce freely throughout the system based on performance demands. This entire research effort will be developed further as the ‘STRONG/LIGHT’ building system where we have identified manufacturer interest in developing new product applications of the polycarbonate material in the building industry. We are very excited by this as it also addresses an important facet of sustainability in design. Architect lead material innovation can have a much larger impact on the industry over the next several years. The profession has traditionally been about material innovation as a driving force within the market place and we think that the current economic climate and shift in sustainably priorities can lead to a resurgence of creativity in building systems lead by architects.

image ©EASTON + COMBS

image ©EASTON + COMBS

CF: What are the construction management implications and budget constraints for this installation?

E+C: All PS1 installations through the years have demanded a high level of involvement from the architects in the construction management of the project. The schedule for construction is very short and the time to field test fabrication ideas is minimal. Again the overall budget constrains are a huge factor in design and fabrication decisions. Our use of the polycarbonate panel has clear arguments of manageability on the construction site. It’s light weight eases the physical labor of fabrication and installation significantly. Furthermore the cutting time with CNC technology is faster and produces less waste than solid material. this strategy lead to a simple dual side member buildup, with overlapping eight foot lengths and acrylic splice plates to form a continuous member. The final stability is insured through lateral stiffeners and nylon banding tied down with a cross form zip tie detail.

CREDITS:
Lonn Combs
Rona Easton
Aaron White
Sebastian Misiurek
Paul Langley
Tai Li Lee
Scott Sorenson
Mehnaj Tabassum
Lukasz Szlachcic
Jun Pak
Alex Drabyk
Patrick Donbeck
Matt Krupanski

Structural Consultant:
Robert Otani, Thornton Tomasetti

Environmental Consultant:
Ajmal L. Aqtash, form-ula