1. ARCHITECTURE PORTFOLIO Eric Burnside M .Arch. Rice
University
2. ERIC BURNSIDE [email protected] 1816 W. Main Street,
Houston, TX 859-576-0440CV 2017 MAIL: PHONE: EDUCATION SOFTWARE
& SKILLS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE Masters
of Architecture. Rice School of Architecture. Rice Univesity,
Houston, TX. Bachelors of Arts in Architecture. Summa cum Laude UK
College of Design University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Rhinoceros
3D, V-Ray Rendering Plug-in for Rhino, Adobe Creative Suite,
Grasshopper Plug-in for Rhino, Revit Architecture Intermediate
German Language Speaker Proficiency with Laser-cutting, 3D
printing, architectural model fabrication, and com- mon fabrication
tools Summer Intern Morris Architects-Huitt Zollars Urban Planning
Responsibilities: Designed and prepared a comprehensive feasibility
study for the implementation of a public light rail system. I
worked independently to represent the phases, engineering, and
infrastructural alignments necessary to achieve the projects scope.
These tasks required dutiful, accurate and visually engaging
representations of data, precedents, and financial figures as well
as the schematic design of stations, facilities, and projected
built development. Teaching Assistant Rice University School of
Architecture Responsibilities: Assist with lecture preparation by
transcribing past lectures Rice School of Architecture in Paris
Fall semester and design studio spent in Paris, France Operations
Manager / Marketing Coordinator CHHJ Moving Responsibilities:
Manage payroll, coordinate moving team duties, trained new hires,
and managed the company's door-to-door and social media marketing
efforts. metLEX Light Rail Transit Study Independent research
project to determine feasibility of light rail transit for
Lexington, KY. Fresh Punches Installation Fabrication Morphosis
Architects Spring Break Practice Preview: Week long job shadow and
mentorship Rice Building Workshop Fotofest 2016 Exhibition
Fabrication Teaching Assistant University of Kentucky College Of
Design Responsibilities: Lead discussion sessions and assisted in
grading student assignments. I chose and researched an independent
topic concerning discussions in contemporary architecture, on which
I gave a final lecture. 2017 2013 2015 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
2012 2016 2013
3. ABOUT FACE FACADE FICTIONS A TOWER ON A TOWER WITH A TOWER
ON TOP 3300 RICHMOND MUSEUM OF ART OF THE 20TH CENTURY CONTENTS
Micro Housing High Rise in the Lower East Side Mixed-Use Urban
Design Olympic Housing Addition to the Eiffel Tower Civic Building
Houston, Texas Berlin Kulturforum
4. ABOUT FACEPartnership with Yifan Wang About Face is a
proposal for 105 microunits in the Lower East Side, located on a
site that is only 30 feet by 80. We are proposing a building that
compounds the definition of the unit across scales through the
conception that by sharing components of what would traditionally
be a single apartment unit,residents are privy to more square
footage on average than if they had a 200 square foot unit to
themselves. By this we mean that a unit can be defined concurrently
as a single 200 square foot bedroom, a floor of 4 bedrooms, a suite
of 8 bedrooms, to a community of 8 floors. At each scale consequent
programs are shared amongst proportional groups of people. As a
result, instead of each resident only renting 200-250 square feet
per person, there living arrangement is defined by 700-800 square
feet per person. Thebuildingiscomprisedofthreecommunities that
create the about face, switching orientation as the building moves
upward. Between each community are two transition floors that act
as free planned balcony and event spaces connecting communities to
each other. At these moments the buildings density almost
completely dissipates as these transition floors create an open
clerestory, connecting the east and west lights. AB C D A A
COMMUNAL LIVING SCHEME ABOUT FACE FORM CONCEPTUAL RENDER Single bed
and bath Single Floor 4 - 5 Single Bedrooms Kitchen Suite Pair 8-10
Single Bedrooms 2 Kitchens Dining Study Lounge Community 30+ Single
Bedrooms 4 Suite Pairs
17. FACADE FICTIONS G Facade Fictions is a project to design a
mixed use plan for a 17 acre parcel directly to the north of
downtown Houston. This project proposes a form of mixed-use I am
referring to as compressed use. By working within the known
boundaries and optimizations of the generic housing, office, and
commercial typologies, this urban plan deploys tightly packed
formations of housing and office. This allows the plan to contract
and expand, alternate tall and flat, dense and loose, and creates
an urban space that contrasts with the urban simulacra that is
often the product of mixed-use design
19. 1 = 320LONGITUDINAL SECTION AA LONGITUDINAL SECTION BB
Residential buildings are a tightly packed bundle of living
typologies, providing apartments, condominiums, and town- homes in
a single amalgamated form creating compressions in the density of
the urban plan. Low single and double height retail buildings, in
contrast create expanses of decompression, challenging
phenomenalized conceptions of ur- ban density. There has almost
always been a graduated and parallel relationship between building
height and density, but this proposal contrasts the high and low
conditions in close proximity. 1 = 320 Apartments Townhomes
Amenities Parking Lobby Below Grade Parking
20. TRANSFER FLOOR (6) COMPRESSION OF HOUSING TYPOLOGIES 7th
FLOOR 1 = 50 1 = 50
21. 1st FLOOR PLAN NORTH ELEVATION 2st FLOOR PLAN 7th FLOOR
PLAN 16th FLOOR PLAN
22. MODEL PHOTOS
23. Steel T section runner with multiple connection points
Steel unit mounting carriage. Welded to primary structure Mounting
carriage spanning support Lateral scaffolding Dark water Supply
water Primary walkway support. Tapering steel beam in cantilever.
Welded to primary structure Steel Floor joists with cutouts for
mechanical connections
24. A TOWER ON A TOWER WITH A TOWER INSIDEPartnership with
Wenqi Chen The premise of this project is ridiculous: to build an
olympic housing facility on the eiffel tower for Frances 2024
Olympic bid, while relying on the towers existing structural
capacity to support the load and leaving the towers tourist
operations uninterrupted. By entertaining the premise of this
project, we enter the very pitched and very much alive debates on
tall buildings in Paris, the sanctimony ascribed to patrimonious
cultural monuments, and architectures pitiful history with olympic
buildings. Inspired by scaffolding, we decided early on to design a
building that would be disassembled - not demolished. With
precedents like the Centre Pompidou, the works of Peter Cook and
the Metabolists, we found we had a responsibility to leverage
architecture as a speculation on temporality in an effort to first
do no harm, while also attempting to gain something spectacular.
This contrasts with what one has come to expect from Olympic
architecture. This scaffold tower begins just above the second
platform (where the best views can be found) thereby preserving the
tourists experience of the Tour Eiffel. Secondly, the athletes, as
they ascend the interior of the tower, will have a new spatial
relationship with the tower as historical artifact, much like a
window washer on a skyscraper, or viewing the skeleton of an
extinct creature in a museum. Lastly the structure is more a kit of
parts than architecture. It can easily be disassembled and
reassembled elsewhere for a new function, returning the tower to
its original state.
25. beaugrenelletrocadero ecole militaire montmarte 0-200 m
.2-1 km 1-4 km 4-8 km TOWER VISIBILITY STUDY
26. compound 8km 4km 1km 200m COMPOSITE VISIBILITY RADII AND
SURVEY POINTS The Tour Eiffel is obviously a city-wide marker.
Apartment listings are sure to note views of the eiffel tower even
no matter how far or small the tower is on the horizon. But the
world renowned tapering silhouette of the tower is only visible
from a very small radius. We used this visibility study conducted
in person and from google street view, to determine from many
vantage points, where our tower on tower could begin, to harmonize
with the changing perceptions of the tower as it currently
exists.
27. 1st public deck Existing power generation, water pumps 2nd
public deck 3rd public deck We leave the lower decks to operate
normally, and draw a simple separation between the tourist public,
and the athletic housing above There is a partial thinning in
density at the top deck to allow visitors to continue to visit the
tower oor, as well as reveal the end of the existing tower,
exposing the proportion that cotinues upward in cantilever Using
prefabricated units, we compose a tower that increases in opacity
and occupancy as it grows. In doing so we expose as much of the
existing tower inside Vertical circulation is dispersed to prevent
creating consolidated moments of continuous opacity on the facade
Shared programs area evenly dispersed throughout the tower. They
form bands of glazing on the facade that are split into pieces and
shift to break up the controlling rhythm of space created by the
housing unit grid. CONCEPT DIAGRAM PRECEDENTS
28. ELEVATION
29. 58.8m 116.5m 121.65m 126.0m 130.1m 134.2m 138.3m 142.4m
146.5m 150.6m 154.7m 158.8m 162.9m 167.0m 171.1m 175.2m 179.3m
183.4m PLAN0 PLAN+5 First athlete arrival checkpoint Exisiting
express elevator to level Jules Verne Fire stair changes
orientation to accomodate the prole of the tower Passenger eleva-
tors. skip sto every 5 oors Passenger eleva- tors. skip sto every 5
oors Service elevator CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
32. 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E F G H J K LI I LKJHGFEDCBA I
LKJHGFEDCBA 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I
LKJHGFEDCBA 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I LKJHGFEDCBA 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E F G H J K LI I LKJHGFEDCBA I LKJHGFEDCBA 12
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I LKJHGFEDCBA 12
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I LKJHGFEDCBA 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 5th FLOOR
PLAN 16th FLOOR PLAN 59th FLOOR PLAN 44th FLOOR PLAN
33. TOWER CONNECTION DETAIL SECTION 8.2 m 8.2 m4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1
m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 24.2 m2.0 m0.5m7.7 m0.5 m1.55 m 2.0 m 8.7
m Metal mesh bodyrail Scaffolding segment connector Corrugated
aluminum siding Steel stud Prefab stud wall assembly Output dark
water pipe w/ branch to units Supply water pipe w/ branch to units
Aluminum flooring panel on corrugated steel deck Existing tower
structure Steel collar with pin joint connections Pipe section
steel strut 50 cm di. Pipe section steel strut 25 cm di.
34. CONTROL ELEVATION MEP SCHEME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1.
Clean water vertical chase 2. Service elevator 3. Dark water
vertical chase 4. Water pump 5. Mechanical room 6. Egress stair 7.
Passenger elevators 8. Egress stair 9. Passenger Elevators
35. 3300 RICHMOND The aim of this project is to design a public
service annex for the city of Houston including an auditorium,
courtrooms, and bureaucratic functions to create a complete public
interface. At the same time, there is the ambition to explore the
nature of public (civic) space in a city like houston, which is
largely known by its dispersed, archipelago-like, private
decentralization. Theproposal,then,drawsfromthesurrounding context.
Many mid century modernist homes, offices, and commercial buildings
mark the Richmond Avenue corridor and can be identified by their
lifted forms, freeing the ground floor for covered parking.
Additionally they often feature wide-brimmed, flat roofs that
create a intimate and shaded relationship with the sidewalk. The
contrasts are drastic between these buildings and more recent
constructions driven mostly by parking codes and setback
regulations. These conditions create the urban sprawl/asphalt
desert that so frequently characterizes the generic American urban
periphery. This contextual forms versatile ability to modulate the
a close private scale and interface with the public domain primed
it for reinvention. In contrast to the free plan, this proposal
introduces a sweeping circulatory form that drives the plan in
conjuction with a regular column grid. FORMAL PROCESS
36. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Primary Entrance 2. Workshop 3.
Workshop 4. Public Plaza 5. Cafe seating 6. Cafe 7. Employee and
secondary entrance ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CIVIC SERVICES PUBLIC
AMENITIES CIRCULATION / MECHANICAL JUDICIARY FUNCTIONSARTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT CIVIC SERVICES PUBLIC AMENITIES CIRCULATION /
MECHANICAL JUDICIARY FUNCTIONS PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SITE PLAN
RICHMONDAUDLEY A B A B
37. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. Assembly Hall
Stage 2.General Purpose Assembly Hall 3.Workshop 4. Bathroom 5.
Primary Mechanical 6. Bathroom 7. West Fire Stair 8. Green Screen
room/Theater Storage 9. Theater administrative ofce 10. Locker room
11. Dressing Room suites (3) 12. Service and pasenger Elevators 13.
East Fire Stair 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. Main
Entrance and Theater Foyer 2. Main Theater (360 seats) 3. Stage 4.
Exhibition/ Gallery 5. Childcare 6. Childcare Ofce and storage 7.
Mechanical 8. Classroom 9. Classroom 10. Reception/ Box Ofce 11.
Storage 12. Tax Ofce 13. Stage Support 14. Classroom 15. Clerk
Ofces (6) 16. Employee Break room 17. Restroom 18. Main Records
Storage 19. Secondary Entrance 14. 15. 17. 16. 18. 19. 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. Public Lounge 2. Gallery Catwalk
(Entry from +1 to +2 3. Stage Technical 4. County Clerk queueing
and service counter 5. County Clerk Ofce 6. Justice of the Peace
Clerk Ofce 7. Justice of the Peace service counter 8. Mechanical 9.
Judicial Promenade 10. Stage Technical 11. Circulation Vestibule
12. Judges Ofce (1) 13. Jury Deliberation Room(1) 14. Court Clerk
ofce (1) 15. Courtroom (1) 16. Jury Assembly 17. Restrooms 18.
Courtroom (2) 19. Jury Deliberation Room (2) 20. Court Clerk Ofce
(2) 21. Judges Ofce (2) 22. Marriage and Divorce proceedings ofce
14. 15. 17. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. B1 PLAN 1=1/64 SECOND FLOOR
PLAN 1=1/64 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1=1/64
38. LONGITUDINAL SECTION AA 1=1/32 LONGITUDINAL SECTION BB
1=1/32 NORTH ELEVATION 1=1/32
39. SOUTH ELEVATION 1=1/32 ON N
40. MUSEUM OF ART OF THE 20TH CENTURY There was recently a high
profile competition to propose a Museum of Art of the 20th Century
to go on the Kulturforum in Berlin, Germany to join the seminal
works of Hans Scharoun and Mies van der Rohe. This project is a
response to that brief. This site is concurrently an architects
dream and nightmare. It is an incredible challenge to design a
museum that responds to such a charged and iconic context, yet the
Kulturforum is conditioned by an uncanny vastness - a kind of
desolation - resultant from the deliberately non-monumental land
form architectures of Scharoun and Mies parthenon-like universal
pavilion. Deterred by the legacy of national socialist
monumentality and neighboring East German Socialist
totalitarianism, it seems the Kulturforum and indeed the 1960s
showed the struggle to define a public monumentalism free of the
problems of the past. Time clearly solved this problem, as the site
is also near Potsdamer Platz which is the Germany capitals emblem
of neoliberal iconicity and monumentalism. But as one walks from
Potsdamer Platz to the Kulturforum, there is the distinct feeling
of exiting of a condition of buzzing urbanity to one of insularity
and deference. Oddly, these properties of the Kulturforum are a
kind of strength. Each major building of the Kulturforum is
specifically attuned to a particular purpose. Scharouns
Staatsbibliotek is the nations largest academic library and is not
open to the public. Scharouns Philharmoniker explodes with life at
concert times but then goes dormant in between events.And Mies Neue
Nationalgalerie is less a museum than a highly focused pavilion.
Therefore the inherent ambition of this competition to invigorate
this district through with a single building is a sisyphean task,
compounded by thepossibilityof creatinganarchitectural petting zoo
due to the concentration of high profile buildings. It is ironic
that this district is called the Kulturforum when one compares it
to the Museum Insel, which is far more classically organized,and
telegraphs its public cultural commodities in a much more
recognizable way. Therefore, this project aims to lean into the
archipelago already in the making, by creating a unique, highly
specific, and embounded cultural experience in contrast to the
consumable, touristic cultural day out provided by the Museum
Insel. The program itself demands it, in a way. This is because it
is a relatively new notion to conceive of art of the 20th century
as an archived, historicized epoch - no longer contemporary, and
modern only in designation. The word Modern has acted as an age
reversal cream for Modern Art, extending its contemporaneity. The
aim, thenof thisprojectisinspecttheinnovations of Modern art on the
display of art, and the conventions of the historical display of
art.
41. KULTURFORUM PLAN NATIONALGALERIE STAATSBIBLIOTHEK SITE
PHILHARMONIKER KAMMERMUSIK HALL GEMAELDEGALERIE GROUND FLOOR PLAN A
A
42. CONCEPTUAL MONTAGE Art in isolation is very much the format
of art in a contemporary moment, one could argue, the sequence of
most contemporary art museums reflects this one-on-one spatial
arrangment between viewers and the art. I argue this reflects an
insistance that the work itself contains any political, social, and
artistic response to its present moment. This format, I argue, was
mastered during the modern era which can be associated with the
explosion of media, formats, and the size of art. This image is an
example of how art is often historicized. The contextualized
breadth of a cultural moment is often added to the motivations, and
ambitions of any individual piece. Isolation is the format in which
we appreciate art and the other is considered how we learn about
art. This museum is composed as a aggregate of 2 conditions of
display: Clearings and Dense Display. Clearings place a piece of
art in its isolated format, the format popularized by Modern Art.
Dense Display is the greater collection of historicized art. It is
an opportunity for viewers to view and investigate art in a format
one rarely sees in Modern Art. Additionally, museums rarely display
more than 5% of their collections on the museum floor at any one
time. This strategy responds to the question of how to historicize
the artistic moment that was more self aware of its presentness
more than any other - by creating this duality in format.
45. SECTION AA ROOF 19.3 m 4 15.2 m 3 10.6 m 2 6 m Potsdamer
Street Level 4m St. Matthaus Kirche0m 0 m 3.4 m 12.43 m 21.46 m
30.49 LEVEL 4LEVEL 3LEVEL 2
46. m 39.51 m 48.54 m 57.57 m 66.60 m 70.0 m PERSPECTIVE
RENDER