Alex Jeffrey Siekierski

617.894.0664 siekierski.alex@gmail.com

INTRODUCTORY REVIEW January 17th, 2012

ENGAGING SPACES:

Architecture which can stimulate innovation through social interaction.

Supported by collaboration and inspired by Montessori principles

INTRODUCTORY REVIEW OBJECTIVES:

1. Address the addendum from my thesis proposal.

2. Determine which site is best for my thesis exploration.

3. Choose a design strategy & discuss comments/ concerns related to the program.

4. Itemize goals for the Preliminary Review.

THESIS PROPOSAL ADDENDUM: 1) Reduce site - dovetail your project into a larger project that has been proposed on the same site, or find a smaller new site.

The original site was zoned for 1.5 million square feet with a FAR of 4. My solution was to select a portion of the original proposed site. The location is closest to the channel containing an approximate area of 28,000 square feet. The smaller site consists of using two adjacent buildings areas which were proposed with the 100 Acre Master Plan. In addition to decrease the site area I also increased my proposed program too roughly 130,000 square feet. My program is subject to change slightly depending on the direction and exploration of scale within the selected site.

2) Test different program sizes with massing models on a site model, in scale. 3) Explore different design ideas & directions. 4) Get more design critics.

THESIS STATEMENT Can the engaging of multiple professions yield an environment for enhanced exchanging of information via collaboration and digital media? My thesis is about creating an environment for education, communication, technology, active learning, and collaboration. Key components of collaboration regard adaptability, visual connectivity, integration of nature, order, transformative spaces, layering of program, and the de-standardization of space types. With the standardization

of building uses come restraints on adaptability and functionality within spaces. In order for sharing of ideas and problem solving to occur, standard space types are no longer a determining factor for the success for the program. My overarching investigation is to create a resource center which can attract minds from different professions and trades. As a result I am providing an environment which can overlap the artists, mathematicians, philosophers, scientists, doctors and historians, to facilitate the birth of new ideas and provides the tools essential to bring them to life, all within a mutual environment that is safe for communicating ideas freely.

Montessori Design Attributes: 1. Openness within a space. 2. Clear visibility between adjacent spaces with adequate lighting. 3. Integrate nature within the context of the classroom. 4. The atmosphere must compliment the use.

Montessori believed that the curriculum and the spaces they are taught in, must promote freedom, order, beauty and atmosphere, didactic materials, community life, and reality and nature. These concepts determined as the criteria of the Montessori approach which became critical in allowing the creative mind to flourish.. “Emphasis must be placed on visibility between activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher, and activity areas in order to permit observation by the teacher and between the children.” For Montessori, visibility promoted freedom and the inclination that if the boundaries of a space can be minimized and the use can be adaptable, then architecture can begin to facilitate collaboration. TERMS OF CRITICISM

Does the environment allow for its users to customize for the respected users, promote freedom through visual awareness between multiple spaces, use the architecture as part of the learning, bring in nature into the environment and bring the environment out into nature.

Does the building encourage social interaction and engagement between various users.

Will the building showcase the concept of active learning and engagement?

Does it provide an open and inviting environment?

Are the spaces arranged in a non-standard method that caters to a variety of learning styles which can be adaptive and flexible.

Does the building showcase multiple styles of learning in a completely new type of application.

Does the building facilitate collaboration in both a physical and digital way.

METHODS OF INQUIRY Resources, in which I am referencing, pertain to active learning and collaboration along

with engaging environments. Due to the wide variety of spaces types in which these processes occur, my research and precedents include: assembly spaces, exhibition installations, institutional, public spaces, operas, and libraries. These project types/spaces all act in supporting both new trends in learning as well as bringing large groups of people together. Both tie back to my concept relating to integration of active learning within a collaborative environment, which can support innovative solutions.

How can architectural form, spatial relationships and visual openness of programmed elements facilitate and environment which alters the sensory receptors for an ideal learning atmosphere. I might try to answer this question by investigating space types which facilitate learning in a non-academic function. This will help me find references which I can explore beyond implementation in Universities.

Can a built environment based on academic principals look like a typology that is non-

academic? This research will be explored in the library and on-line, in order to further find new curriculums and typologies in which I might not know about. This will ensure that I am implementing my ideas into the appropriate program.

MISSION The mission is to create an active learning environment which cultivates innovation through social exchange. It is essentially to have the site working as part of this mission to support collaboration both within the building and outside within the surrounding context. The mission of my thesis is to create a melting-pot where education, culture, community, and nature are all working together to create a place for spending as well as leisure, and outdoor activities to take place. Ultimately I envision the thesis building type to become a part of the urban fabric in which it can create moments which had not occurred. In lesser of a word; the intention is to create an engaging architecture which a focus on natural integration both for experiencing open space and for the fostering of collaboration.

TERMINOLOGY engaging to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons): to occupy oneself; become involved: collaboration to work within a group towards a common goal: to bring together unlike minds in order to troubleshoot problems and generate new ideas: active learning is an approach to instruction in which students engage the material they study through engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Active learning stands in contrast to “standard” modes of instruction in which teachers do most of the talking and are passive. nonstandard not conforming to traditional architectural programming strategies adhering to a specific building typology. timebanking is a pattern of reciprocal service exchange that uses units of time as currency. Skillshare is a community marketplace to learn anything from anyone. We believe that everyone has something they want to learn and something they can teach to others. This means our communities are really the greatest universities. Our platform helps make the exchange of knowledge easy, enriching, and fun.

PLANNED RESEARCH Visiting the Kingsley Montessori School at 30 Fairfield Street, Boston, MA Visiting the Genzyme Corporation at 64 Sidney St # 400, Cambridge, MA Visiting the Lulu Chow Wang Campus Center at 21 College Road Wellesley,

Massachusetts 02481 Visiting the MIT Media Lab at 20 Ames St, Cambridge, MA Interviewing Peter Boyce II – Boston Manager & Co-Founder of Skillshare.

SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS *located at 100 Massachuessetts Avenue, 5th Floor Room 502

FAST TRACK SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 22rd, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday June 20th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday September 12th, 2012

EXTENDED SCHEDULE INTRODUCTARY REVIEW Tuesday January 17th, 2012 PRELIMINARY REVIEW Wednesday February 29th, 2012 SCHEMATIC REVIEW Wednesday April 25th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 Wednesday July 16th, 2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2 Wednesday September 12th, 2012 FINAL REVIEW Wednesday November 7th, 2012

WEBLINK REFERENCES Thesis reviews will be scheduled through Doodle, gmail an outlook events can be sent out as well if requested: http://doodle.com/ Thesis document’s will be posted here for download: http://issuu.com/siekierski.alex/docs You can find my credentials and resume on linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexsiekierski Boston Architectural College: http://www.the-bac.edu/ http://www.the-bac.edu/Documents/Departments/Education/Thesis/MArch_Thesis_Handbook.pdf http://bacstudentprofiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/alex-siekierski-master-of-architecture.html Local Time Banking Service http://timetradecircle.org/ Online Hosting for educational services http://www.skillshare.com/ Fort Point Channel Blog: http://www.fortpointboston.com/2008_04_01_archive.html Innovation District Website: http://www.innovationdistrict.org/

BRA | Planning Initiatives | Fort Point District Planning (100 Acres) http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=33

Alex Jeffrey Siekierski Masters Thesis Schematic Program Primary Space Sub-Spaces Room # Qty Unit Area Area Comments Public Mixed Private

General Use Shared AssignableGround floor lobby/exhibits 2 1,100 2,200 Primary entry will remain larger

Main Circulation/ Sitting 1,200 0Entrance Vestibules 2 96 192Entry Sitting Lounge 1 400 400Reception/Security 1 200 200Coat Check 1 100 100Meeting Space/touchdown 1 1,000 1,000public toilets male 1 120 120public toilets female 1 180 180

Information Area/ Memberships 1 200 200 office with cubicles

Shower Rooms 2 50 100 one per sex

media library 1 150 150 wayfinding kiosk

Innovation/ Building Exhibit 1 400 400

retail area 1 1,200 1,200 small supply store for art and technology

0Cafétorium & Lounge 2 1,500 3,000 has areas for collaboration

Food Prep 2 500 1,000Collaboration Rooms 5 1,000 5,000 rentable conference spaces

Canteens 2 300 600 areas for quests to bring their own food

main auditorium & theater 0seating 300 1 3,600 3,600 dancing/lectures

stage 1 1,200 1,200support space 0

projection/control room 1 300 300equipment storage 1 300 300rear projection room 1 400 400

Open Air Garden/Courtyard 1 7,000 7,000 multistory

Small Winter Garden 6 250 1,500 dispursed throughout transitional spaces

Roof Top Greens 2 4,000 8,000 Similar to Oslo Operah House

bull pen 2 500 1,000 Combination of open & partitioned

Green Artery Connection/ Classroom Space 1 10,000 10,0000

Total 49,342Services & Back of House

Office and Administrative 0 0 0 including copy/print areas

Core Director - Office 1 180 180Small Office 1 150 150Two Person Office 1 200 200Business Manager - Office 1 120 120Administrative/Reception 1 100 100Membership Records Storage 1 100 100Staff Conference Room 1 250 250Kitchennette and HC RR 1 150 150electrical equipment room 1 150 150

Supply Storage 1 2000 2,000Janitor Storage 3 60 180Circulation 1 1500 1,500Mechanical Spaces 1 3,000 3,000

Boiler Room 1 1,000 1,000Electrical Room 1 200 200Pump Room 1 310 310

security office 1 80 80loading dock 1 300 300

postal service area 1 100 100Vertical Circulation 1 0

Architectural Stair 1 900 900Egress Stairs 2 600 1,200 per floor

Elevator Shafts 6 100 600 must include one freight elevator

Parking Area 0Around Building 1 2,560 2,560 160sf per spot, Summer Street

Attached Garage 1 20,000 20,000New Ramp from Summer, Garage entry at

mid level

0000

Total 35,330Artist's CommunityLockers 1 150 150Breakout Space 1 100 100Equipment Storage 3 150 450 locker/cage storage for artist's

Supply Storage 1 150 150 regular locker storage

Art Waste Holding 1 200 200 contaminated holding area

Artist Work Benches 4 2,000 8,000 used for class seminars

Kitchenettes 6 80 480 could be used for classes

Open work studios 2 3,000 6,000 demising capabilities

Small Gallery 2 300 600design room 3 150 450green screen room & photo 1 400 400 demisable

000

Total 16,980Time Bank ServicesSkilshare Service Areas 0

Community Commons 3 600 1,800 multipurpose, breakout, open to circulation

teaming spaces 8 350 2,800 (fitness/meeting/therapy/art)

2 2,000 4,000 Open source Network areas

Multifunctional Ammenities 6 400 2,400 small tutoring/ training

Digital Media Labs 4 800 3,200 Can be used for class & collaboration

Digital Resource Rooms 3 1,000 3,000 Opened to a larger scale

Hoteling & Study Kennels 40 50 2,000 ARE/SAT/Bar Exam

Lecture Room 50 people 2 800 1,600 include food accomodations

Huddle Rooms 6-10 people 5 250 1,250 include food accomodations

Music 0Sound proof classroom 1 900 900 25 people at most

Soundproof Studios 3 250 750 also used as office space

Soundproof Practice Room 8 150 1,200Donated Library 1 700 700 Periodicals / references

Reading Area 4 0 0 spread through common corridors

Imaginarium 1 2,000 2,000 Open forum creative space

Touchdown Hub / Tel Rooms 10 100 1,000 Spread through building

0Total 28,600

BUILDING TOTAL 130,252