Upload
marcelo-lopez-dinardi
View
236
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Undisciplined CMU is the book that documents the second iteration of a project in which a construction is developed as part of a 2nd year undergraduate architecture studio focused on masonry. The material used is, as suggested above, the concrete masonry unit or CMU, is the single most utilized construction element in the industry besides dry wall. It is at the same time the least considered in its capacity to produce work that goes beyond its limited use as infill wall. For this studio the material is investigated as a given condition, it is inquired, analyzed formally but also culturally. Undisciplined CMU is a research project that evidences the capacity of a work to overcome its expected disciplinary use by undoing its assumed role. School of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2015.
Citation preview
8”
8”
16”
UN-DISCIPLINEDCMU
A Design-Build Masonry Architecture Studio
BUILDIT IFYOUWANT
Marcelo López-Dinardi | Pier Paolo Pala | Chau Tran | Yuliya Veligurskaya
Originated in a 2nd year undergraduate architecture design-build studio competition at the School of Architecture of the New Jersey Institute of Technology, the UNDISCIPLINED CMU (concrete masonry unit) assembly was an assignment intended to produce a mock-up of a paper-project for a police station in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Although the competition had requirements and agenda of its own, the design studio expanded the given program and material theme. Shifting from the expected representation of the building in a mock-up, the focus was given to the exploration of the material parameters and cultural dimension of the project on the given site of a 6’ x 8’ x 8’ volume. The typical CMU was chosen due to its commonplace status in the construction industry stimulating unexpected readings challenging its cultural implications. The design process was not linear and it required simultaneous exploration and production through digital, physical, and analog methods. The immersion into systematic thinking that
was embodied in the framework of the studio was key to the iterative process that allowed the final result, it is the product of the networked connections of the masonry industry and its architectural aspirations. The project also went through moments of uncertainty and frustration, as the results seemed always unpredictable or unexpected. Each step forward was treated as an accomplishment with excitement, yet research and critical inquiry were daily ingredients that encouraged the studio. Primarily this publication documents the build (or CMU-Monument), however, it showcases the individual work of a group of students including the final selection from which this project was based. While the built project is meant to last a year, this book is a long-lasting record of the process that produced it and the varied realities that were provoked through it. The book is a counter-cronology, as you advance on it you will encounter the projects and exercises that led to the constructed object.
TABLE OFCONTENTS
p.8
p.44
p.98
p.130
p.158
p.182
BUILD EXPLORATIONS
BUILD IT IF YOU WANT
CMU OVERLOAD
STUDIO PROJECTS
INITIAL DRAWINGS
AFTERWORD
6’8’
8’
Spatial Parameter
8’
8’
8’
8’
8’6’
8
Material Parameter—Masonry
9
Starting Point—Linear Aggregation Drawings
10
Study Models of Cast Stone and CMU Walls
11
Study Model of Cast Stone and CMU Walls
12
Study Models of Cast Stone Walls
13
Drawing Exploration with CMU
14
Drawing Exploration with CMU
15
CMU Exploration—Initial Cuts
16
CMU—Final Cuts
8”
8”
16”
17
Diagram—Susceptible to Breaking CMU Cuts
18
Susceptible to BreakingBecomes Rubble/ Scrap
Diagram—Susceptible to Breaking CMU Cuts
19
Susceptible to BreakingBecomes Rubble/ Scrap
20
Selected CMU Cuts
21
Structural Concerns
Structural Concerns
22
Structural Concerns
23
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
24
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
25
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
26
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
27
Build Physical Model—Material: Foam Core
28
Basic Cuts—Longitudinal, Transversal, Diagonal
30
Diagram—CMU Cuts Matrix
31
Wall 1
Wall 2
Wall 3
Wall 4
Wall 5
Build Digital Model
37
Physical Model Explorations
38
Diagram—Wall Complexity
Wall 1High
Wall 2Intermediate
Wall 3Low
Wall 4Intermediate
Wall 5High
39
Diagram—View and Perception
40
Build Physical Model—Material Explorations
41
Build Physical Model—Material Explorations
BUILDITIFYOUWANT
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Decide you want to build a monument to Concrete Masonry Units.
2. Convince a group of friends and masons to join you in this endeavor.
3. Acquire 353 CMUs plus additional 5% for contingency, and mortar.
4. Acquire or rent a masonry saw.
5. Create a concrete pad 6’x8’x4” thick; draw plan on pad.
6. Cut the CMUs in no less than 14 different ways, as illustrated in the following pages.
7. Divide the CMUs into batches corresponding with the order of assembly, as shown.
8. Using the Construction Documents (included), and will (not included), begin assembly.
9. Finish assembly; if accomplished in two days or less, marvel at your insanity.
10. Celebrate by documenting the process in book form and eating brick oven pizza.
45
Type A Cut
EQ.
EQ.
A.1
A.1
BATCH 1—8BATCH 2—7BATCH 3—7BATCH 4—9BATCH 5—3BATCH 6—5
TOTAL—39
Type B Cut
B.1
B.1
EQ.
EQ.
BATCH 1—10BATCH 2—10BATCH 3—18BATCH 4—11BATCH 5—4BATCH 6—2
TOTAL—55
Type C Cut
C.1
C.1
EQ.
EQ.
BATCH 1—10BATCH 2—7BATCH 3—13BATCH 4—7BATCH 5—3BATCH 6—2
TOTAL—42
Type D Cut
D.1
CORNERTOCORNER
D.1
BATCH 1—10BATCH 2—10BATCH 3—18BATCH 4—11BATCH 5—4BATCH 6—2
TOTAL—33
Type E Cut
E.1
E.1
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—6BATCH 2—4BATCH 3—13BATCH 4—7BATCH 5—5BATCH 6—3
TOTAL—38
Type AB Cut
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
AB.1
AB.1
AB.1
AB.1
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—0BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—4BATCH 6—6
TOTAL—10
Type AC Cut
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
AC.1
AC.1
AC.1
AC.1
EQ.
EQ.
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—0BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—7BATCH 6—2
TOTAL—9
Type AE Cut
AE.1
EQ.
CORNERTOCORNER
EQ.
AE.1
AE.1
AE.1
EQ.
EQ.
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—0BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—7BATCH 6—7
TOTAL—14
Type BC Cut
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.
EQ.EQ.
EQ.
BC.1
BC.1
BC.1
BC.1
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—3BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—7BATCH 6—4
TOTAL—14
Type BD Cut
EQ.
EQ.
BD.2BD.1
BD.2BD.1
EQ.
EQ.
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—12BATCH 4—11BATCH 5—6BATCH 6—8
TOTAL—37
Type CD Cut
EQ.
EQ.
CORNERTOCORNER
EQ.
EQ.
CD.2
CD.2
CD.1
CD.1
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—5BATCH 4—2BATCH 5—7BATCH 6—6
TOTAL—20
Type CE Cut
EQ.
EQ.
CE.2
CE.1
CE.2
CE.1
EQ.
EQ.
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—4BATCH 4—1BATCH 5—8BATCH 6—11
TOTAL—24
Type DD Cut
CORNERTOCORNER
DD.1
DD.1
DD.2
DD.2
CORNERTOCORNER
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—2BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—5BATCH 6—4
TOTAL—11
Type EE Cut
EE.1
EE.2
EE.1
EE.2
CORNERTOCORNER
SCRAP
CORNERTOCORNER
CORNERTOCORNER
BATCH 1—0BATCH 2—0BATCH 3—1BATCH 4—0BATCH 5—5BATCH 6—1
TOTAL—7
60
Wall 1
Wall 5
Wall 2
Wall 4
Wall 3
Batch 1: Wall 3 - Lower half
Batch 2: Wall 3 - Upper half
Batch 3: Walls 2&4 - Lower halves
Batch 4: Walls 2&4 - Upper halves
Batch 5: Walls 1&5 - Lower halves
Batch 6: Walls 1&5 - Upper halves
A101 Roof Plan
Street
Sidewalk
N
8 1640in
A102 Course 1 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A103 Course 1 Plan at 6”
A104 Course 2 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A105 Course 2 Plan at 6”
A106 Course 3 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A107 Course 3 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A108 Course 4 Plan at 3”
A109 Course 4 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A110 Course 5 Plan at 3”
A111 Course 5 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A112 Course 6 Plan at 3”
A113 Course 6 Plan at 6”
A114 Course 7 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A115 Course 7 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A116 Course 8 Plan at 3”
A117 Course 8 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A118 Course 9 Plan at 3”
A119 Course 9 Plan at 6”
8 1640in
A120 Course 10 Plan at 3”
A121 Course 10 Plan at 6”
A122 Course 11 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A123 Course 11 Plan at 6”
A124 Course 12 Plan at 3”
8 1640in
A125 Course 12 Plan at 6”
A200 Wall 1 North Elevation
8 1640in
A201 Wall 1 South Elevation
A202 Wall 2 North Elevation
8 1640in
A203 Wall 2 South Elevation
A204 Wall 3 North Elevation
8 1640in
A205 Wall 3 South Elevation
A206 Wall 4 North Elevation
8 1640in
A207 Wall 4 South Elevation
A208 Wall 5 North Elevation
8 1640in
A209 Wall 5 South Elevation
8 1640in
CMUOVERLOAD
No conocía esta historia del monumento al CMU ¡qué interesante!
¿?
¿?
!!
99
Build Preparation—CMU Marking and Cutting - Day 1
100
Build Preparation—CMU Marking and Cutting - Day 1
101
Build Pad - Day 1
102
Build Process - Day 1
103
Build Process - Day 1
104
Build Process - Day 1
105
Build Process - Day 2
106
Build Process - Day 2
107
Build Drying Process - Day 2
108
Build Drying Process - Day 2
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
Physical Model of Build in Process (already 10 days)
128
Physical Model of Build - 2 Weeks to Finish
129
Not good, not bad
STUDIOPROJECTS
131
132
133
Masonry Design Competition - Studio Entry
134
Mariza Antonio
135
136
Spoorthi Bhatta
137
138
Brian Mourato
139
140
Chit Yee Ng
141
142
Pier Paolo Pala
143
144
Elliot Pérez
145
146
Lauren Rose
147
148
Roman Schorniy
149
150
María Silva
151
152
Chau Tran
153
154
Yuliya Veligurskaya
155
156
Jeffrey Youmans
157
INITIALDRAWINGS
IIVision for the City
IIIVision for the Project
IContext Analysis
159
III
II
I
160
Mariza Antonio
Spoorthi Bhatta
III
II
I
161
Brian Mourato
162
III
II
I
163
III
II
I
Chit Yee Ng
164
III
II
I
Pier Paolo Pala
165
III
II
I
Elliot Pérez
166
III
II
I
Lauren Rose
167
III
II
I
Roman Schorniy
168
III
II
I
María Silva
169
III
II
I
Chau Tran
170
III
II
I
Yuliya Veligurskaya
171
III
II
I
Jeffrey Youmans
174
Unit Aggregation
Spoorthi BhattaMariza Antonio Brian Mourato
175
Unit Aggregation
Chit Yee Ng Pier Paolo Pala Elliot Pérez
Lauren RoseMaría Silva Roman Schorniy
Unit Aggregation
176
Yuliya VeligurskayaJeffrey Youmans Chau Tran
Linear Aggregation
177
Spoorthi Bhatta Mariza AntonioBrian Mourato
Linear Aggregation
178
Pier Paolo PalaElliot Pérez Chit Yee Ng
Linear Aggregation
179
Lauren RoseMaría Silva Roman Schorniy
Linear Aggregation
180
Yuliya VeligurskayaJeffrey Youmans Chau Tran
Linear Aggregation
181
Afterword
UNDISCIPLINED CMU is the second iteration of a project in which a physical construction is developed as part of a 2nd year undergraduate architecture studio focused on masonry. The studio is part of the core curriculum of the School of Architecture of the New Jersey Institute of Technology I taught in the Spring of 2015, and was run as an intra-studio competition sponsored by the Masonry Contractors of New Jersey (as they have done it for more than a decade). Each student is asked to design a building-project based on the material theme of masonry and tectonics complemented with a program. Later, after an internal review they select one project that will be developed by the whole studio to compete with all 2nd year studios, and after a period of two and a half weeks design and build a mock-up of the proposed building within a 384 cu.ft. space. The project was based on the assigned program by the former studio coordinator –in this case a rather charged program of a police station in a high Hispanic population in Perth Amboy New Jersey aspiring for funding for a Traffic Oriented District town. After reviewing our studio projects with the most potential to be developed collectively, students selected María Silva’s out of sixteen in an internal strictly student-based jury, and quickly moved into a vibrant period of translation of the project’s ideas into what we commonly called the build; or sometimes the CMU Monument.
We found out that we were more interested in translating the project and the studio’s framework rather than formalizing a construction mock-up of the selected project; the idea of constructing representative fragments of the building as a reaffirmation of the drawing seemed futile and limiting as a pedagogical tool and a lost opportunity to explore the material in a one-to-one scale considering the amount of energy that is spent in the project. We wanted to build an argument, not only a mock-up. We decided instead to formulate a project of its own inquiring the masonry theme, the culture that is contained within it, and asking questions to the construction industry and the architectural culture attached to it. The first attempts were crass examples of misunderstanding concepts and scale in translating the building project more than the studio framework into a one-to-one scale object. Most of the attempts replicated the project’s diagrammatic geometries or tried to disproportionately convey ideas of spatial continuity that would have made no sense in a 6’-0” x 8’-0” x 8’-0” object. Given the variety of materials provided by the masonry contractors to be used in the project, we considered them trying to avoid their visual and semantic value, and tested cast-stone as a piece we would need to shape and contextualize, until we ran out of time and clarity of how and why to use it. Going back to the studio framework of systematic and networked relations helped to clarify the research. The CMU (concrete masonry unit) seemed a good option to
consider as an extremely ordinary, non-valued, cheap, docile, yet systematic and widely used construction material that suggested no clear alternatives other than stacking it in different patterns.
The studio operated mostly as a combination of visual and formal subtraction, knowledge suspension, systematic geometrical investigation and, cultural and disciplinary inquiry. The building project was elaborated after the rigorous development of geometrical aggregation studies as a pedagogical strategy for erasure of precepts of buildings as square footage or programmatic arrangements, to explore the formal capacities of architecture to have consistent spatial and networked relations. Linear and unit geometrical aggregation drawings were developed before approaching the project’s formal stance, and social, cultural and politically charged collages were created in parallel to formulate each student’s critical position. Once a formal and visual language was developed understanding their systematic connections and capacities, building program, site complexities and larger cultural, social or political issues were brought back in to explore the architectural strategies and their limits to support the latter ambitions. Highly autonomous or internally-logical objects were transformed into spatial devices for community engagement, hybrid programmatic assemblages, legibility inquiries, or counter-surveillance situations. The projects are formally bold, argumentative rather than solutionist, juxtapositions rather than compositions, and investigated architectural formal and spatial capacities in dialogue with their cultural site readings and critical positioning.
The material used, the CMU, is the single most common construction element in the industry along with dry wall framing. It is at the same time the least considered in its capacity to produce unexpected results other than its use as infill wall, primarily because it is not designed to perform in any other way. For the studio this material was investigated as a physical and discursive given condition, it was inquired culturally and analyzed formally. It was (and still is) stripped down of its capacity to only be used as seen or received, it was challenged to overcome its industry standard mode and was transformed into an unexpected and enigmatic piece after intense exploration. The build is a massive concrete construction that, as an architectural device, opened the possibilities of reimagining and reconsidering the banality of a typical and non-valued material in architecture and the construction industry, by literally cutting it. The implications are varied, as the build proposes questions of how we produce artifacts based on principles of construction, or cultural-industry, as well as what is the role of architecture in manipulating a given material conditioned by its marked
182
Afterword
use. It also speaks about the docility that is embedded in architectural practices in the form of received (material) knowledge. Our motivations are less those of an articulation of a design process; they are above all a pedagogical tool for learning to un-do while constructing concrete arguments, real-concrete-arguments, to reinforce the tautology.
A critical mode of operation for the project is that we did not just “apply” the masonry material as a physical component to represent an architectural idea –a wall– the material became the conceptual and physical idea itself by rigorously investigating it. The typical CMU block was subdivided and cut following its main geometrical axes (based on its strength) and the resultant pieces were reconfigured into five “walls” that formally expressed the complexity of the operation. The wall with the least complex cuts is located in the center as evidence of the investigation origin, and expanding to the given volume perimeter the walls become the evidence of the amplified capacities of the usage of the created “undisciplined” pieces. The walls are not “facade” explorations nor screens or enclosures, they are the formal and material manifestation of the research on the material. They are architectural in their own right as aggregations, as walls, as conjecture, as experiment, as construction.
Undisciplined CMU is a research project that evidences the capacity of a work to overcome its expected disciplinary use by undoing among various things, the docility that is transferred in its assumed contained knowledge. The project produced is not only the physical manifestation of an idea, it is a built argument about the production of undisciplined work that aims to remove the docility that is impressed by disciplinary knowledge, utilizing the same means it provides to subvert it.
The student’s learning outcome exceeded the project’s general ambitions as set in the 2nd year program, while following the parameters and scope of the studio. Students did not only get enthusiastic for doing a design-build project, they learned about the limits and complexities of a material capacity beyond its use as a passive application; inquiring for example, its cultural form. The course was designed in a way that students developed their own critical positions in order to not just manage or use a material theme –masonry– but to use it as a media for constructing knowledge based on its research and analysis, allowing themselves to create the unexpected while not necessarily searching for it a priori. The studio ambition offered the students a systematic mode of thinking that was not only helpful during the intense short period in which this project was developed (2.5 weeks of design including only 2 days for construction), but as a tool
that is allowing them now to reconsider an assignment beyond a problem-solving logic. Three students, Pier Paolo Pala, Chau Tran and Yuliya Veligurskaya besides having developed a high level of team work during the intra-studio competition, kept working on the project over the summer and edited and designed this book that collects the project’s process, including the complete set of drawings to construct a version of it and a documentation of the final result.
The studio provoked many discussions related to tectonics and masonry and also prompted discussions about reality, concreteness, the sources of ideas, enthusiasm and the capacities of physical objects. Students were also confronted with a different set of realities that challenged their initial ideas about the built work. The mock-up competition jury formed by architects, members of the masonry industry as well as the school’s administrative leaders, described after a rather long hesitant explanation a statement about the power of the project, yet were astounded by its enigmatic character and the difficulty it poses in being legible, in being architecture or architectural. This was suggested by a member of the jury in saying that when projects are “real” (referring to having a design and building practice) they need to be able to be constructed by a series of clear set of documents and follow budget and time constraints. However, the physical presence of the CMU construction a few feet from us built in two days and with the same limited resources available to all was apparently not real enough to be the evidence of reality, or at least not enough a building reality. At that moment, students had already confirmed their suspicion about the real, built-work, its images, appearances and ghosts. We built the argument we explored creating architectural tools for learning to un-do –the CMU achieved its own independent value from the industries that produces it– its physicality proved its value, not as reaffirmation of the expected or what can be build, but as argumentative un-disciplined construction.
Marcelo López-Dinardi
183
This edition, Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Use the book as instructed. Editors are not responsible for personal endeavors based on the content of this book.
Printed in the USAISBN: 9781364855161
Edited byMarcelo López-DinardiPier Paolo PalaChau TranYuliya Veligurskaya
Graphic DesignPier Paolo PalaChau TranYuliya Veligurskaya
Graphic Design AdaptationAndrés Macera
Build Photography CreditsMarcelo López-Dinardi and Andrés Macera
Studio Participants, Spring 2015Mariza AntonioSpoorthi BhattaRawad El-AawarMonica GirgisFreddy MartínezBrian MouratoChit Yee NgJoel NuñezPier Paolo PalaEliott PérezLauren RoseMaría SilvaRoman SchorniyChau TranYuliya VeligurskayaJeffrey Youmans
The editors would like to thank Michael (Mike) Schmerbeck past president of the Masonry Contractors of New Jersey and their co-sponsors: the New Jersey Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Labor Management Committee for making this event; to Julio Figueroa for coordinating the studio; to the jury James Boland, Alan Chimacoff, School of Architecture Director Richard Garber, Dean Urs Gauchat, Carlos Jimenez, Maria Viteri and David K. Williams; to staff, bricklayers and laborers Eric Schaffer, Joe Acchione, Robert Alesandro, John Fajnor, Charlie Shea, Mark Wells, Rob Lostocco, John Potter, John Bensal, Scott Price, Tom Parsons, Amirilldo Horst, Robert Kockan, Joe DiSilva, Dave Zehnbauer, Jefferson Lopes, Manny Oliveria, Jack Lima, Antonio Markis, Mike Pudelka, Gazment Ceko, Steve Jobman, Ren Englehardt, Jeff Anderson, James Anderson, Charlie Sternaimolo, Dan Wysinski, Chuck Bartell, Mark Wells Jr., Jimmy Carden, Chuck Pilliphs, Danny Rutkowski, Rinaldo Jimenez and Chris Viana; and to our allies the sawmen Sam Barry and Michael Alesandro.
School of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design.
®
Marcelo López-Dinardi | Pier Paolo Pala | Chau Tran | Yuliya Veligurskaya