I am trying to solve the issues with the parking/ unloading/ and cores for my building and tightening up my floor plate all at the same time. I'm trying to do both and I came up with this form.
I came up with a different way to arrange my parking where with would run beneath the skywalk and divide the floor plate in half as shown below...
This would allow for a radial arrangement of the structure - which would make the whole design very concise in both design and structural arrangement. As such..
This arrangement would enable this core arrangement for both spaces on opposite sides of the atrium.
My issue this far is I don't know if its a good idea to arrange my parking in such a way just to get the structure that I want because I am not sure if I have seen parking like this before. Should I proceed with something like this or should I deal with the structure in different segments as we discussed today?
Next Issue....
I want to have my tourist demonstration in the in the corner opposite from the kitchens (this is what lead the parking to take that form because the theatre descends and I would need clearance below. This also allows for retail at both entrance off of the skywalk - as shown below.
With this scenario I would have the retail at the ground level as my draw and I am not certain if it is sufficient as I had the tourist demonstration there before. What do you think is more suitable?
This idea led me to a different form..
However, with this design idea my facade would not work... and it would not be suitable, what I liked about it though is that it allowed me to minimize (tighten) my floor plate.
However, I think I should stick with my original idea and minimize my floor plate by setting my building. What do you think? Do you think there is potential with the new idea presented?
To sum up my issues...
- Should I proceed with the new idea for the parking to achieve a radial and concise building structure?
- Do you think retail is enough of a draw on the ground level or should I return my tourist demonstration theatre to the north west corner?
I kind of prefer this option vs the above one I just not so excited that I only have retail on the would level to pull people in as opposed to the theatre. The theatre on the interior allows for a better narrative I feel and a better organization of programs- because I plan for the class rooms to sit on-top of this demonstration space.
- Go with the new form or stick with the old?
- And lastly- how do we figure out our structural depths?
Thank you for your time I appreciate it!!
1: Do not proceed with the parking as you have sketched.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the structure makes no sense to radiate from the street intersection rather than what would make more sense as the centre of the southwest radius perimeter of the site. The parking coming right off the intersection is not strong as it does not work well from a vehicular perspective and I do not believe it nets you any significant benefits in the architecture.
2: Retail alone is not a major draw unless you make the case. For example, it would make little sense for someone in this studio to simply state that "there is a restaurant" which will draw people to a particular part of the site without detailing it in some level. It could be the like the spectacle of the wine-angels from Mandalay Bay or as over the top as the waffle profile seafood restaurant in the City Center. If you want it to be a draw, you must detail it accordingly.
Get a sense of what you want to do and ensure that you are consistent with that idea throughout the project. Do not second guess yourself; it is too dangerous and far too late in your academic career to begin doing so now.