Design projections for a small non-residential building: towards a theory of "associative-use" spaces.

DESIGN PROJECTIONS FOR A SMALL NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TOWARDS A THEORY OF "ASSOCIATIVE-USE" SPACES

by

RANDALL GORDON BRADLEY B.A. Noorhead College, Moorhead, Minnesota

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE

AT THE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May, 1974

Signature of Author

Certified by

Accepted by

Maurice Smith, Thesis Advisor

Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students

ABSTRACT

DESIGN PROJECTIONS FOR A SMALL NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TOWARDS A THEORY OF "ASSOCIATIVE-USE" SPACES

by

RANDALL GORDON BRADLEY

Submitted to the Department of Architecture, May, 1974, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Architecture

It is the purpose of this thesis to propose a methodology that will be an aid in the design,

generation, juxtaposition, and integration of rational, three-dimensional form into associative-use spaces and to then test that methodology by projecting it into a written program for a New England Telephone Company branch office building located .t Dudley Station, Roxbury, Massachusetts.

Thesis Supervisor: Maurice K. Smith, Professor of Architecture

2

ROTCH LBRARY of Architec:tire Plain ing -Massachusetts _{in Tchologyc_}

Room 7-238

This thesis is dedicated to:

a rhinoceros. a tree.

all of the poor black people that live in this country and whose ability to hope is matched only by their efforts to maintain.

you. me.

CONTENTS

PAGE

De di cati on.. ... .. .. . . . . 3

Introduction... ... *.... 5

Program for the Circle Office Building...

7

N.E.T. Program... 7

Circle ComplexProgram... 10

The Physical Building... 11

Permanen-t Public to Private Oraiain...16

INTRODUCTION

It has been observed that architects, as professionals, continually engage in two inter-related processes that can be identified as constants in the translation of a written

program into three dimensional form: architecture

I. The "minimal" process that can be employed in developing a "solution" to a "problem." II. The design, generation, juxtaposition, and

integration of rational three-dimensional form into "associative-use" spaces.

It is apparent that the second process can always be used to satisfy the first process, but that this

situation is not necessarily reversible. It is also apparent to me that the second process is more often than not sacri-ficed to insure that the first condition is met. Given

this situation, it seems reasonable for me to try to

establish a methodology that when used with the first process will always approach the second process, and when used

with the second process will always insure that both pro-cesses are utilized to their fullest potential.

This design methodology more simply stated is an attitude or a way of thinking about built forms that

It has two basic components: one is the parallel organi-zation of the physical/permanent building, and the other is the organization of public to private use space.

In order to get to some application of this metho--dology I chose the program for the New England Telephone Company branch office building on Warren Avenue in Roxbury, - Massachusetts. For my project I designed two separate

buildings using the same relationship of public to private space. The first design attempts to satisfy the New Eng-land Telephone program; the second design attempts to accommodate the functions of the existing office facility on the site--the Circle Complex, and organization composed of Circle Associates, the Venture Capital Fund, the Small Business Association, and the Resource Center--along with the N.E.T. program by allowing the building to be built in two stages. The primary purpose of the Circle group is to promote black ownership of business in the black community of Boston. It was the Circle Complex that, in fact, proposed the initial development of this site and was successful in winning New England Telephone as a tenant.

Two programs follow. The first is a standard N.E.T. branch office program used for buildings of the size pro-posed at Warren Avenue. The second is a program for the Circle group which I developed after analyzing their exis-ting office structure. An adjacency diagram for the N.E.T. program is inserted between these two programs.

Program for the CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING

New England Telephone Company Branch Office Program Requirements:

s.f. A. General Offices

Public Lobby Area 1,000

Cash counter 14' x 23' plus work 240 Quick counter 12' x 3' " "

General Office area (7 stations) 896 (desk plus seating for 1, possibly

2 or ₃₎

Manager's office with visual control- 100

Training and conference room 300

Lunch and lounge areas 1,000

Kitchen Coat rooms Women's toilets, 4 w.c.'s Men's toilets, 2 w.c.'s Cash room 185 B. Employment Office

Waiting area + 2 people and 1 secretary

Testing + 6' x

8'

₄₈

s.f. C. General Administration

5 groups of 8

plus

3

Service order room +500

Supply room (general) ₄₀₀

Toilets/coats

ADJACENCY ACTIVITY DIAGRAM for N.E.T. Program

A. General Public Area

Lmts

Cash room

B. Employment Office

(Private entry-tie into rest of building) C. General (Files commun-ication with General Office) and: Lounge/Dining/Kitchen

Toilets: N.B., fewer men than women

Telephone Room, 10' x 12' and Electrical/Mechanical Rooam

Circle Complex Program Venture Capital Fund:

6 offices

Reception area (2 secretaries)

Small Business Association: 7 offices

2 typists

Resource Center

Black History Museum

3

3

THE Physical BUILDING Permanent

The general site conditions suggested to me a lineal organization that I will refer to as parallel organization of the structure. This simply means that the major structure runs parallel to the distribution. I have found that this organization generates the

desired relationship between public and private spaces because it facilitates more ways of generating a physical

continuity between the distribution and individual spaces. And more important, parallel organization establishes

a relationship between the distribution and the private spaces to the given directional reference and remains closely associated with that reference because it does not change direction abruptly.,

I have used a 24' x 20' bay system as my basic structure. but to get to a theory of "associative-use" spaces, I have attempted to push this bay beyond its normal use. This has lead me to a number of interesting facts that I will try to relate in a consecutive manner.

1. A simple 24' beam span can cantilever

1/3 of its original length at each end. Assuming that I cantilever 6' at both ends, I generate a new spanning length of

6f _{24'a- 6 6'} for a to-tal of

36'.

2. When this bay generates itself in a lineal direction we establish a new set of dimensions:

24', 12', 24', 12', 24', etc. See Plate 2.1. It should be noted that the 12' dimension is the zone of the cantilever and this zone has a great deal of inherent possibilities:

a. We have the opportunity to cantilever or not.

b. We have the possibility of putting a floor on top of the beams in this space or not.

c. In section, if we give a 12' floor to floor height to one bay and an 18' floor to floor height to another, we have the possibility of allowing light to come

through the space by not building--we have the opportunity of generating a continuous surface by placing stairs in this opening, or we have the possibility of defining smaller use spaces in both directions by creating a non-continuous surface. See Diagram B.

3. Vanes (rectilinear columns) serve at least two functions. 1) When used in the same plane as the exterior closure of the building they kilow

for masonry units to be butted next to them

without any unnecessary breaking and fitting; and, 2) when used in the interior spaces as a free

standing column, vanes help establish and reinforce the existing lineal direction being employed

in the building.

4. Walls that are load-bearing play a significant part in the definition of "associative-use" spaces. There are two important factors to be continually considered in the use of bearing walls:

1. Their placement (interior or exterior) 2. Their articulation (their run, change

of direction, height, and returns) Besides supporting its own weight as an exterior enclosure, a bearing wall is obviously capable of supporting the structure of the

building as well as being erected as solid masonry walls in the interior spaces of the building.

The association we make with large, load-bearing, solid, external masonry walls is usually that of an "edge" or "end" of the physical building and the other side of the wall is considered

"outside." However, when we have interior bearing walls, we can still make that same association

with the "edge" or "outside" condition happening on the other side of the wall, but what we have actually done is created a case for "inside"/

"outside" spaces within the building.

It is obvious that bearing walls can be used to replace columns; but more importantly, a bearing wall can allow the next column in that particular row, to move further away from its

original placement. Take for example a row of columns placed 20' c. to c. At any one of these columns a bearing wall replaces it and runs for a distance of 8 feet. Now the implications of this act are that the next column in the row can move up to 8 feet away from the original 20' c. to c. bay system. This movement can initiate a new bay system or become a special place within the existing system. See Diagram C.

The articulation of a bearing wall defines spaces and connects parts of the building through a continuous surface definition. By lowering a wall, turning it perpendicular to the structure, allowing breaks in it, and allowing it to end altogether in some places, we are able to create, define, partially build, interior as well as exterior spaces that still indicate the original structural organization. It is my

opinion that this articulation

of the wall allows us to associate with the spaces generated by the wall, as a reference to the

structural organization. I believe that this particular structural organization encourages

and creates a more desireable and more perceptible relationship between the distribution and private and public spaces.

PUBLIC TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATION

The difference between public and private functions and the consequent distinction between public and

private spaces is the other major ordering device I used to design my project. I have tried to design the use spaces of the two buildings to reflect a public-to-private progression.

It becomes fairly obvious, very quickly, that most public space in any building is in the entry/

lobby area, and that some of the most private spaces are given over to offices and specific function rooms, e.g., rooms for special equipment, communications rooms, rooms for handling currency, etc. To make perceptible

to the user the progression from very public (lobby) spaces and functions to very private (offices), the remaining work categories which fall within the public

to private continuum must be progressively ordered from public to private. Then these functions are used to design spaces which reflect this progression.

Functionally there are two separate buildings described in the N.E.T. program: an Employment Office and a Business office (which combines the General and Administrative Offices named in the program).

Section B of the program is the Employment Office which gives company tests and interviews to applicants for jobs with the telephone company. The program calls

an entry/reception/waiting area, two small testing rooms and two offices for interviewing the applicants which I have ordered (following the public to private

progression) like this:

public -private

entry-) reception -)waiting --- )----interviewing -)testing I have combined sections A (General Offices) and

C (Administrative Offices) under the heading Business

Offices because these two parts of N.E.T. function together at almost every level of the job hierarchy. The General Office includes the Quick Counter, Cash Counter, a

number of service stations and the Manager's office. The Quick Counter directs incoming customers to the appropriate service desk for bill paying, requesting telephone service, and/or complaining. The Cash Counter

takes bill payments. Each station in the General Office is staffed by one telephone company employee. The

Manager's office needs visual control over the service area. He handles particular cases of customer service.

The General Administration office includes more than 40 work stations with five of those assigned to supervisors. The Service Order Room houses the computer which must be adjacent to the supply room. The training-conference room provides space for meetings and for

training new personnel. The diagram below shows the public to private progression as I have organized it for the Business Office.

General/ entry-)counter

-)

public off cLrivate

Admin./ entry, - administration desk

The connection between these two buildings is made through a door which opens from the employment

office into the lunch/lounge area. This area is primarily for the employees of the building. However, I have

made it accessible to the public through the service area so that customers can have a cup of coffee while they are waiting to discuss their telephone service. The diagram below combines the two foregoing diagrams and shows the lunch/lounge connection.

PUBLIC B Employment Office employees ub Entry reception reception area area waiting l ounge . interview interview lavatories testing A Business Office

public employees, employeesd I(General) (Admin Entry

counter counter area area waiting

.lounge lounge lounge service service admin.

area desk desk

manager manager lavatories lavatories

PRIVATE

This diagram, combined with the parallel organization of the structure gave me the basic design organization

that I have used in both designs for the telephone company layouts.

SUMi1ARY

It is clear to me that these two organizational principles can be applied to the inter-related processes that are the basic tools of architects. It is hoped that the consequence of this application will enable us to associate with our built environment in a manner that is commensurate with our ability to live in harmony and understanding with our natural environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Aubenwandkonstruktionen von Staglgeschobbauten." Detail. Sept.-Oct.,~1973. pp. 963-970.

Banham, Reyner. The New Brutalism. Reinhold Publish-ing Corporation, New York, 1966.

"Berlin Free University." Architectural Design. Jan., 1974. pp. 14-17

Bond, Sanford and R. J. Slattery. "A Development of a Spatial Prototype Related to Building a High Density Urban Form." M.I.T. Thesis, 1970.

Boston Society of Architects. Boston Architecture. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970. Built Form Cluster. Handouts dated: Fall, 1971;

Fall, 1972; Spring, 1972; Fall, 1973;

Spring, 1973; and three undated Maps; M.I.T. Castaneda, Carlos. The Teachings of Don Juan: A

Yaqui Way of Knowledge. Simon & Schuster,

New York, 1968.

Castaneda, Carlos. A Separate Reality. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1971.

Le Corbusier. The Modulor. tr. by Peter de Francia and Anna Bostack. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

Cullen, Gordon. The Concise Townscape. Van Nostrand Reinhold, London, England, 1961.

Decarlo, G. Urbino. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, IFass., 1970.

Feng, G. and English, J. (trans.) Lao Tsu. Tao Te Ching. Vintage Books, New York, 197s.

Perragamo, A. E. "Introducing the Urban Fairgroun for Harvard Square." I.I.T. Thesis, June, 1972.

Grzimek, Bernard. Rhinos Belong to Everybody. Hill& Wang, New York, 1962.

Halprin, Lawrence. Cities. Revised Edition, Y.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Pass., 1972.

Harada, Jiro. The Lesson of Japanese Architecture. The Studio Ltd., London, 1954

"Harvard Educational Review:" Architecture and Education. Vol. 9, No. 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, 1ass ., 1969. Hasbrouck, W. R., ed. Architectural Essays from

the Chicago School. The Prairie School Press, Park Forest, Illinois, 1967. Huber, Benedikt and Jean-Claude Steinegger, ed.

Jean Prouve. Praeger'Publinhers, New

York, 1971.

Klee, Paul. On Modern Art. Faber & Faber, London, 1948.

Klee, Paul. Pedagogical Sketchbook. Praeger, Inc., New York, 1953.

Kubo, Motoo. "Form Projection: Exploration of Habitable Field." M.I.T. Thesis, 1967.

Leakey, Louis S.B. Animals of East Africa. National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., 1969.

Lynch, Kevin. Site Planning. 2nd ed., I.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Fass., 1971.

Nazzariol, Giuseppe. "Gino Valle." Zodiac 12, pp. 15 ff.

Peake, Mervyn. Titus Groan. Weybright & Talley, New York, 1967.

Portoghesi, Paolo. Roma Barocca. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970.

Rasmussen, S. E. Experiencing Architecture. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge , Iass., 199.

Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects. Doubleday and Co., Inc., Garden City, L.I., 1964.

Sanford, A. F., III. "Some Formal Topics Related to the Architecture of Developing Suburban and Low Density Urban Areas." M.I.T. Thesis, 1969.

Smith, M. K. "HABITABLE 3.D FIELD . EXPLORATION'. Urban pace Projections

Form

Research. Dept. of Architecture, M.I.T., may 9771.

Sutton, S. B. ed. Civilizing American Cities. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970. Togawa, Yukio. African Animals: A Camera Safari.

Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo, 1970. Tremaglio, Richard C. "Highway Stoppin Place."

M.I.T. Thesis, June, 1968.

Venturi, R., D. S. Brown, and S. Izenour. Learni FromLsVegas. 1M.I.T. Press, _Cambridge,

Mass.,f 197 2.

Woods, Shadrach. Candilis.Josic.Woods. Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 196d.

Wright, F. L. An Autobio aphy. Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York. 1943.

Wright, F. L. Genius and the Mobocracy. Horizon Press, Tew York, 1971.

Wright, F. L. Natural House. Horizon Press, Inc., New Y , 1954.

Zevin, Barry. "High Density Housing at an. Urban Edge: a Built Form Projection. M.I.T. Thesis, May, 1973.

DG 0~o

PLATE

1.1

4

LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN

PLATE

1.2

TN

LEVEL

2

FLOOR PLAN

A&

SECTION

SECTION

PLATE

1.3

D E

PLATE

11d

A

d

14

IA2

LEVEL

lLL

FLOOR PLAN

---F L I I I \< NX

2.1

3

r7

F - - --0( 0 *1 IUWL -A

sf'

LEVEL

2

_I0

FLOOR PLAN

I

..-CN1':

--{t

PLATE

2.2

3

.4

0 l T

LEVEL

₃

FLOOR PLAN

PLATE

2.3

PLATE

2.4

I

I,

B C D E

FLOOR PLAN

1F G gJ

PLATE

2.5

I..

ir*' OF 6UJ5 P Te To a .'? FL 6*1" 1abor F ft. tnmk TOt"-fNrL&A rj rro' VLOUR OtP OF Ca~k EL WO VN or 52 LA2EL WD tw4- IrLMKWL 4 15O ~1U.

P

LATE

2.6

I

SECTION

r-r'

421-ca, 'Toe j14 UAV

PLATE

2.7

---f"'"-7~

r'LLFur

LELEVATION

5i "T TO tf,*-.-- e rAL

E-WiVrf9642 ; l'hO 4ka

TYP5 A t'* to-3.0.. 10, A46-4'F iyp54, 0 a 0 0 0 S * 6 0 1VOf F A'rif -,K4 w AT V C--~2 '/

~iI

bM~.r~-r

PLATE

3.2

c>RN.1

A

L7

VLA-T e

~Xric 17ANL GratPuLE

WIOTH o 14141 rr zo o- 46' 6eSOV't TY~ A ~o' * * *0 I A Y- te IV000 * 0 w e-NQ A(?d? o~ o- e4 11 &OL *.* * __ __ __ __ Io-( ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 6 6TOI J

pffAl

PLATE

'I-

Lzr?

x4uI4zL4~

L41>

3.3

-P