Masterplan 1 -> First 1:50 Plan + Section; Feedback From Tutor

The next step was to draw up our massing model as a 1:50 plan and section to show the our tutor spaces we have in mind within the greater structure.

The act of observation is our main way of inducing ‘anxiety’ in students rehearsing, and we contrast this with more ‘boring’ spaces with less stimulus that allow for introspection and self-focus. In this plan, we aimed to create a visually permeable ground floor (primarily through extensive glazing) which allows for those spaces to be easily observed. The upper floor would be significantly less permeable – here, more introspective, ‘boring’ practice could take place (being further off the ground, these spaces would immediately be quieter and more difficult to see into than the ground floor). We imagine that these heavy top volumes could be clad in stone, with ‘slits’ in the facade allowing glimpses of internal activity- enough to intrigue passerbys, but not enough to make those inside feel exposed.

I drew up the walls and floor slabs of each room in ArchiCAD, and then exported this as a dwg file – we then collectively worked on the line work in Illustrator to create the plans and sections below. As it took us some time to agree on the massing initially, we treated these as working drawings rather than fully-developed plans which, like a diagram, would help us outline our ideas to our tutor.

It features separate blocks for dance and drama lined up within the right side of the L-shape. The bottom floors are large foyer-like spaces with movable ‘walls’ of some form, for students to choose their rehearsal space in an ultimately very exposed space. The top floors feature smaller rooms – the drama block even has individual pods, a feature usually neglected in Performing Arts Centers. These are surrounded by a labyrinth-like circulatory space which is dotted with simple, abstract props and costumes that provide a spark of inspiration for those rehearsing in these ‘boring’ rooms.

To the left of these is the theatre, on the end of the main architectural promenade, wrapped in a glazed foyer, then a block featuring a projection room, study spaces and lecturer offices.

My own critique of the overall arrangement is very similar to what I wrote here (when reflecting on the massing model that was used as the basis for the above masterplan), with the addition of the following:

• Currently the solution that someone suggested was placing the circulation routes on the outside of the building in the form of ramps, and the bathrooms sort of hovering in between levels. While this is definitely a possible solution to explore, it currently hangs outside the site boundary – this could be re-planned more carefully.
• The ‘blockiness’ of the exterior has translated a bit too directly into the interior – we only have room to place rooms directly next to each other and in regular rows within this massing, and the circulation within the building has become too linear to become part of the anxiety/boredom journey. Perhaps with a more interwoven arrangement of rooms, more complex relationship between spaces and the circulation could be explored as a powerful experiential tool.
• We have also placed what we’ve called a ‘peer to peer’ observation space in between the two blocks, as a space where ‘anxiety’ is more acute than that from the public (as in, from observation from your own peers). This space still needs more development, but we do seem to be neglecting the circulation pathway to it, which is very narrow and restrictive (we are seeking more openness).
• Some members of the group did not want to interfere with the currently circulation path, seeing our building that should be more discreet, while others of us were interested in manipulating the circulation path more, to create more external ‘observation’, as well as immerse the non-theatre community more within the world of this community. I feel that we can, and should, change the circumstances of the site, and can do it in such a way that thoughtfully responds to the existing circulation pathway, for example.
• We need to think more carefully about the needs of the community and tailor our design accordingly- currently there are not enough dance rooms, and we could further consider a greater variety of rooms for both subject areas (for different group sizes, more diverse range of observed/introspective conditions).
• The foyer shape is a bit random at the moment, as it was just inserted around the theatre within the gaps left by other surrounding buildings.
• We need to be more precise with the locations of the trees on our drawings, as the protected status of certain ones is an important (legal) site consideration.

Our tutor’s feedback was, interestingly, very similar to my own thoughts. He also pointed out that it is an incredibly ‘blocky’ scheme that was translating to very linear that doesn’t quite explore the brief to its full potential. He recommended ‘shelving’ this scheme as one that could physically work and we could come back to if absolutely necessary, but that it would be worth trying something outlandish as a way of generating a new approach. Some other points were:

• Making sure to include basic architectural drawing conventions necessary for it to be comprehensible (North arrow, contour lines, section lines, scale, title).
• Properly consider the roof shape and wall thicknesses
• Being more precise with our drawings – the foyer space, for instance, was inaccurately represented on our section.
• Change the arrangement of the individual practice drama rooms for more ‘discovery’ within the space.
• Interrogate the corridors – can they be made more boring? Longer? Any research that can support and inform the design? What’s their story?
• Push the boredom (and all emotions explored) to their maximum, at least as an exercise.
• Think about construction – this would most likely be steel. Ensure to include columns – how will the glazed ground floor support the solid upper floor?

We finished that session of work agreeing to ‘shelve’ this proposal as recommended, and wrote down our tutor’s comments on the plan itself.

I tried to discuss my initial concerns with my group, but certain members just wanted to drive this idea to some form of completion. Also, understandably, we needed to complete some form of masterplan to receive feedback from our tutor. Ideally, we could have developed a bit further beyond our massing seeing as we were already recognising issues with it, but the exercise of directly translating this into a masterplan helped to get the whole group on the same page about these.