Reflections on the Mid Review:

SITE MAP extra-urban precedents (relative scales)

mega utopian flexible micro pragmatic inflexible

WEEKLY PROGRESS UPDATE 2/26

LEA VEN WO RTH
possible assemblies basic assembly

stakeholders
city government
parking regulations health codes zoning laws permits
collaboration
parklets
increased value of parking tax revenue permit fees

food trucks

tax revenue (indirect)

very low-cost lowrisk entry to market association with trusted brand

interchangeable panels - an assembly of difference

can follow demand lower barrier to entry than brickand-mortar

THE CALCIFIED CITY:

LOCATING AN ARCHITECTURE OF IMPERMANENCE
sliding joint MISA GRANNIS | SP12 | BRIAN PRICE flexible rails

assets (controls)

property owners

[vacant] property lease structure

[online customer base] mastery of social media

POW

parklets

parking regulations tax revenue (indirect) tax incentives health codes zoning laws permits

fully-equipped space claim to sidewalk permanent presence in neighborhood

diverse client base community magnet

very low-cost lowrisk entry to market innovative product association with trusted brand startup capital

ELL

renew newcastle

low-risk interim rental income between long-term tenants

increased visit duration improved public image community magnet

pop-ups

ful ton
un pla za

limitations

pop-ups

carrying product
conflicts

MA

competition

ER

is

gra nt

GAT E

SON

[vacant] property liability control of lease structure

renew newcastle

incubators

food trucks

fully-equipped space claim to sidewalk

city government
slow bureaucratic process not directly involved in community needs

property owners
loss of revenue from vacancies liability issues tied down to location of property

existing businesses
ability to pay rent tied to strength of economy tied down to location of property (mostly) process of moving is costly

entrepreneurs
not very much startup capital no established physical user base

MC

hyd e

JON

TAY LO

ALL

IST

GOL

ES

DEN

EDD Y

rigid-panel accordion fold

existing businesses

TUR

ell

COMPRESSION/EXPANSION
max compression

product startup capital [online customer base]

barrier to entry: expensive leases barrier to entry: long and expensive startup process liability: ability of tenant to pay

two-way hinge (small-scale only) solid wall translucent PVC transparent plexi doorway frame diagonal bracing

market

8th

7th

6th

5th

4th

cityplace

entrepreneurs

westfield mall

570% length increase 1400% height decrease

completely flattened

PRECEDENT ANALYSIS targeting fast, cheap & flexible

startup time

porous panels allow for multi-cellular program

federal building

on-demand area adjustment

0 hours days 6 months 1 year 5 years 10 years

plan

startup cost
$10 $100 $1000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000,000

detailed assembly

flexible rails sliding joint

traditional 180 hinge

mobility

+ locking mechanism (pin?) to prevent sliding while in use

alternative sliding joint

ultra-mobile

drives itself

has wheels

carry it

truck trailer

dismantle and move

movable parts

fixed

180 hinge

rigid-panel accordion fold

parklet ZONING ENVELOPE

bay window ALLOWANCES

new territory over the street

1/4 = 1-0

telescoping add-on
25% of sidewalk width 6 from curb

GUIDELINES: 1) MAX 6 WIDE 2) DECKING FLUSH WITH CURB 7) VISUALLY PERMEABLE OUTSIDE EDGE at least 1 stall FROM CORNER STREET LIMIT 25MPH OR LESS

1 min from edge 5 between bays 9 max width at face 15 max width at base 7 min vertical clearance

integrated 180 hinge

15 over street

7 over sidewalk

N-S section

performance
atomization Upgrade path reverse parklet placeholder

AMBITION

{extension of reach by existing tenant}

{intermediate step for entrepreneurs}

{revitalization engine for vacant spaces}

{temporary occupation of vacant lot}

as nimble as the food truck, as ambitious as walking city

1/4 = 1-0

5TH STREET

6TH STREET

1/8 = 1-0

All in all, the discussion last wednesday was very revealing. It showed me that I didnt position myself well enough (so I need to hone my argument a bit), I need to revisit my old research and title now that my project has flown around the map a few times, and that I need to decide once and for all what I want my attitude to be and build my argument around that. Im back in the naive/idealistic camp, which is unfortunate, and Id rather find a way to present my project at least slightly tongue-in-cheek or with a little bit of attitude than try to defend a position of total earnestness (which is not my intention at all with this proposal).

David brought up the point that my premise is more interesting than my proposal, but I need to take that as motivation to improve my proposal rather than as a reason to rewind to where I was three weeks ago and start spinning my wheels again. The truth is that I realize the idea is very rich but that finding the perfect mode of operating within it is almost impossible when you have to project it into a fully fleshedout design proposal. The original idea will always seem like it had more potential than you were able to embed your own project with UNLESS you are able to successfully argue why your interpretation of the idea is a valid one, thereby distracting the jury from unproductive speculations about what else you could have

done. Given the time we have left, I have to dedicate my time to making my proposal more convincing rather than backing out of it, and considering that its so new I think theres a lot that can be done with it. Another point that was raised was that it would be hard to defend a thesis that has no significant condition of failure. This may be true, but it may also have to do with the way I present my argumentif I can argue that it is a valid interpretation of the concept, and that the decisions I make with regard to its execution are appropriate given my position, that may be my best defense (=a good offense).

MISA GRANNIS | THESIS SP12

They mentioned these explorations may have been premature, but thats okay. I agree that I have to develop the concept much more, and that that may affect the material assembly/structural decisions/ etc, but I think its okay to be making simultaneous investigations. However, I also agree that this proposal should ultimately be more than just a fullydetailed building system that is highly flexible. It needs to also contain a well-developed theoretical/ conceptual foundation with regard to how the proposal functions, what kinds of conditions it produces and why those conditions are important (i.e. the large-scale effects of the project on the city). Its more important for people to understand WHY this exists and WHY it will be valuable than it is for them to understand HOW it collapses and folds away (though I should still drill down that far).

WEEKLY PROGRESS UPDATE 2/26

interchangeable panels - an assembly of difference possible assemblies

two-way hinge (small-scale only) solid wall translucent PVC transparent plexi doorway frame diagonal bracing

porous panels allow for multi-cellular program

detailed assembly

flexible rails sliding joint + locking mechanism (pin?) to prevent sliding while in use alternative sliding joint

traditional 180 hinge

180 hinge

rigid-panel accordion fold

telescoping add-on

integrated 180 hinge

5TH STREET

MISA GRANNIS | THESIS SP12

David suggested including the building inhabitants in plans and sections to juxtapose the conditions, and I think thats an interesting idea. He seemed to be fascinated by the social potential of the project (inspired by Sloterdijks Foam City), whereas Id been focusing on its relationship to commerce and the economy. It might be interesting to explore that aspect (everyone has their own little cell, we exist independently but rub against each other/intersect from time to time), but if I want to maintain my hyperrationality it will probably be important to stress the economic stimulus aspect (though not without rethinking the presentation of my argument). Jason, on the other hand, made some comments that sparked a train of thought that started out exciting but quickly started to seem dull and of dubious quality.

SITE MAP

WEEKLY PROGRESS UPDATE 2/26

L EA VE N WO RT H

un

ER

is

market

cityplace

westfield mall

federal building

plan

gr a nt

GAT E

pla

JON ES

MA SO N

hyd e

TAY LO

za

MC

ALL

IST

GOL

DEN

EDD Y

TUR

POW ELL
ell

ful ton

8th

7th

6th

5th

4th
1/4 = 1-0

Heres a reinterpretation of the project as presented on Wednesday. Almost no modifications to the drawings are needed, just a slight modification to the description. It really just represents a logical step forward in the direction I had set up for myself: The reviewers said something weve heard before what if it wrapped around the block?so I asked myself, what wraps around a block other than a wagon train? Well, there is something that already wraps around every block, and Im right on top of it--the sidewalk. What if, instead of being laid on the sidewalk, I was proposing an entire sidewalk retrofit? It could be a semipermanent installation on top of the existing sidewalk or it could be an expensive retrofit to entire city blocks or districts, but the linear system I proposed could actually be housed within the material of the sidewalk itself. It could slide on rails

N-S section

1/4 = 1-0

MISA GRANNIS | THESIS SP12

much like the existing MUNI tracks in the center of Market, and the concrete panels of the sidewalk could be the top diaphragms of the system. Depending on the systems placement, it could either begin altering the topography of the main walking zone or providing a dynamic zone directly adjacent to the walking zone. The result would be a built-in pop-up system of dynamic sidewalk that could instantly create inhabitable space along the street and then hide it away again when necessary. Social or event spaces, kiosk or retail spaces, at this point it could probably be anything, but it would turn the currently flat and one-dimensional sidewalk into a thickened, inhabitable vertical zone. All that is mostly the same as what I was saying before, the difference is that the decision to install this system (the city if it were a retrofit, the city or a neighborhood if they were semi-permanent installations) would be intentionally made by an organization with long-term goals (while its use would remain somewhat spontaneous and locally generated). However, if all that amounts to is a kiosk system, isnt that a terribly expensive way to achieve the same thing that a cart or parklet would do? Why wouldnt you just use a much more temporary mechanism to achieve the same goal for much less investment? Ive learned through weeks of frustration that inventing the next best mobile/pop-up paradigm is not going to be possible for me in one semester, so I dont necessarily think the aforementioned dilemma should derail the idea. Rather, I need to have a larger/broader goal that justifies the inefficiencies as a means to an end much greater than its initial reading would suggest.

WEEKLY PROGRESS UPDATE 2/26

basic assembly

THE CALCIFIED CITY:

LOCATING AN ARCHITECTURE OF IMPERMANENCE
sliding joint MISA GRANNIS | SP12 | BRIAN PRICE flexible rails

rigid-panel accordion fold

COMPRESSION/EXPANSION
max compression

570% length increase 1400% height decrease

completely flattened

on-demand area adjustment

6TH STREET

1/8 = 1-0

MISA GRANNIS | THESIS SP12