2. No architecture for the 1%, no irresponsible design, no green architecture, no surface architec-
ture, no architecture as an art object, no green washed architecture, no sweatshop third world
country manufactured components, no fashionable architecture, no disposable architecture,
no politics in architecture, no complex form that has nothing to do with the context, no look
at me Im so interesting building, no architecture only for architects, no branding, no architec-
ture that need an explanation, no LEED points, no star-architect, no slogan, no form follow
anything, no core and shell, no monuments, no glossy image, no wasted space, no unethical
practices, no architecture that takes itself too seriously.
Architects should be responsible. Architecture should response to all demographics and social
status.Although architecture has only been acquirable for the rich throughout history, I believe
that it is wrong; the rich are not the only that experience architecture, therefore architecture
should respond to a wide variety or people and situations. Architects should be responsible
for the effects their buildings have in people’s lives, even before its erection. We should not
employ unethical practices such as paying unfair wages to illegal immigrants or employing
sweatshops in third world countries to manufacture components below market cost.As Saskia
Sassen writes in “Whose City Is It? Globalization and the Formation of New Claim”, “Financial
services produce superprofits while industrial services barely survive.These trends are evident,
with different levels of intensity, in a growing number of major cities in the developed world
and increasingly in some of the developing countries that have been integrated into the global
economy.”¹ We should not be lured by the “superprofits” and turn a blind eye to the hundreds
or even thousands of workers that are not compensated fairly. That, to me, seems unethical,
immoral even.
Buildings should not be disposable. That is, a building should not be constructed with an ex-
piration date already attached to it.This is why I have a strong reaction to F.T. Marinetti’s “Fu-
turist Manifesto” where he states “When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we
throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts!”². Buildings are expensive; there-
fore architects should design in a manner that their structures have some auto-sufficiency.
If a building is difficult or expensive to maintain, the probability that it will stand the test of
time are slim. Further, if a building integrates technology that will become antiquated in a very
short time then there is really no point in using that technology as it will need to be replaced
of fixed at some point adding to the overall expense of such building. Therefore, integrating
“green” technology as your ruling idea driving the design of a building seems ridiculous to me.
As Penelope Dean argued in “Never Mind All That Environmental Rubbish, Get on with your
Architecture” we should “revise the environmental agenda that is driven by ideas and concepts
rather than subservient technologies.”³
1.Sassen, Saskia. “Whose city is it? Globalization and the Formation of New Claim.” Public Culture 1996 byThe University of Chicago. (1996): 212.
2.Marinetti, F.T. “The Futurist Manifesto”, http://www.cscs.umich.edu/-crshalizi/T4pm/futurist-manifest.html (accessed August 28, 2012).
3. Dean, Penelope. “Never Mind AllThat Environmental Rubbish, Get on with your Architecture”. DeliveryWithout Discipline (2008): 25.
My Architecture Refuses
Inspired by Pierre Vittorio Aureli
3. Share | City: Public Seclusion
16th St.
16th St. TreatAve.
FolsomSt.
ShotwellSt.
Ca
SVanNessAve.
Culturally sharing inAmerica is something that you do when you’re forced to do it and
because sharing has unspoken stigmas attached to it, a lot of the idea of sharing is a
cultural issue. Sharing forces things that were once in the private sphere of a resi-
dence to enter a semipublic or public realm and that poses a potential conundrum of
tarnishing the roll of the private sphere which is a sphere to one’s self for isolation and
for gaining depth for recognizing ones individuality and their view points and to
return to the public sphere with a clear voice of what they bring to the public sphere. I
want to heighten this tension through an architectural response which radically re-
duces the private realm to its essential elements of sleeping, storage and servicing of
human life and giving the rest back to the public realm but making this distinctions
very visible and recognizing that the more you share the more one is required to iso-
late themselves into a private realm. So I first set up a series of cores, these are one of
two thermally enclosed spaces on the site, all private life happens within them.
Around these cores are series of outdoor terraces that connect to them in figural ways
sometimes connecting anywhere from 2 to 5 cores. These platforms become luxuri-
ous share outdoor areas that are much more openly planned and used. Within those
platforms I’ve isolated what I call a scoop which is a smaller enclosed transparent
volume for the other thermally enclosed share space. So essentially what we have is
vertical cores that are the private realm and horizontal platform of different scales of
collectivity connecting between these cores.
Share| City:
Public Seclusion
Creating Housing forTeachers in San Francisco
N
17th St.
17th St.
16th St.
16th St.
TreatAve.
TreatAve.
FolsomSt.
ShotwellSt.
HarrisonSt.
ShotwellSt.
SVanNessAve.
0’ 10’ 20’ 40’
Site Map
7. Analysis OrganizationVertical
Analysis Organization HorizontalShare Diagram
Unit
E
Laura
July
One of the current
issues in San Francisco and
in areas like the Mission is the
cost of living and teachers are being
priced out of the area. Teachers live
most of their daily existence on stage
meaning people are looking to them and
they are constantly conversing and inter-
acting with people, it’s a very unique dis-
cipline to be on stage for your entire
9-5 . Therefore, this question of the
private realm is even more dra-
matic for them.
9. CREATING THE SYSTEM
[AMSTERDAM] Iconic Pedestrian Bridge
6’6’’ 7’9’’ 8’6’’
5’ (1.2m-1.5m)
269’3’’
16’6’’13’4’’12’5’’12’9’’ 19’9’’ 12’10’’ 13’ 28’10’’
Scale 1/32’’= 1’
In a city as Amsterdam, where bridge form part of the urban landscape, it is a challenge
to denote a specific bridge over another one. To create an iconic bridge, the proposal
gets away from formal bridge typologies. It aims to promote different trajectories while
experiencing the bridge. It gives the user the liberty to create his or her own paths
of desire.
To establish and create an evident connection between both canal sides, the proposal
derives from two(2) independent systems extruded from the regularities of the openings
in each facade.The shape arises from the resulting clusters when overlapping both systems.
Furthermore, the concept creates juxtaposition between line and volume which creates
dynamic tension between the elements. The program is located inside the volumes which
provide a rich visual experience created by the irregular shape of the space.
Also, I incorporated the bicycle racks as part of the railing in most of the access platforms.
The main purpose of the bridge is to sew the urban landscape utilizing the system that the
site offers in it and itself. The bridge is intended to be supported by the facades using tension
wires and a structural grid connected under the platforms. The proposal intends to give the
user a more exciting experience than just crossing a bridge, creating interesting
walkways to enjoy the panorama.
Maps&
SiteAnalisis
Sectiona
12. 6’6’’ 7’9’’ 8’6’’
5’ (1.2m-1.5m)
Bycicle Shop
Administration
Cafe w/ Facilities
Two stories. 300m2
Two stories. 200m2
One story. 50m2
Axonometric
Section
Process
13. F I N D I N G G L O B A L B E H A V I O R
S U R F A C E T I G H T E N I N G T I G H T E N I N G B O U N D A R I E S S O F T E N I N G S T R U C T U R E
Cloud Shell Installation
14. C I R C U L A T I O N + L I G H T
I N T E R A C T I O N
P R O G R E S S I O N D I R E C T I O N G R O U P I N G
D I S T A N C E + H E I G H T
S E P A R A T I O N O F C O M P O N E N T S
C O M P O N E N T S
L I G H T F I LT E R
T O P B O T T O M
F L ATI N T E R I O R C O N C A V E
W I N D
G R A V I T Y P U L L
C L O U D F O R M A T I O N
S AT U R AT I O N
O F A I R M A S S
CIRRUS
ONDULATUS ASPARATUS
G L O B A L A N D S I N G L E B E H A V I O R
I N T E R S E C T I O N O V E R L A P P I N G
Project exploring digital Fabrication in the
creation of an instalation. Design devel-
oped, in conjuction with Carlos Sabogal,
by analysing the geometry and behavior of
each students’ choice of cloud and combin-
ing them into a coherent architectural object.
19. 21
Art
"Eagle"
Acrylic on
Canvas 2006
"Child Home"
Acrylic on Panel 2005
Study of Toad
Marker on Paper 2013
Sketch
2008
Sketch
2008
Lighthouse
CAD Drawing
Watercolour on Paper 2013
Recyclable
Fashion Show
Party Dress of
Party Balloons
Canvas Collection
Wallet 2012Design
