57
Matthew Flores | Portfolio | 2013
| Date post: | 06-Mar-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | matthew-flores |
| View: | 214 times |
| Download: | 2 times |
Matthew Flores | Portfolio | 2013
2
The Orlando City Art Museum is curated as a contemporary art museum that func-tions as a link between the art, the passerby, and the city of Orlando. Anchored to the light rail transit system on a prominent corner of the City, the museum’s shifting volumes and perforated skin become and artistic expression of density and connec-tivity within the context of the Orlando metropolis. As travelers approach the new Church Street Station train stop via the Orlando Sun Rail, they will be welcomed by the cantilevered gallery that reaches and welcomes them into the public space outside the main entrance to the Orlando Contemporary Art Museum. That public space will include informational nodes on the city and the museum, a concession area with ample outdoor seating, and ticketing for the train station. From there they may choose to walk to the Amway Center, through the Church Street Gardens on the other side of the tracks toward Church Street, or to the new Performing Arts Center via South Street. Or they may enter the museum itself, a series of shifting volumes that allows the itinerants to interact with the artwork and the city of Orlando simultaneously as they meander through the galleries. The museum is designed as a modification of the typical “white box”. By shifting, pushing and pulling the box, several spatial opportunities are created to enhance visitors’ experience of the city and museum. Terraces, overhangs, abstract-ed views of the city, and panoramas of the Orlando area are designed to link viewers’ experience of the iconic artwork directly with their experience of the city of Orlando.
Orlando City Art Museum
Sun Diagram Affected Area Sight Lines From Key Locations
3
2 3
Matthew FloresProject 2, Orlando, FLProf. William Tilson
Church Street
exterior perspective interior perspective from promenade
The Orlando City Art Museum is curated as a contemporary art museum that functions as a link between the art, the passerby, and the city of Or-lando. Anchored to the light rail transit system on a prominent corner of the City, the museum’s shift-ing volumes and perforated skin become an artistic expression of density and connectivity within the context of the Orlando metropolis. As travelers ap-proach the new Church Street Station via the Or-lando Sun Rail, the cantilevered gallery welcomes them into the public space and main entrance. The design is a modification of the typical “white box” gallery. By shifting, pushing and pulling the box, several spatial opportunities are created to enhance visitors’ experience. Terraces, overhangs, abstract-ed views of the city, and panoramas of the Orlando area are designed to link viewers’ interaction of the iconic artwork directly with their experience of the city of Orlando. The museum’s permanent collec-tion, which includes work that is inspired by people in the city, has directly influenced the design of the construct. The perforated skin is a pixilation of two Chuck Close paintings, and the extruded boxes are designed to house shadow sculptures by Alberto Giacometti. These architectural features are yet an-other way for the itinerant to connect simultaneously with the artwork, museum, and city.
axploded axo
interior perspective interior perspective
generative design
4.
5Exploded Axo
6
Section Perspective
Section Perspective
7
Ground Floor Plan1. Inverted Video Art / Seating2. Performance Stage3. Ticketing / Shop / Snack4. Gallery5. Mini-Gallery6. Mechanical / Art Storage Overhead7. Bus Stop
8
9
10
Kissimmee Station - An Architectural Link
A bridge extends, connects, and unites. It spans across space to shape a synapse between entities. On a macro-level the Sunrail System is a link between seventeen sta-tions in the greater Orlando area. On a micro-level the Sunrail Station at Kissimmee is a promenade that connects terraced gardens on either side of the tracks. These gardens penetrate two typical multi-level parking garages. This urban acupuncture is conducive to pedestrian traffic, whether it is for pleasure or business. The structure uses curves and angles to create an architectural language that expresses movement and flow in all directions. The construct is also anchored to the Kissimmee Civic Center, a hub for activity in the local area. This building includes a fitness center, which is a launching point for people who wish to exercise on the station’s promenade. The upper level in-cludes two volumes that program as a ticket booth area and smoothie shop. Finally, this junction is also a connection between residential and commercial districts of the city. It is a place for people to catch a train or a view, or simply enjoy a walk through downtown Kissimmee.
11
Kissimmee
12
13
14
Performative Skin Charrette
Southwest facing windows of the architecture offices at the University of Florida are a significant source of heat gain in the warmer months. The goal of this performa-tive skin project is to create an envelope for this façade that alleviates the heat gain, filters light in the building, and to create an overhead condition that shades the sidewalk leading into the core of the building from the southeast corner. The intervention will create a thermal chimney effect that ventilates the southwestern façade with natural convective forces created from the architec-tural design. The aesthetic form of the façade is derived from these natural winds that sweep up the side of the building.
Aluminum Skin
Plexiglass Layer
Steel Frame
15
16
17
18
Banyan Tower Charrette
The intent for this tower charrette located on Virginia Key in Miami, Florida is to create a series of three vertical structures that extrude from a horizontal frame, which blends into the landscape. The three vertical elements can be read as one tower from a dis-tance, as they will be connected at different levels of the buildings through their circula-tion and skin. The envelope itself will be a performative skin that will rely on orientation and the arrangement of the elements to create a sustainable design that utilizes energy from the sun and offshore winds. The design of this residential tower is derived from the wooded are that it rests in and form the banyan trees that populate the Miami area.
19
Site Plan
20
21
22
Charleston Environment Visitors Center
The new design for the Charleston Environment Visitors Center, located in the heart of the historic district, will utilize passive strategies that will greatly affect the effi ciency of the building. It will specifi cally address issues of direct sunlight, wind, and rainwater collection. The south façade, which faces the markets of Market Street, is considered the front of the building as it includes the main entrance. This presents a challenge in a climate that has hot humid summers. However, it will be countered with suffi cient overhang for sun shading and a double skin that will be vented in warm temperatures. There are also intermediate spaces that transition from outdoor to indoor conditions. The east side of the building is more open, and includes a large plaza and garden to welcome early morning sunlight. The western side of the building is more opaque to counter direct solar radiation from late afternoon sun. The north side is close to an existing building. This particular site is close enough to the coast and Ashley River that it catches signifi cant east-west winds that have infl u-enced architecture of this historic city for years. Charleston is known for its church spires that characterize the skyline of the city. The visitors center will have wind spires to relate to this architectural typology. These quiet wind turbines will harness energy to power portions of the building. Finally, the curved slope of the roof will enable rainwater collection for irrigation of the gardens.
23
Contemporary design and sustainable design are quickly becoming one in the same. Both design approaches are often utilized today in architec-tural practice. When considering Charleston as a site for a contemporary intervention, the history of the city is vital to the form that it takes, even if it is a contemporary building. However, the thermal properties of the building can contribute signifi cantly to the formal qualities of the design as well. The design for the new Visitor’s Center of Charleston will use the city’s history and typological characteristics as well as sustainable con-cepts as generative tools in the design process. Typologies that will be used and/ or re0invented include piazzas, columns gardens alleys, plazas, and spires. Thermal considerations for the project will include the use of wind power, water collections, orientation, of the building, and a double skinned façade. The programs included in the building will include kiosks for general visitor information, tours, horse and buggy rides, souvenirs, etc. It will also include a restaurant, art gallery, event space, and a garden space that winds throughout the east side of the building.
24
Bird’s Eye View
Site Plan
25
Longitudinal Section
Cross Section
26
27
28
29
30 30
Luminare Design Competition
31 31
32
CIFLO Office BuildingA Collaborative Effort | Claudia Cintas + Matt Flores
CIFO Office Building is a design and study of a midsized construction that utilizes and celebrates a number of sustainable strategies within the design. Strategies utilized in the project include angled solar PV panels, terraced gardens, vertical green wall, water collecting cistern, retracctable shading devices, and a trombe wall transisiton form terrace gardens to main building. Multiple sunlight and radiance studies were performed to understand heat load and natural illumi-nation within the building.
1. Open Office Space2. Meeting Room3. Conference Room4. Restrooms5. Exterior Gardens6. Interior Private Garden7. Bridge
33
34
35
36
Gainesville LibraryReading Room
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
A Collaborative Effort | Loi Flink + Matt Flores + Jenna Lychako + Camile Rusch
Reading room pavilion for addition to community library. Single public room addition to existing facility which will contain a small books collection regarding history of the North Central Florida region. Project sepa-rate from existing facility by courtyard/garden space and linked by a paved walkway.
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
37
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTPR
OD
UC
ED B
Y AN
AU
TOD
ESK ED
UC
ATIO
NA
L PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
F E D C B
STORAGEG105
MECHANICALO201
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
3/16"=1'-0"2 SECTION
A6.21
A6.13
INFORMAL READINGG107
B.O. ALUMINUM CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-6"
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
COMPUTER TERMINALG108
ECBA D
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
T.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 15'-0"
3/16"=1'-0"1 SECTION
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.12
A6.11
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 118
LARGE REFERENCE DESKSG101
MEN'S RRG103
WOMEN'S RRG104
STORAGEG105
BOOK STACKSO202
MECHANICALO201
STAIRSSG1A
ELEVATORG109
ELEVATORG109
STAIRSSG1A
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
FINISH FLOOR U.L.E.L. + 12'-8"
FINISH FLOOR L.L.E.L. + 0'-0"
T.O. PARAPETE.L. + 25'-0"
A6.23
A6.22
B.O. LIMESTONE CLADDINGE.L. + 10'-6"
T.O. LANDINGE.L. + 6'-11"
T.O. ROOFE.L. + 24'-0"
SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAINSLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN SLOPE DOWN TO DRAIN
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A5.1BUILDINGSECTIONS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTPR
OD
UC
ED B
Y AN
AU
TOD
ESK ED
UC
ATIO
NA
L PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
38
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL TOP PLATE
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 LAYERS OF 12" GYP.
34" SHEATHING
3 12" AIR SPACE
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
SLOPE DN.
CANT
2" X 12 ' P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
SLOPE DN.
2" ALUMINUM MULLION
DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOW
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
CANT2" TOP ALUMINUM MULLION
2" X 12" P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
1 1/2"=1'-0"4 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - GLAZING
1 1/2"=1'-0"1 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"3 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - ALUMINUM CLADDING
STEEL BASE PLATE
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
CONCRETE FOOTER
CHANNEL SYSTEM BASEPLATE
34" SHEATHING
BUILDING WRAP
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
2" ALUMINUM CLADDING
FOOTER
MECHANICAL FASTENER
AIR/VAPOR BARRIER
10 1/4" BATT INSULATION
4" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL BASE PLATE
3/4" SHEATHING
ALUMINUM BASE PLATE
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A6.3DETAILS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
PRO
DU
CED
BY A
N A
UTO
DESK
EDU
CA
TION
AL PR
OD
UC
T
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
39
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL TOP PLATE
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 LAYERS OF 12" GYP.
34" SHEATHING
3 12" AIR SPACE
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
SLOPE DN.
CANT
2" X 12 ' P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
SLOPE DN.
2" ALUMINUM MULLION
DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOW
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
CANT2" TOP ALUMINUM MULLION
2" X 12" P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
1 1/2"=1'-0"4 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - GLAZING
1 1/2"=1'-0"1 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"3 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - ALUMINUM CLADDING
STEEL BASE PLATE
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
CONCRETE FOOTER
CHANNEL SYSTEM BASEPLATE
34" SHEATHING
BUILDING WRAP
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
2" ALUMINUM CLADDING
FOOTER
MECHANICAL FASTENER
AIR/VAPOR BARRIER
10 1/4" BATT INSULATION
4" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL BASE PLATE
3/4" SHEATHING
ALUMINUM BASE PLATE
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A6.3DETAILS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTPR
OD
UC
ED B
Y AN
AU
TOD
ESK ED
UC
ATIO
NA
L PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL TOP PLATE
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 LAYERS OF 12" GYP.
34" SHEATHING
3 12" AIR SPACE
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
SLOPE DN.
CANT
2" X 12 ' P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
SLOPE DN.
2" ALUMINUM MULLION
DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOW
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
CANT2" TOP ALUMINUM MULLION
2" X 12" P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
1 1/2"=1'-0"4 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - GLAZING
1 1/2"=1'-0"1 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"3 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - ALUMINUM CLADDING
STEEL BASE PLATE
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
CONCRETE FOOTER
CHANNEL SYSTEM BASEPLATE
34" SHEATHING
BUILDING WRAP
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
2" ALUMINUM CLADDING
FOOTER
MECHANICAL FASTENER
AIR/VAPOR BARRIER
10 1/4" BATT INSULATION
4" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL BASE PLATE
3/4" SHEATHING
ALUMINUM BASE PLATE
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A6.3DETAILS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTPR
OD
UC
ED B
Y AN
AU
TOD
ESK ED
UC
ATIO
NA
L PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL TOP PLATE
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 LAYERS OF 12" GYP.
34" SHEATHING
3 12" AIR SPACE
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
SLOPE DN.
CANT
2" X 12 ' P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
FOLDED ALUMINUM COPING
14" ROOF FLASHING
2" GRAVEL ROOF
3" RIGID INSULATION
SLOPE DN.
2" ALUMINUM MULLION
DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOW
DRIP EDGE
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
CANT2" TOP ALUMINUM MULLION
2" X 12" P.T. ANCHORED BLOCKING
ANCHOR PLATE WITH COMPRESSION BARS
1 1/2"=1'-0"4 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - GLAZING
1 1/2"=1'-0"1 TYPICAL PARAPET DETAIL - LIMESTONE CLADDING
1 1/2"=1'-0"3 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL - ALUMINUM CLADDING
STEEL BASE PLATE
3 12" CLADDING BRACKET
10 14" BATT INSULATION
2 34" LIMESTONE CLADDING
CONCRETE FOOTER
CHANNEL SYSTEM BASEPLATE
34" SHEATHING
BUILDING WRAP
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
2" ALUMINUM CLADDING
FOOTER
MECHANICAL FASTENER
AIR/VAPOR BARRIER
10 1/4" BATT INSULATION
4" CLADDING BRACKET
STEEL BASE PLATE
3/4" SHEATHING
ALUMINUM BASE PLATE
#6 REBAR
NON-STRUCTURALSLAB ON GRADE
COMPACTED SOIL
4" BASEBOARD
CLM
J A
rchi
tect
sC
amill
e R
usch
, Loi
Flin
k, M
att F
lore
s, J
enna
Lyc
hako
Met
hods
& M
ater
ials
I I :
Sec
tion
6160
: P
rof.
McG
loth
lin
Drawn By:CLMJ Architects
Checked By: McGlothlin
xx-xx-09
REVISIONS:
A6.3DETAILS
REA
DIN
G R
OO
MG
AIN
ESVI
LLE,
FL
DATE : 2 / 15 / 11
PRO
DU
CED
BY
AN
AU
TOD
ESK
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTPR
OD
UC
ED B
Y AN
AU
TOD
ESK ED
UC
ATIO
NA
L PRO
DU
CT
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
40
INTRODUCTION | Traditional architecture across Africa can be described as one of many styles of tents, kasbahs (small
settlements), ghorfas (vaulted rooms), underground structures, and monumental structures. This eclectic mix of building types
extends far beyond the typical mud hut that is often tagged as the entire continent ’s staple vernacular architecture. As developing
countries within this continent have progressed and been ruled by or influenced by first world countries, their architecture
has expanded even more to include modern and contemporary design among other influences. Historically, many European
countries have established a tabula rasa approach to urban development and architecture in African countries such as Ethiopia,
Libya, and several others. This has created several problems throughout the past century including exacerbation of the chasm
between the rich and the poor, as the poor have been driven from their homelands and customary ways of life. The purpose of
this paper and project is not to give a detailed history of European settlement and influence on African countries. It is however
intended to be a small-scale example of an alternative solution to this tabula rasa approach or blank slate theory, which ignores
the presence of established architecture, symbolism, customs, etc. The goal of this project is to reinterpret an African nomadic
hut with a combination of contemporary and vernacular architectural language. In order to better understand how to design
contemporary architecture in the ancient contexts of the African continent, one must first have a general understanding of the
designs and indigenous practices used by African peoples for centuries. “Traditional architecture in Africa can be advanced and
incorporated into contemporary buildings if its roots in antiquity are understood.” (Elleh, 24)
NOMADIC HUTS | The foremost scholar on nomadic architecture is architect Labelle Prussin. She, more than anyone else, has
sought to understand the architecture of vernacular tent structures throughout different regions of Africa. In her book African
Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender, Ms. Prussin elucidates the history, technologies, designs, symbolism, and creative
processes of women’s tensile and armature tents. “The essence of nomadic architecture lies in the process of creation, not the
end product.” (Prussin, 44)
A commonality that nomadic African tribes share is that the tent structures are generally built up and broken down by women
of the tribe. The men, who don’t seem to have as many responsibilities as the women, build the kraal around the perimeter of
the selected site. Another commonality among tribes is the interface between transport technology and building technology.
The tent structures themselves break down and transform into saddle-litter-palanquins, which in turn work efficiently with the
structure of the camel on which it rests. This is used to transport people and goods to the next site. The gender roles that have
been established for centuries not only create a ritualistic nature to the tribes’ way of life, but it also establishes a certain amount
of efficiency needed for the nomadic lifestyle.
THE GABRA DOMICILE TENT | All nomadic tent structures can be categorized as either tensile or armature structures. “A
tensile structure (or, as some would have, a true tent) consists of a center pole (or system of poles) put into compression by
stretching a fabric or membrane tautly over it. The tent (a particular type of tensile structure) used by the African nomads rests
on the structural interdependence between the pole(s) and the membrane or velum,: the poles will not stand up unless the velum
is pulled tautly over them.” (Prussin, 54) On the contrary, armature structures contain an autonomous tectonic structural system
that does not rely on the tension of taught envelope. It is imperative to point out that all of the materials and structure for these
huts are comprised of limited natural resources, not store-bought or manufactured structural elements. The connection to the
natural environment is a quality characteristic to nomadic tribes, and will be emphasized in our more contemporary design. We
have specifically taken inspiration for our project from the Gabra domicile tent, a structure found in nomadic tribes of Kenya
and the border of Ethiopia. It is an armature tent, which includes a reinforcing wall in the rear called utubu boru. “It is the first
structural component to be put up; it is the wall that receives the ritual marriage containers, that is addressed poetically, and that
defines the orientation of the house.” (Prussin, 55) The structure of this particular tent is made of grass and Acacia roots. These
roots are lightweight, relatively strong structural elements that are tied together to form domicile shaped living quarters. The
significance of this round shape is found in the female architects and builders who erect them on a regular basis. The curvilinear
shape signifies an inward focus and a softer feminine form.
SANTA FE COLLAGE COLLABORATION | This project was originally an extension of Professor Sarah Cervone’s ethnobotanical
garden concept, which initially was to be installed at Santa Fe College’s downtown Gainesville Blount campus. Professor
Cervone, who teaches an African Humanities course at Santa Fe, proposed that this garden would utilize north Florida’s
subtropical-temperate climate to grow plants, fruits, and vegetables indigenous to African countries. Our initial design concept
began as an architectural extension of the garden. However, after Santa Fe faculty and administration further discussed the
project, it was determined that the garden would be located at the main Santa Fe campus and the architectural intervention
would be erected at the Santa Fe teaching zoo. Regardless of the location and some programmatic changes, the objectives of the
garden and architecture remained the same. The goal of these African inspired projects is to internationalize the curriculum for
Santa Fe College, create interdisciplinary collaboration, student empowerment through experiential learning and mentoring, and
build community. It is fair to say that all of these objectives were met through the construction of this project.
THE CONCEPT | As stated earlier, the original concept for the design was to create an architectural intervention that adds to
the experience of the African ethnobotanical garden. The early idea for function and program of the intervention was to create
a structure that was conducive to vine growth so the garden could grow vertically and create a shaded space for visitors. Since
the site for the construct has been moved, the program of the space has changed. It is now seen as more of a sculptural element
on display at the zoo that will be used as an ongoing educational device for visitors. Different African-inspired projects created
by students from Professor Cervone’s courses will also be on display within the construct, which is offset four feet from the
main path for safety reasons. Although the programmatic aspect of the design has changed since its move to a wooded area in
the teaching zoo, it still meets the objectives set out by Professor Cervone, especially by internationalizing the curriculum and
creating collaboration among different disciplines.
The African section of the Santa Fe Teaching Zoo will now include a contemporary architectural element that is inspired by
indigenous African architecture. As previously mentioned, the first connotation with African architecture is often times the
mud house or grass hut. This project will seek to represent the qualitative nature of domicile nomadic huts and express the
evolution of African architectural design to modern day standards. This approach to design will also serve as an alternative to
the tabula rasa approach that has been used by European countries in the colonization of African countries. The design will
take on the materiality and tectonic nature of African tents described in Labelle Prussin’s book African Nomadic Architecture:
Space Place and Gender. However, it will do so with a modern formal influence.
DESIGN OPTIONS |
Iteration 1
The first iteration consisted of a language of 1100 dense, thin vertical bamboo elements of varying lengths that hang from a 15’
x 15’ grid of intersecting structural elements. Due to its purely conceptual nature at this point, this iteration may have been the
most successful from a purely conceptual design perspective. However, it was not feasible, as the parameters of site, structure,
and cost were not yet accounted for in the design. Therefore, a series of iterations were created to make the design a reality.
Iterations 2-3
Iterations 2-3 and some others that are not shown here consisted of a heavier structure, which would act as an armature for the
lighter elements to hang from. After much consideration it was determined that the structure was resembling a typical pergola,
which was not desired. These iterations would have been in the $700 range, which was still too expensive
Iteration 4
We resolved to create a structure where the dense tectonic elements themselves were the makeup of the structure as well.
Iteration 4 met those requirements, and the cost was now at a more acceptable $300-$400 range. However, the cantilever was
still to precarious, and this design also required a larger site for the tension cables to extend from the actual construct.
Iteration 5
This was our final 3D model iteration from which the final design came. The construct consists of a 9’ x 9’ grid of bamboo
elements, which are one foot off center from each other in the X and Y direction and 22 ½” off center in the Z direction. The
overall dimensions of the design is a 10’ x 10’ x 10’ cube. This was the most successful design that accounted for conceptual
design goals, structure, cost, and minimal use of the site. The 1” tonkin cane diameter bamboo poles, which densify the cube
also become structural elements, which are tied off to each other with natural fiber rope. Bamboo was chosen as a lightweight,
sustainable, naturally abundant material, which resembles the Acacia root used by the Grabra people.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS | The site of the project is located in the back of the zoo, which is surrounded by animals that
can’t be disturbed by power tools or loud noises. Therefore, it was imperative that we prefabricate as much as possible before
assembling the structure. The bamboo elements were categorized according to their x,y,or z direction and measured in the 3D
modeling software, and a spreadsheet was made to organize the precut bamboo poles off site. We created a 9’ grid and utilized
a 3,4,5 triangle to verify that it was squared off correctly. We hammered in 4’ x ½” rebar two feet into the ground as foundation
for the 10’ vertical tonkin bamboo poles that touch the ground. We researched several types of knots, and decided on a simple
square knot that could be easily taught and repeated quickly for efficient construction. Upon cutting and bundling the poles we
transported all the materials and assembled the outer walls just outside the zoo to create a tilt-up style construction that tied
off to the rebar. We began with the back wall, the main support that is reminiscent of the utubu boru of the Gabra hut. Once
the perimeter walls were in place, we systematically filled in the rest of the structure with bamboo and rope. Lateral bracing
was added for extra structural support. This is the only place where minimal screws were used. The rest of the structure was
assembled by square knots tied with natural fiber rope. The void of the domicile shape was delineated by curvilinear rope tied to
the ends of the bamboo poles.
CONCLUSION | We would consider the project to be a success overall. We hope that this is the first of several collaborative
efforts between Professor Cohen and Professor Cervone’s African classes. The concept of internationalizing the curriculum is
an important one for students such as myself who would like to be exposed to multiple customs and design alternatives while
still in an academic setting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
Elleh, Nnamdi. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Print.
Kultermann, Udo. New Architecture in Africa. New York: Universe, 1963. Print.
Prussin, Labelle. African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Print.
MAT T FLORES & DAVID GOLDSMITH | UF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE CANDIDATE 2013
AFRICAN HUT REINTERPRETATIONCompleted in partial fufillment of requirements for graduate seminar “Topics in African Architecture” with Associate Professor Donna Cohen
04
Iteration #5
Iteration #1 Iteration #2
Iteration #3 Iteration #4
African Hut ReinterpretationA Collaborative Effort | Matthew Flores + David Goldsmith
Excerpt taken from African Seminar Presentation:
The original concept for the design was to create an architectural intervention that adds to the experience of the African ethnobotanical garden. The early idea for function and program of the intervention was to create a structure that was conducive to vine growth so the garden could grow vertically and create a shaded space for visitors. Since the site for the construct has been moved, the program of the space has changed. It is now seen as more of a sculptural element on display at the zoo that will be used as an ongoing educational device for visitors. Different African-inspired projects created by students from Professor Cervone’s courses will also be on display within the construct, which is offset four feet from the main path for safety reasons. Although the programmatic aspect of the design has changed since its move to a wooded area in the teaching zoo, it still meets the objectives set out by Professor Cervone, especially by internationalizing the curriculum and creating col-laboration among different disciplines. The African section of the Santa Fe Teaching Zoo will now include a contemporary architectural element that is inspired by indigenous African architecture. As previously mentioned, the first connotation with African architecture is often times the mud house or grass hut. This project will seek to represent the qualitative nature of domicile nomadic huts and express the evolution of African architectural design to modern day standards. This approach to design will also serve as an alternative to the tabula rasa approach that has been used by Euro-pean countries in the colonization of African countries. The design will take on the materiality and tectonic na-ture of African tents described in Labelle Prussin’s book African Nomadic Architecture: Space Place and Gender. However, it will do so with a modern formal influence.
41
INTRODUCTION | Traditional architecture across Africa can be described as one of many styles of tents, kasbahs (small
settlements), ghorfas (vaulted rooms), underground structures, and monumental structures. This eclectic mix of building types
extends far beyond the typical mud hut that is often tagged as the entire continent ’s staple vernacular architecture. As developing
countries within this continent have progressed and been ruled by or influenced by first world countries, their architecture
has expanded even more to include modern and contemporary design among other influences. Historically, many European
countries have established a tabula rasa approach to urban development and architecture in African countries such as Ethiopia,
Libya, and several others. This has created several problems throughout the past century including exacerbation of the chasm
between the rich and the poor, as the poor have been driven from their homelands and customary ways of life. The purpose of
this paper and project is not to give a detailed history of European settlement and influence on African countries. It is however
intended to be a small-scale example of an alternative solution to this tabula rasa approach or blank slate theory, which ignores
the presence of established architecture, symbolism, customs, etc. The goal of this project is to reinterpret an African nomadic
hut with a combination of contemporary and vernacular architectural language. In order to better understand how to design
contemporary architecture in the ancient contexts of the African continent, one must first have a general understanding of the
designs and indigenous practices used by African peoples for centuries. “Traditional architecture in Africa can be advanced and
incorporated into contemporary buildings if its roots in antiquity are understood.” (Elleh, 24)
NOMADIC HUTS | The foremost scholar on nomadic architecture is architect Labelle Prussin. She, more than anyone else, has
sought to understand the architecture of vernacular tent structures throughout different regions of Africa. In her book African
Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender, Ms. Prussin elucidates the history, technologies, designs, symbolism, and creative
processes of women’s tensile and armature tents. “The essence of nomadic architecture lies in the process of creation, not the
end product.” (Prussin, 44)
A commonality that nomadic African tribes share is that the tent structures are generally built up and broken down by women
of the tribe. The men, who don’t seem to have as many responsibilities as the women, build the kraal around the perimeter of
the selected site. Another commonality among tribes is the interface between transport technology and building technology.
The tent structures themselves break down and transform into saddle-litter-palanquins, which in turn work efficiently with the
structure of the camel on which it rests. This is used to transport people and goods to the next site. The gender roles that have
been established for centuries not only create a ritualistic nature to the tribes’ way of life, but it also establishes a certain amount
of efficiency needed for the nomadic lifestyle.
THE GABRA DOMICILE TENT | All nomadic tent structures can be categorized as either tensile or armature structures. “A
tensile structure (or, as some would have, a true tent) consists of a center pole (or system of poles) put into compression by
stretching a fabric or membrane tautly over it. The tent (a particular type of tensile structure) used by the African nomads rests
on the structural interdependence between the pole(s) and the membrane or velum,: the poles will not stand up unless the velum
is pulled tautly over them.” (Prussin, 54) On the contrary, armature structures contain an autonomous tectonic structural system
that does not rely on the tension of taught envelope. It is imperative to point out that all of the materials and structure for these
huts are comprised of limited natural resources, not store-bought or manufactured structural elements. The connection to the
natural environment is a quality characteristic to nomadic tribes, and will be emphasized in our more contemporary design. We
have specifically taken inspiration for our project from the Gabra domicile tent, a structure found in nomadic tribes of Kenya
and the border of Ethiopia. It is an armature tent, which includes a reinforcing wall in the rear called utubu boru. “It is the first
structural component to be put up; it is the wall that receives the ritual marriage containers, that is addressed poetically, and that
defines the orientation of the house.” (Prussin, 55) The structure of this particular tent is made of grass and Acacia roots. These
roots are lightweight, relatively strong structural elements that are tied together to form domicile shaped living quarters. The
significance of this round shape is found in the female architects and builders who erect them on a regular basis. The curvilinear
shape signifies an inward focus and a softer feminine form.
SANTA FE COLLAGE COLLABORATION | This project was originally an extension of Professor Sarah Cervone’s ethnobotanical
garden concept, which initially was to be installed at Santa Fe College’s downtown Gainesville Blount campus. Professor
Cervone, who teaches an African Humanities course at Santa Fe, proposed that this garden would utilize north Florida’s
subtropical-temperate climate to grow plants, fruits, and vegetables indigenous to African countries. Our initial design concept
began as an architectural extension of the garden. However, after Santa Fe faculty and administration further discussed the
project, it was determined that the garden would be located at the main Santa Fe campus and the architectural intervention
would be erected at the Santa Fe teaching zoo. Regardless of the location and some programmatic changes, the objectives of the
garden and architecture remained the same. The goal of these African inspired projects is to internationalize the curriculum for
Santa Fe College, create interdisciplinary collaboration, student empowerment through experiential learning and mentoring, and
build community. It is fair to say that all of these objectives were met through the construction of this project.
THE CONCEPT | As stated earlier, the original concept for the design was to create an architectural intervention that adds to
the experience of the African ethnobotanical garden. The early idea for function and program of the intervention was to create
a structure that was conducive to vine growth so the garden could grow vertically and create a shaded space for visitors. Since
the site for the construct has been moved, the program of the space has changed. It is now seen as more of a sculptural element
on display at the zoo that will be used as an ongoing educational device for visitors. Different African-inspired projects created
by students from Professor Cervone’s courses will also be on display within the construct, which is offset four feet from the
main path for safety reasons. Although the programmatic aspect of the design has changed since its move to a wooded area in
the teaching zoo, it still meets the objectives set out by Professor Cervone, especially by internationalizing the curriculum and
creating collaboration among different disciplines.
The African section of the Santa Fe Teaching Zoo will now include a contemporary architectural element that is inspired by
indigenous African architecture. As previously mentioned, the first connotation with African architecture is often times the
mud house or grass hut. This project will seek to represent the qualitative nature of domicile nomadic huts and express the
evolution of African architectural design to modern day standards. This approach to design will also serve as an alternative to
the tabula rasa approach that has been used by European countries in the colonization of African countries. The design will
take on the materiality and tectonic nature of African tents described in Labelle Prussin’s book African Nomadic Architecture:
Space Place and Gender. However, it will do so with a modern formal influence.
DESIGN OPTIONS |
Iteration 1
The first iteration consisted of a language of 1100 dense, thin vertical bamboo elements of varying lengths that hang from a 15’
x 15’ grid of intersecting structural elements. Due to its purely conceptual nature at this point, this iteration may have been the
most successful from a purely conceptual design perspective. However, it was not feasible, as the parameters of site, structure,
and cost were not yet accounted for in the design. Therefore, a series of iterations were created to make the design a reality.
Iterations 2-3
Iterations 2-3 and some others that are not shown here consisted of a heavier structure, which would act as an armature for the
lighter elements to hang from. After much consideration it was determined that the structure was resembling a typical pergola,
which was not desired. These iterations would have been in the $700 range, which was still too expensive
Iteration 4
We resolved to create a structure where the dense tectonic elements themselves were the makeup of the structure as well.
Iteration 4 met those requirements, and the cost was now at a more acceptable $300-$400 range. However, the cantilever was
still to precarious, and this design also required a larger site for the tension cables to extend from the actual construct.
Iteration 5
This was our final 3D model iteration from which the final design came. The construct consists of a 9’ x 9’ grid of bamboo
elements, which are one foot off center from each other in the X and Y direction and 22 ½” off center in the Z direction. The
overall dimensions of the design is a 10’ x 10’ x 10’ cube. This was the most successful design that accounted for conceptual
design goals, structure, cost, and minimal use of the site. The 1” tonkin cane diameter bamboo poles, which densify the cube
also become structural elements, which are tied off to each other with natural fiber rope. Bamboo was chosen as a lightweight,
sustainable, naturally abundant material, which resembles the Acacia root used by the Grabra people.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS | The site of the project is located in the back of the zoo, which is surrounded by animals that
can’t be disturbed by power tools or loud noises. Therefore, it was imperative that we prefabricate as much as possible before
assembling the structure. The bamboo elements were categorized according to their x,y,or z direction and measured in the 3D
modeling software, and a spreadsheet was made to organize the precut bamboo poles off site. We created a 9’ grid and utilized
a 3,4,5 triangle to verify that it was squared off correctly. We hammered in 4’ x ½” rebar two feet into the ground as foundation
for the 10’ vertical tonkin bamboo poles that touch the ground. We researched several types of knots, and decided on a simple
square knot that could be easily taught and repeated quickly for efficient construction. Upon cutting and bundling the poles we
transported all the materials and assembled the outer walls just outside the zoo to create a tilt-up style construction that tied
off to the rebar. We began with the back wall, the main support that is reminiscent of the utubu boru of the Gabra hut. Once
the perimeter walls were in place, we systematically filled in the rest of the structure with bamboo and rope. Lateral bracing
was added for extra structural support. This is the only place where minimal screws were used. The rest of the structure was
assembled by square knots tied with natural fiber rope. The void of the domicile shape was delineated by curvilinear rope tied to
the ends of the bamboo poles.
CONCLUSION | We would consider the project to be a success overall. We hope that this is the first of several collaborative
efforts between Professor Cohen and Professor Cervone’s African classes. The concept of internationalizing the curriculum is
an important one for students such as myself who would like to be exposed to multiple customs and design alternatives while
still in an academic setting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
Elleh, Nnamdi. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Print.
Kultermann, Udo. New Architecture in Africa. New York: Universe, 1963. Print.
Prussin, Labelle. African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Print.
MAT T FLORES & DAVID GOLDSMITH | UF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE CANDIDATE 2013
AFRICAN HUT REINTERPRETATIONCompleted in partial fufillment of requirements for graduate seminar “Topics in African Architecture” with Associate Professor Donna Cohen
04
Iteration #5
Iteration #1 Iteration #2
Iteration #3 Iteration #4
Iteration #1 Iteration #2
Iteration #3 Iteration #4
42
INTRODUCTION | Traditional architecture across Africa can be described as one of many styles of tents, kasbahs (small
settlements), ghorfas (vaulted rooms), underground structures, and monumental structures. This eclectic mix of building types
extends far beyond the typical mud hut that is often tagged as the entire continent ’s staple vernacular architecture. As developing
countries within this continent have progressed and been ruled by or influenced by first world countries, their architecture
has expanded even more to include modern and contemporary design among other influences. Historically, many European
countries have established a tabula rasa approach to urban development and architecture in African countries such as Ethiopia,
Libya, and several others. This has created several problems throughout the past century including exacerbation of the chasm
between the rich and the poor, as the poor have been driven from their homelands and customary ways of life. The purpose of
this paper and project is not to give a detailed history of European settlement and influence on African countries. It is however
intended to be a small-scale example of an alternative solution to this tabula rasa approach or blank slate theory, which ignores
the presence of established architecture, symbolism, customs, etc. The goal of this project is to reinterpret an African nomadic
hut with a combination of contemporary and vernacular architectural language. In order to better understand how to design
contemporary architecture in the ancient contexts of the African continent, one must first have a general understanding of the
designs and indigenous practices used by African peoples for centuries. “Traditional architecture in Africa can be advanced and
incorporated into contemporary buildings if its roots in antiquity are understood.” (Elleh, 24)
NOMADIC HUTS | The foremost scholar on nomadic architecture is architect Labelle Prussin. She, more than anyone else, has
sought to understand the architecture of vernacular tent structures throughout different regions of Africa. In her book African
Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender, Ms. Prussin elucidates the history, technologies, designs, symbolism, and creative
processes of women’s tensile and armature tents. “The essence of nomadic architecture lies in the process of creation, not the
end product.” (Prussin, 44)
A commonality that nomadic African tribes share is that the tent structures are generally built up and broken down by women
of the tribe. The men, who don’t seem to have as many responsibilities as the women, build the kraal around the perimeter of
the selected site. Another commonality among tribes is the interface between transport technology and building technology.
The tent structures themselves break down and transform into saddle-litter-palanquins, which in turn work efficiently with the
structure of the camel on which it rests. This is used to transport people and goods to the next site. The gender roles that have
been established for centuries not only create a ritualistic nature to the tribes’ way of life, but it also establishes a certain amount
of efficiency needed for the nomadic lifestyle.
THE GABRA DOMICILE TENT | All nomadic tent structures can be categorized as either tensile or armature structures. “A
tensile structure (or, as some would have, a true tent) consists of a center pole (or system of poles) put into compression by
stretching a fabric or membrane tautly over it. The tent (a particular type of tensile structure) used by the African nomads rests
on the structural interdependence between the pole(s) and the membrane or velum,: the poles will not stand up unless the velum
is pulled tautly over them.” (Prussin, 54) On the contrary, armature structures contain an autonomous tectonic structural system
that does not rely on the tension of taught envelope. It is imperative to point out that all of the materials and structure for these
huts are comprised of limited natural resources, not store-bought or manufactured structural elements. The connection to the
natural environment is a quality characteristic to nomadic tribes, and will be emphasized in our more contemporary design. We
have specifically taken inspiration for our project from the Gabra domicile tent, a structure found in nomadic tribes of Kenya
and the border of Ethiopia. It is an armature tent, which includes a reinforcing wall in the rear called utubu boru. “It is the first
structural component to be put up; it is the wall that receives the ritual marriage containers, that is addressed poetically, and that
defines the orientation of the house.” (Prussin, 55) The structure of this particular tent is made of grass and Acacia roots. These
roots are lightweight, relatively strong structural elements that are tied together to form domicile shaped living quarters. The
significance of this round shape is found in the female architects and builders who erect them on a regular basis. The curvilinear
shape signifies an inward focus and a softer feminine form.
SANTA FE COLLAGE COLLABORATION | This project was originally an extension of Professor Sarah Cervone’s ethnobotanical
garden concept, which initially was to be installed at Santa Fe College’s downtown Gainesville Blount campus. Professor
Cervone, who teaches an African Humanities course at Santa Fe, proposed that this garden would utilize north Florida’s
subtropical-temperate climate to grow plants, fruits, and vegetables indigenous to African countries. Our initial design concept
began as an architectural extension of the garden. However, after Santa Fe faculty and administration further discussed the
project, it was determined that the garden would be located at the main Santa Fe campus and the architectural intervention
would be erected at the Santa Fe teaching zoo. Regardless of the location and some programmatic changes, the objectives of the
garden and architecture remained the same. The goal of these African inspired projects is to internationalize the curriculum for
Santa Fe College, create interdisciplinary collaboration, student empowerment through experiential learning and mentoring, and
build community. It is fair to say that all of these objectives were met through the construction of this project.
THE CONCEPT | As stated earlier, the original concept for the design was to create an architectural intervention that adds to
the experience of the African ethnobotanical garden. The early idea for function and program of the intervention was to create
a structure that was conducive to vine growth so the garden could grow vertically and create a shaded space for visitors. Since
the site for the construct has been moved, the program of the space has changed. It is now seen as more of a sculptural element
on display at the zoo that will be used as an ongoing educational device for visitors. Different African-inspired projects created
by students from Professor Cervone’s courses will also be on display within the construct, which is offset four feet from the
main path for safety reasons. Although the programmatic aspect of the design has changed since its move to a wooded area in
the teaching zoo, it still meets the objectives set out by Professor Cervone, especially by internationalizing the curriculum and
creating collaboration among different disciplines.
The African section of the Santa Fe Teaching Zoo will now include a contemporary architectural element that is inspired by
indigenous African architecture. As previously mentioned, the first connotation with African architecture is often times the
mud house or grass hut. This project will seek to represent the qualitative nature of domicile nomadic huts and express the
evolution of African architectural design to modern day standards. This approach to design will also serve as an alternative to
the tabula rasa approach that has been used by European countries in the colonization of African countries. The design will
take on the materiality and tectonic nature of African tents described in Labelle Prussin’s book African Nomadic Architecture:
Space Place and Gender. However, it will do so with a modern formal influence.
DESIGN OPTIONS |
Iteration 1
The first iteration consisted of a language of 1100 dense, thin vertical bamboo elements of varying lengths that hang from a 15’
x 15’ grid of intersecting structural elements. Due to its purely conceptual nature at this point, this iteration may have been the
most successful from a purely conceptual design perspective. However, it was not feasible, as the parameters of site, structure,
and cost were not yet accounted for in the design. Therefore, a series of iterations were created to make the design a reality.
Iterations 2-3
Iterations 2-3 and some others that are not shown here consisted of a heavier structure, which would act as an armature for the
lighter elements to hang from. After much consideration it was determined that the structure was resembling a typical pergola,
which was not desired. These iterations would have been in the $700 range, which was still too expensive
Iteration 4
We resolved to create a structure where the dense tectonic elements themselves were the makeup of the structure as well.
Iteration 4 met those requirements, and the cost was now at a more acceptable $300-$400 range. However, the cantilever was
still to precarious, and this design also required a larger site for the tension cables to extend from the actual construct.
Iteration 5
This was our final 3D model iteration from which the final design came. The construct consists of a 9’ x 9’ grid of bamboo
elements, which are one foot off center from each other in the X and Y direction and 22 ½” off center in the Z direction. The
overall dimensions of the design is a 10’ x 10’ x 10’ cube. This was the most successful design that accounted for conceptual
design goals, structure, cost, and minimal use of the site. The 1” tonkin cane diameter bamboo poles, which densify the cube
also become structural elements, which are tied off to each other with natural fiber rope. Bamboo was chosen as a lightweight,
sustainable, naturally abundant material, which resembles the Acacia root used by the Grabra people.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS | The site of the project is located in the back of the zoo, which is surrounded by animals that
can’t be disturbed by power tools or loud noises. Therefore, it was imperative that we prefabricate as much as possible before
assembling the structure. The bamboo elements were categorized according to their x,y,or z direction and measured in the 3D
modeling software, and a spreadsheet was made to organize the precut bamboo poles off site. We created a 9’ grid and utilized
a 3,4,5 triangle to verify that it was squared off correctly. We hammered in 4’ x ½” rebar two feet into the ground as foundation
for the 10’ vertical tonkin bamboo poles that touch the ground. We researched several types of knots, and decided on a simple
square knot that could be easily taught and repeated quickly for efficient construction. Upon cutting and bundling the poles we
transported all the materials and assembled the outer walls just outside the zoo to create a tilt-up style construction that tied
off to the rebar. We began with the back wall, the main support that is reminiscent of the utubu boru of the Gabra hut. Once
the perimeter walls were in place, we systematically filled in the rest of the structure with bamboo and rope. Lateral bracing
was added for extra structural support. This is the only place where minimal screws were used. The rest of the structure was
assembled by square knots tied with natural fiber rope. The void of the domicile shape was delineated by curvilinear rope tied to
the ends of the bamboo poles.
CONCLUSION | We would consider the project to be a success overall. We hope that this is the first of several collaborative
efforts between Professor Cohen and Professor Cervone’s African classes. The concept of internationalizing the curriculum is
an important one for students such as myself who would like to be exposed to multiple customs and design alternatives while
still in an academic setting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
Elleh, Nnamdi. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Print.
Kultermann, Udo. New Architecture in Africa. New York: Universe, 1963. Print.
Prussin, Labelle. African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Print.
MAT T FLORES & DAVID GOLDSMITH | UF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE CANDIDATE 2013
AFRICAN HUT REINTERPRETATIONCompleted in partial fufillment of requirements for graduate seminar “Topics in African Architecture” with Associate Professor Donna Cohen
04
Iteration #5
Iteration #1 Iteration #2
Iteration #3 Iteration #4
Iteration #5
43
INTRODUCTION | Traditional architecture across Africa can be described as one of many styles of tents, kasbahs (small
settlements), ghorfas (vaulted rooms), underground structures, and monumental structures. This eclectic mix of building types
extends far beyond the typical mud hut that is often tagged as the entire continent ’s staple vernacular architecture. As developing
countries within this continent have progressed and been ruled by or influenced by first world countries, their architecture
has expanded even more to include modern and contemporary design among other influences. Historically, many European
countries have established a tabula rasa approach to urban development and architecture in African countries such as Ethiopia,
Libya, and several others. This has created several problems throughout the past century including exacerbation of the chasm
between the rich and the poor, as the poor have been driven from their homelands and customary ways of life. The purpose of
this paper and project is not to give a detailed history of European settlement and influence on African countries. It is however
intended to be a small-scale example of an alternative solution to this tabula rasa approach or blank slate theory, which ignores
the presence of established architecture, symbolism, customs, etc. The goal of this project is to reinterpret an African nomadic
hut with a combination of contemporary and vernacular architectural language. In order to better understand how to design
contemporary architecture in the ancient contexts of the African continent, one must first have a general understanding of the
designs and indigenous practices used by African peoples for centuries. “Traditional architecture in Africa can be advanced and
incorporated into contemporary buildings if its roots in antiquity are understood.” (Elleh, 24)
NOMADIC HUTS | The foremost scholar on nomadic architecture is architect Labelle Prussin. She, more than anyone else, has
sought to understand the architecture of vernacular tent structures throughout different regions of Africa. In her book African
Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender, Ms. Prussin elucidates the history, technologies, designs, symbolism, and creative
processes of women’s tensile and armature tents. “The essence of nomadic architecture lies in the process of creation, not the
end product.” (Prussin, 44)
A commonality that nomadic African tribes share is that the tent structures are generally built up and broken down by women
of the tribe. The men, who don’t seem to have as many responsibilities as the women, build the kraal around the perimeter of
the selected site. Another commonality among tribes is the interface between transport technology and building technology.
The tent structures themselves break down and transform into saddle-litter-palanquins, which in turn work efficiently with the
structure of the camel on which it rests. This is used to transport people and goods to the next site. The gender roles that have
been established for centuries not only create a ritualistic nature to the tribes’ way of life, but it also establishes a certain amount
of efficiency needed for the nomadic lifestyle.
THE GABRA DOMICILE TENT | All nomadic tent structures can be categorized as either tensile or armature structures. “A
tensile structure (or, as some would have, a true tent) consists of a center pole (or system of poles) put into compression by
stretching a fabric or membrane tautly over it. The tent (a particular type of tensile structure) used by the African nomads rests
on the structural interdependence between the pole(s) and the membrane or velum,: the poles will not stand up unless the velum
is pulled tautly over them.” (Prussin, 54) On the contrary, armature structures contain an autonomous tectonic structural system
that does not rely on the tension of taught envelope. It is imperative to point out that all of the materials and structure for these
huts are comprised of limited natural resources, not store-bought or manufactured structural elements. The connection to the
natural environment is a quality characteristic to nomadic tribes, and will be emphasized in our more contemporary design. We
have specifically taken inspiration for our project from the Gabra domicile tent, a structure found in nomadic tribes of Kenya
and the border of Ethiopia. It is an armature tent, which includes a reinforcing wall in the rear called utubu boru. “It is the first
structural component to be put up; it is the wall that receives the ritual marriage containers, that is addressed poetically, and that
defines the orientation of the house.” (Prussin, 55) The structure of this particular tent is made of grass and Acacia roots. These
roots are lightweight, relatively strong structural elements that are tied together to form domicile shaped living quarters. The
significance of this round shape is found in the female architects and builders who erect them on a regular basis. The curvilinear
shape signifies an inward focus and a softer feminine form.
SANTA FE COLLAGE COLLABORATION | This project was originally an extension of Professor Sarah Cervone’s ethnobotanical
garden concept, which initially was to be installed at Santa Fe College’s downtown Gainesville Blount campus. Professor
Cervone, who teaches an African Humanities course at Santa Fe, proposed that this garden would utilize north Florida’s
subtropical-temperate climate to grow plants, fruits, and vegetables indigenous to African countries. Our initial design concept
began as an architectural extension of the garden. However, after Santa Fe faculty and administration further discussed the
project, it was determined that the garden would be located at the main Santa Fe campus and the architectural intervention
would be erected at the Santa Fe teaching zoo. Regardless of the location and some programmatic changes, the objectives of the
garden and architecture remained the same. The goal of these African inspired projects is to internationalize the curriculum for
Santa Fe College, create interdisciplinary collaboration, student empowerment through experiential learning and mentoring, and
build community. It is fair to say that all of these objectives were met through the construction of this project.
THE CONCEPT | As stated earlier, the original concept for the design was to create an architectural intervention that adds to
the experience of the African ethnobotanical garden. The early idea for function and program of the intervention was to create
a structure that was conducive to vine growth so the garden could grow vertically and create a shaded space for visitors. Since
the site for the construct has been moved, the program of the space has changed. It is now seen as more of a sculptural element
on display at the zoo that will be used as an ongoing educational device for visitors. Different African-inspired projects created
by students from Professor Cervone’s courses will also be on display within the construct, which is offset four feet from the
main path for safety reasons. Although the programmatic aspect of the design has changed since its move to a wooded area in
the teaching zoo, it still meets the objectives set out by Professor Cervone, especially by internationalizing the curriculum and
creating collaboration among different disciplines.
The African section of the Santa Fe Teaching Zoo will now include a contemporary architectural element that is inspired by
indigenous African architecture. As previously mentioned, the first connotation with African architecture is often times the
mud house or grass hut. This project will seek to represent the qualitative nature of domicile nomadic huts and express the
evolution of African architectural design to modern day standards. This approach to design will also serve as an alternative to
the tabula rasa approach that has been used by European countries in the colonization of African countries. The design will
take on the materiality and tectonic nature of African tents described in Labelle Prussin’s book African Nomadic Architecture:
Space Place and Gender. However, it will do so with a modern formal influence.
DESIGN OPTIONS |
Iteration 1
The first iteration consisted of a language of 1100 dense, thin vertical bamboo elements of varying lengths that hang from a 15’
x 15’ grid of intersecting structural elements. Due to its purely conceptual nature at this point, this iteration may have been the
most successful from a purely conceptual design perspective. However, it was not feasible, as the parameters of site, structure,
and cost were not yet accounted for in the design. Therefore, a series of iterations were created to make the design a reality.
Iterations 2-3
Iterations 2-3 and some others that are not shown here consisted of a heavier structure, which would act as an armature for the
lighter elements to hang from. After much consideration it was determined that the structure was resembling a typical pergola,
which was not desired. These iterations would have been in the $700 range, which was still too expensive
Iteration 4
We resolved to create a structure where the dense tectonic elements themselves were the makeup of the structure as well.
Iteration 4 met those requirements, and the cost was now at a more acceptable $300-$400 range. However, the cantilever was
still to precarious, and this design also required a larger site for the tension cables to extend from the actual construct.
Iteration 5
This was our final 3D model iteration from which the final design came. The construct consists of a 9’ x 9’ grid of bamboo
elements, which are one foot off center from each other in the X and Y direction and 22 ½” off center in the Z direction. The
overall dimensions of the design is a 10’ x 10’ x 10’ cube. This was the most successful design that accounted for conceptual
design goals, structure, cost, and minimal use of the site. The 1” tonkin cane diameter bamboo poles, which densify the cube
also become structural elements, which are tied off to each other with natural fiber rope. Bamboo was chosen as a lightweight,
sustainable, naturally abundant material, which resembles the Acacia root used by the Grabra people.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS | The site of the project is located in the back of the zoo, which is surrounded by animals that
can’t be disturbed by power tools or loud noises. Therefore, it was imperative that we prefabricate as much as possible before
assembling the structure. The bamboo elements were categorized according to their x,y,or z direction and measured in the 3D
modeling software, and a spreadsheet was made to organize the precut bamboo poles off site. We created a 9’ grid and utilized
a 3,4,5 triangle to verify that it was squared off correctly. We hammered in 4’ x ½” rebar two feet into the ground as foundation
for the 10’ vertical tonkin bamboo poles that touch the ground. We researched several types of knots, and decided on a simple
square knot that could be easily taught and repeated quickly for efficient construction. Upon cutting and bundling the poles we
transported all the materials and assembled the outer walls just outside the zoo to create a tilt-up style construction that tied
off to the rebar. We began with the back wall, the main support that is reminiscent of the utubu boru of the Gabra hut. Once
the perimeter walls were in place, we systematically filled in the rest of the structure with bamboo and rope. Lateral bracing
was added for extra structural support. This is the only place where minimal screws were used. The rest of the structure was
assembled by square knots tied with natural fiber rope. The void of the domicile shape was delineated by curvilinear rope tied to
the ends of the bamboo poles.
CONCLUSION | We would consider the project to be a success overall. We hope that this is the first of several collaborative
efforts between Professor Cohen and Professor Cervone’s African classes. The concept of internationalizing the curriculum is
an important one for students such as myself who would like to be exposed to multiple customs and design alternatives while
still in an academic setting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
Elleh, Nnamdi. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Print.
Kultermann, Udo. New Architecture in Africa. New York: Universe, 1963. Print.
Prussin, Labelle. African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Print.
MAT T FLORES & DAVID GOLDSMITH | UF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE CANDIDATE 2013
AFRICAN HUT REINTERPRETATIONCompleted in partial fufillment of requirements for graduate seminar “Topics in African Architecture” with Associate Professor Donna Cohen
04
Iteration #5
Iteration #1 Iteration #2
Iteration #3 Iteration #4
44
Projected MotilityA Collaborative Effort | Matthew Flores + Darren Hargrove + Stephanie Salvo
The goal of this project is to create a densified, urbanized environment, which is inspired by the fluidity of movement. The concept for the project was inspired by the transient nature of the college residents and hotel occupants, which activate the building on an ongoing basis. The context was mapped by overlapping modes of private and public pedestrian movement and by tracking the sun’s movement throughout the day and year. The green belt which moves section cuts through the building and creates a mobile living experience for residents that is conducive to sustainable living.
Facade System
Program Volumes
Circulation Systems
Structure
Green Belt
Ground Plane Entries
Underground Parking
45
46
Ground Floor Plan
47
Section A1
Section A2
NW 13th St Hotel Entry Southeast Corner
48 3rd Level Floor Plan
3rd Level Reflected Ceiling Plan
4949Green Beltway Main Tier
Main Public Plaza
Residential Corridor Overlooking Plaza
50
10th Level Floor Plan
Unit Plans
51
5th Level Floor Plan
13th Street North Entry | July 11:30am
52
Hotel North Elevation Hotel East Elevation
Apts South Elevation Apts West Elevation
53
Hotel South Elevation Hotel West Elevation
Apts North Elevation Apts West Elevation
54
Green Belt Night View From 2nd Level Hote Retail
55
