bjkm-architecture

[bjkm-architecture]

20th March, 2019: 

Formative Prep. II

Section (Mostly) Complete, Supporting Pages

A late night, working through until 3am to get pages as ready as possible for the review tomorrow. The section again proved to be the biggest time sink, with the decision made around 1am to leave it as shown- and move on to the supporting pages. The section itself is reasonably detailed up until the third floor, comprising mainly of repeating details and hatches as the floors stack up in such a way that makes this possible. The central portion, complete with actuators, mechanisms and seating blocks, works really well in this context. However, the canopy is devoid- nonexistent even, and without this the scheme struggles to read as a cohesive unit. 

The supporting pages are mainly made up of quick diagrams and sketches or photos taken from the last couple of weeks of work. Stand out amongst these is the seating configurations page- which represents 5 differing typologies of the scheme deployment, and the respective occupancies and uses of these styles of layout. The graphics are clean and simple, yet convey a great deal of information and promise more yet to come. On the other end of the scale, however, the exploded canopy diagram is one of my worst- the compression of the original drawing to fit the page is accentuated by the scaling and generally looks poor on a page. 

All of these are to be considered placeholder images, with more refined versions produced digitally or in a composite style to replace them in the near future. 

Review starts in around 6 hours. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

19th March, 2019: 

Formative Prep. II

Section Projection A->A, Concept Diagrams, Hydraulic Actuator Mechanisms

A day of frustratingly slow progress, although for good reason- the section which I have begun to project upwards from the floor plans includes a LOT of details. This is particularly obvious in the piping systems of the hydraulic actuators, with the alignment between the basement and ground floor proving particularly problematic. 

I have continued to use sketches to understand individual and specific components. Here, I brought out the detailing to be placed underneath each of the seating modules, considering systems and subsystems with layered complexity and control. Each module, therefore, is connected from main water tank to 13 secondary tanks- one per row. These in turn are piped through to the individual block actuators, with 4 pistons per block in varying configurations. Finally, a central control tank acts as a reservoir per seat, with outlet valves and control points at each junction for redundancy. 

I have also sketched out another potential diagram, slicing through one seating block and up to the auditorium canopy. This space has always been a little shaky in it’s resolution, but I believe that the exploded structure of (outside inwards) skin/ actuator/ space frame/ cooling pipes/ walking gantry/ space frame/ winches/ acoustics seems sufficiently resolved and feasible. The drawing is unfortunately badly proportioned, but still gets the message across. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

18th March, 2019:

Formative Prep II

Plans resolved (V3), Concept sketches and diagrams

Another productive day, with all floor plans now resolved and inhabited. These became a much quicker and more pleasant process to complete the further up the building I went, as the spatial density and complexity significantly decreases from the second floor up. As a result, where the ground floor had taken me nearer a day and a half, the fifth took perhaps half an hour. Also pleasantly successful was the implementation of repeating forms throughout the building- staircases and structural elements logically repeating one another. The finished plans are shown above.

I also began to produce a series of sketches to help me better understand the spaces within the building- predominantly the auditorium, but also an external 3D perspective of the building as a cohesive unit- the first of this kind. Signs are promising that the various ideas that have been progressively resolving in plan view do in fact come together in a collected manner when brought together.

More to follow.

[bjkm-architecture]

17th March, 2019: 

Formative Prep. II

Plan Refinements, Revisions and Inhabitation

So, today is the first concerted push towards preparation for the formative. I have spent it for the most part working on the plan revisions- all of which are now underway. As mentioned yesterday, the First Floor and Basement were already in motion- the finished iterations of each are shown above. I particularly like the hydraulics system in the basement- the additional details here really lift the central region into an almost hypnotic pattern as I pan across it in CAD. The first floor is also densely centred around the auditorium, and demonstrates the entirety of the seating capacity of the venue. For the sake of plans, this is likely to be the easiest way of showing these details- rather than splitting them across multiple levels. 

Shorter posts again this week. 

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

16th March, 2019:

Plan Refinements: Structural Systems and Inhabitation

Following on from the great deal of success experienced yesterday, I began to transition the newly-resolved structural grid into the floor plans. Working within the constraints of the ground floor, I introduced both this structural system as well as wall build-ups and inhabitation to the design. The suggested revisions have also been made at this level- further smoothing out of some of the more awkward features, as well as full inhabitation of the scheme. The latter, driven in turn by my hand-drawn version yesterday and the perspective concept sketches of some of these spaces I have generated throughout the design process, is by far the most significant improvement in terms of readability- spaces are now beginning to look how they should, and there is simply a level of interest in the drawings now that wasn’t there previously.

I have highlighted some of the more interesting regions of the plan above. These include the lobby, resplendent with grand staircase and a central revolving door- flanked by twin pivot portals; as well as the sub-auditoria workings of the fondly-named “piston courtyard”. Some elements have also made their way into the sub-stage region, including stage lifts (wagons), trapdoors (traps) and a central revolving portion. These should all transpose pretty clearly into the upper levels, and give a sense of rhythm to the central band of the scheme.

The basement and first floor are also underway in this same vein of intricate detailling of inhabitation. I have made the decision to not represent so much of the technical details on these drawings, as they will not be present at a greater scale than 1:200. Instead, they show representative wall thicknesses and crossed-through boxes in place of the profile curve of the 203mm sq. Universal Columns along the structural grids. These should be completed, along with the upper levels, in the next day or so.  

More to follow.

[bjkm-architecture]

15th March, 2019:

Architect Consultation: Fire Compartments and Escapes, Utilities, Structural Resolution, Plant Rooms and General Project Overhaul

Today was my first consultation with visiting architect David Hillier of Simpson Haugh Architects, one of six external practitioners brought in to aid the projects within the studio. Treating this as a fresh set of eyes and new influence to the scheme, the conversation largely entailed bringing him up to speed with my design: through the narrative and rationale of the project.

In preparation for this session, I printed the latest plan revisions and began to trace over the top of it- highlighting inhabitation and generally bringing more life to the drawings. I also collaged together the current version of the section- completely devoid of structural representation and detail, but representative nonetheless. At this stage, I am as of yet uncertain of the structural composition of the building, as to a certain extent it is of much lesser relevance than the actual programme and layout. I feel like the scheme is inward-looking, and as such is likely to have a rather defensive exterior to emphasise this- lending itself well to a solid exterior, most likely a prefabricated concrete cladding system.

Our conversation covered pretty much every aspect of the building, from ground to roof. Based upon the recommendation of my tutor, I went into the discussion with a favourable bias towards steel-framed construction, which was generally accepted as being a sensible system with sufficient detail for the submission requirements. Interrogation of the plans at each level brought a number of points to pass, however. Firstly, it was noted that for a building of this scale there must be some effort expended on fire safety and compartmentalisation- specifically, servicing the two stairwells in the core of the building with dedicated escape corridors. It was also noted that there would be a degree of logic in retaining some gaps in the construction for utilities and services- voids both between ceilings and floor plate in section, as well as concurrent vertical shafts in the plans. The mechanisms at the core of the building, supporting the flexible seating array, was well received- although several more plant rooms were suggested (Lift pit, Water, HVAC, Electrical- potentially a generator). Finally, I was taken through a ‘refresher’ on the functionality and conventions of steel framed construction, with localised details and construction elements highlighted and demonstrated. These are all shown above.

From this, I began to situate a structural grid within and across my scheme. The near-symmetry of the building actually works out well with an 8x6 grid covering much of the scheme- irregularities only occurring around the now-protected fire stairs in the centre of the scheme. Some of the spans across the central regions are pretty large- up to 16m in places, and an awareness needs to be shown of the thicker beams that these will require. This was refined a few times, and is now approaching a decently resolved system. However, distinctly separate systems are likely to be required for the Auditorium canopy and Temporal Pavilion.

All in all, a highly productive day.

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

14th March, 2019:

Dedicated FlexHopper Simulation: First Successful Extraction

Today was spent largely working with Tord on getting to grips with Flexhopper, and beginning to unpack the downloaded script to better understand it’s function and operation. This was to be a long and arduous process, but is beginning to show signs of success. The initial results, at least in part, can be seen above. 

Essentially, the tool incorporates a great deal of variables, each of which are fine-tuned for the specific requirements of the example file pre-installed with the software. The issue I am experiencing with this, then, is applying the same logic of the fabric simulation to my own designs and shapes. After some tinkering, I began to understand where to attach specific parameters- the source mesh, where it was suspended from and the degree of complexity of the simulation. The latter of these quickly made the biggest difference- my previous attempts to understand this software have been severely throttled by my own PC, which is totally inept at handling programmes of this complexity. Attempting this same feature on a much stronger computer, however, eventually gave rise to the printed example above- working with my own test mesh and using a random number generator to choose the frequency and position of fixed points around the mesh, we successfully managed to suspend the fabric form over a representative complex geometry (which just so happened to be the Venus De Milo), with a great deal of success in the complexity of the design. 

This is a really promising proof of concept for me- further enhanced by the success of the 3D printed representation. 

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

13th March, 2019: 

Plan Revisions, Actuator Research, Machine Room Basement

Today was mostly spent on revisions to the plan drawing, facilitated by and demonstrated in the sectional extrusion from yesterday. This stretching of the building footprint pulls the frontage past the row of the existing streetscape on the Eastern edge of the site, but by virtue of this greatly increases the presence of the building from this direction- highlighting it as a destination rather than a continuation of the existing streetscape. 

In terms of changes to the actual plan drawings, 75% of the 4m increase has been given over to the external leaf of the auditorium and the cavity between this and the lobby tower on each level. In the conjoining side regions, other spaces have either grown or been introduced instead. At ground floor level, the opportunity arises for new entrances on either side, accessible in a semi-private manner for the NGO offices and education spaces respectively. On the first floor, the studio theatre and classrooms have grown, the former continuing on to the second floor and matched by growth of the library. The third floor again matches the lower level with the library extension, whilst the fourth and fifth levels are unchanged. 

I have also been researching into actuator systems to be deployed beneath the seating in the auditorium, in order to enable to block-based system diagrammed previously. The 8m range of spans these need to be able to support the load over is inevitably going to prove to be the restrictive factor here- and therefore limits the typologies of system that may prove suitable. Lead screw actuators are conventionally the best-suited to the “stroke” distances required, but considering the quantity of individual components that is required, I have instead opted for a networked system of Hydraulics- the fluid of which can be piped between each of the nodes in the 17x13 grid system. Examples and diagrams of this are shown above. 

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

12th March, 2019: 

Finished Plans V2, Sectional Projection, Materialities and Expansion

Today was predominantly spent resolving the work started yesterday, in terms of the digitised floor plans and spatial reconfiguration. These have now been completed for each level, and are shown above as a composite, contextualised image. 

However- issues began to arise once again within the technical drawings when I started to project these plans out into a sketched section. Despite my revisions, I still feel that the section (the main drawn deliverable for the project) feels cramped. Perhaps this is best addressed with further extension of the plan- the undulating line along the South-Western Facade of the plans represents the space occupied by a further 4m extension of the plan. 

Beyond this, I have begun to design into the auditorium space specifically. Considering the flexibility of the seating design I wish to achieve, I am beginning to have second thoughts in relation to the balcony or circle seating that has been a mainstay of my drawings to date- this will inhibit the motion of the seats beneath due to the need for head height and the steeper angle required at this level. Instead, I am beginning to consider placing the gallery and stage controls on this upper deck- a relatively contained space that will not impose quite so significantly on the seating below. (Sketches demonstrate this above). 

Finally, I am beginning to assemble a material palette. The main body of the structure, likely to be a steel frame, I am considering to be a combination of prefabricated-concrete panels and curtain walling. This is purposefully kept minimal, aside from two feature masonry walls that flank the public realm of the lobby. This minimal palette is kept intentionally quiet to celebrate the complexity of the auditorium, which I am considering dressing in a more diverse selection of opulent materials- predominantly metallic: 

-Galvanised Steel

-Zinc

-Aluminium

-Cor-Ten Steel

-Copper 

-Brass

All of which are bounded in a flexible PV cell, relating to the Biomimetry mentioned previously and the “Metabolism” of the auditorium-organism. Whilst this clearly too many materials, I think I would like to retain 3-4 of these at least, and create a graduated colour scheme in golds, silvers, greys and eventually greens. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

11th March, 2019: 

Tutorial, Elevation, Technical Components and Digital Plans

Today was a mixed-use day, with a lot of work done in a multitude of areas. The day began with the weekly tutorial session, where I presented the complete set of floor plans to Rosie. The scheme was generally well received, but the point was made that the formal language and materiality of the building need to be resolved ASAP. Suggestion was made that the scheme, by virtue of it’s inwards-facing character, should appear solid and defensive- possibly relating to the historic Hungarian fortresses? However, this should only become a dressing- and a conventional steel or concrete skeleton with cladding was deemed a logical structural system. 

I spent a good part of the day today working into the floor plans, and re-digitalising these. However, this time around I brought in the additional dimensions that I mentioned the need for- introducing access routes into the building from both the Northern and Southern streetscapes, and extending spaces to compensate on the upper levels. Floors 0-2 were completed in this manner today. 

One other suggestion from today’s tutorial was to sketch out an elevation of the scheme in order to resolve the light and dark regions within this. Windows are to be one colour, with everything else in a simple shade. This is as an effort to strike out towards finding a material finish, with the results shown above- extremely successful in my opinion. 

I also worked through a variety of internal components, including reworking the flytower- extending this out over the wings and incorporating twin staircases; the pavilion drape- now summiting the building and creating sheltered terraces on the first and second storeys; and the mechanism for the auditorium seating- found in the book “Theatre Engineering and Stage Machinery” by Toshiro Ogawa, with the sketched example taken from a Japanese company (I am as of yet unable to locate this online though). 

One of the nicer moments addressed here was the bannisters for the scheme. Drawing inspiration from the sculpted door handles of Queens theatre London, and the fine detailing of such an insignificant element, I chose to design my own ornate feature to be deployed throughout the scheme. The graphic, an alternating pattern of triangles, is a derivative of both the Kretakor (client’s) logo as well as the key formal language of the scheme. Imagining the details in wrought iron, picked out between a Mahogany vertical and cantilevering out to support a polished concrete handrail, I have already began to define a clear material palette for the internal spaces of the building. 

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

10th March, 2019: 

Finalised Plan Refinements (V1), Reflections and Observations 

The iterative development of the plan drawings reached a conclusion today, with the third through fifth floors taking much less time to complete than the lower levels- perhaps unsurprisingly, with the vast reduction in complexity on the upper echelons of the scheme. 

As a result of this, I have had plenty of time to reflect upon the process, and the output of this iterative and systematic approach to design- the notes of which were frequently scrawled in the corner as a by-product of the working flow. The real and most significant theme for me is that the auditorium feels cramped- which is the absolute last thing I want to achieve in a theatre, doubly so when this is the central and key feature of the scheme. 

As a result, I have taken the decision to increase the dimensions of the scheme: by 3m on the longitudinal axis, and 2m each side of the stage along the transversal. This should open up the scheme much more towards the core, with the same level of densification present around the edges of the scheme. This also helps to counteract the shrinkage of some volumes imposed by the introduction of the circulation routes- the access corridors particularly hampered the studio theatre, which lost near to a quarter of its space in this first version. 

I am also gradually becoming more and more conscious of the sheer amount of components that require resolution. These are listed above, and include all the stage elements, all of the auditorium technologies, the skin of the auditorium and even elements as fundamental as the structural system and cladding of the scheme. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

9th March, 2019: 

Continued Plan Revisions by Hand

Working in much the same way as described yesterday, I continued to resolve the floor plans- working up the building, with the initial massing as dimensional reference- normalising the spatial delegations and adding circulation, access and inhabitation. I am still pulling key regions of focus out for further development and consideration in hand-drawn 3D, which is working well. 

As a result of this extensive process, however, the plans are taking a lot longer than expected. I finished up the ground floor plan from yesterday, as well as the entirety of the first and second floors today- but that still leaves half of the plans as yet unattended. 

The other point of note here is that I am beginning to feel that the dimensions of the massing are beginning to restrict the scheme. By adding a few metres in each direction, spaces would work much more logically in terms of programme- as well as allowing the spaces more room to “breathe”: particularly, the set back around the auditorium. I will continue the process for now, as it is working well, but will remain on the lookout for these issues on the upper levels- with changes potentially needed in the near future. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

8th March, 2019: 

Plan Development, Spatial Sketching, Flexhopper: Initial Simulations

After a slower couple of days, I began a process of iterative and intensive development of the plan drawings of the scheme- something I would ideally have began a couple of days ago. Nonetheless, this represents an important stage of the design development and the first proper definition of space in scale. 

The design developed in a manner directly derived from the massing of the scheme that I laid out in the models earlier in the week. The first step in this process was the digitisation of these volumes, which when put through AutoCAD resulted in a series of uninspiring and really rather inconsistent boxed forms. I printed these drawings, and working by hand began to rationalise the spaces: smoothing out edges of spaces and pushing and pulling internal partitions into some sense of normality. This also allowed me to add a circulatory region through the central void of the building, with a clear 2m setback from the auditorium on each side. 

The design also developed simultaneously through perspective sketches. I have limited experience of the theatre first-hand, but from when I have been in the past it has always stuck with me the sense of occasion and grandeur provided in the public realm spaces. As such, a grand staircase at the heart of this public realm is pivotal: transforming the ascension into a ceremonial moment as opposed to a mere utilitarian function. This was drawn out purposefully, considering how a box office and reception may be integrated spatially with the region beneath the stairs. 

Finally, one last trace of the refined plan gave me a completed iteration, complete with sketched inhabitation. I am beginning to puncture through spaces here, with the moments of connectivity and circulation beginning to resolve. Key movements around and through spaces, entrance routes and programmatic functions are all noted- as shown in the final image. 

The other thing I successfully began today was the unpacking of the Flexhopper definition in Grasshopper for Rhino. The initial definition, downloaded directly from the programme’s creator, was rather easy to set up- but was the most complex script I have worked with to date. After a fair amount of experimentation, the images above were extracted- working with collision objects, wind, changing and variable anchor points and post-extraction treatments. There is so much scope for development here, and I am excited to return to this once the plans are resolved. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

6th-7th March, 2019: 

RIBA Mentoring, Elevational Sketching, AD: Morphogenetic Design 

These past two days have predominantly been spent working in preparation for the second RIBA mentoring session, hosted by CF Architects in Maidstone. Following my first visit to the office, last December, I was asked to prepare an “edited highlights” of some of my past work, and to practice consolidating these projects down to a short description and a couple of key images. I also utilised this opportunity to attempt the digitalisation of some of my hand-drawn work from first year- which I hope to be uploading in their entirety in the near future. 

The mentoring session was very successful, with good feedback received on the two projects I managed to consolidate, in addition to the beginnings of a revised CV. We were taken through the design process of one of the firm’s competition designs, as well as a residential extension- the latter of which appears to be the mainstay of the practice. I have been invited back for a site visit later in the month, but personal circumstances may not make this possible yet. 

In terms of project development, it has been a slow couple of days. I have worked on a few sketches of the exterior of the building- as shown by the elevation above. Beyond this, however, little progress has been made. 

One other point of interest has been the discovery of an Issue of AD magazine entitled “Morphogenetic Design”, including several articles from Achim Menges, an author I read a great deal of in preparation for my Dissertation. I am only part way through the issue, but many topics have some degree of relevance to my own scheme. Most promising, perhaps, are the Real-Life Criteria set out by Hungarian Chemical Engineer in 1971- as discussed by Michael Hensel. These 5 key definitions and categorisations of life are related to architecture through Biomimetric design- the process of reinterpreting living organisms and their physical properties, and integrating these within the design process. These 5 criteria are: 

1: “Inherent Unity”: A living system must be inherently an individual unit

2: “Metabolism”: A living system must metabolise, or produce it’s own energy

3: “Inherent Stability”: A living system must be inherently stable, aka. homeostasis

4: “Information-Carrying Subsystem”: A living system must have a subsystem carrying information that is useful for and useable by the whole system 

5: “Programme Control”: A living system must have all processes controlled and regulated in some way

Each of these criteria offer interesting avenues for exploration and development of the project, particularly in relation to the technologically-saturated auditorium. I will look to begin integrating these strategies if they emerge beneficial. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

5th March, 2019: 

Revit Tutorial, Breaking Symmetry in Massing, 3D Perspective Sketching. 

The first exercise of today was a second tutorial on the BIM software Revit, today looking into more complex features such as importing AutoCAD reference files as individual floor plates, and the generation of massing forms and topographies- all of which is great, but would have been significantly more useful several weeks ago. To be perfectly honest, I am rather disillusioned with the way this is being taught- 3x 1.5 hour sessions spread over 6 weeks is surely pointless? I understand the idea of introducing the software and having a degree of familiarity with the interface, but the intermission between each session is just long enough to forget everything from the previous one. 

Revit rant aside, the day was actually largely productive- with the key focus placed upon breaking away from the symmetrical moments of the design. Sketching out a short transverse section through the back-of-house spaces, I began to consider how I may go about stacking the facilities for actors on one side- as opposed to the sprawl entailed with the mirroring of this, as well as realigning storage, rehearsal and delivery spaces. This transitioned directly into massing, and working with the physical blocks of known dimension worked extremely effectively in iterating through a great deal of potential configurations. I worked from back to front of the scheme, moving up and away from the stage as each programme fell into a logical position. By adding sculpted foam blocks, I was able to further manipulate the locations and dimensions of the spaces, and create dimensions that responded significantly better to one another. I also remodelled the public realm in this way, in a stepping series of terraces akin to my earlier sketches. 

The end result was a much more composed and less symmetrical version of the same scheme I presented to Rosie yesterday, with the big ideas still intact but the specific relations finely tuned. I also added a representative volume for an external pavilion of transient programme, harking back to my research on urban square design principles, which quickly adopted the same formal language of the auditorium as the design again returned to paper in the form of two sketched perspective images. The placement of this pavilion, as demonstrated by the second sketch, is dual purpose: firstly, the strong linear axis of the existing streetscape utilises perspective as a method of drawing people into the site- the elongated contours naturally sculpt the flow of bystanders alongside and then in to the Szervita Ter Piazza. Secondly, by adorning this feature in the complex triangulated geometries, it becomes possible to view this form outside of the building, in a sort of mechanical simulation of a tensile structure. 

More to follow. 

[bjkm-architecture]

4th March, 2019: 

Tutorial, Contextualised Massing, Sketched Section

Today was largely spent planning out my time ahead of the coming week, and preparing for the tutorial session with Rosie. Following on from the success of yesterday’s massing and design development, I began by reproducing this same iteration (with the set-back from the auditorium) in a contextualised sense, as can be seen in the photographs above. This was completed ahead of the tutorial, and formed much of the discussion to follow. I also began the process of digitising this massed structure, generating the massed forms within Rhino (as shown above). 

In keeping with the exercise of “designing for section” which we completyed last week, I also began to sketch out what a sectional view of my current scheme may look like. Given the spatial constraints of an A1 sheet at 1:50, this directly scaled down to 1:200 at A5, and the spaces that would fit within this volume are demonstrated here in the current iteration. I have some questions about the quality of the space suggested in the curved walkway along the party wall- this may be removed in the near future. 

The general consensus of the work to date is a positive one, and Rosie was particularly fond of the isolated auditorium. However, this appeared to have gone a little to the extreme, with the fear of the programmes expanding outwards across the site made clear- densification is in order. The other point is that the scheme looks far too symmetrical at present, and that breaking away from this may prove beneficial. This may also allow for “windows” or points of view where, from an external ground-level position, the auditorium mechanisms can be seen. The scheme is becoming largely inward-facing, for better or worse, and may lend itself to a “defensive” form. The final point is that the time to move across to CAD, and begin the process of generating floor plans is now- to avoid getting too bogged down in the sketch and never generating these to a good level. This would result in moving to rhino later, as opposed to going straight from physical 3D to digital 3D- as was my initial plan of action. 

More to follow

[bjkm-architecture]

3rd March, 2019: 

Massing Development, Diagrams, Sketches, Revisions and General Progress

Today was a highly productive day- overseeing the modelling of the concept first imagined yesterday of the separatist auditorium, before drawing out and representing this in several differing manners. 

First, I realigned the massing- in relation to the Siedle gallery I came across Friday- by elevating the main programmatic functions to the first floor (stage, auditorium, backstage spaces etc.). By making this move, the ground floor is given over almost entirely to arrival and circulation, and creates a sort of ceremonial moment of ascension through the differing levels of the building as users traverse the space to reach the assorted programmatic destinations. Various images of how these adjustments affect the overall spatial qualities of the scheme are included above. 

However, I was still struggling to adjust the public realm to this new format. With the block components available to me, and the requirement for repeating guest facilities on each level (bar, circulation, toilets), this proved to be unfeasible- and was instead reimagined in line with the programmatic elevation of the rest of the scheme. By grounding the lobby, and incorporating the box office (and possibly a small souvenir store) within this space, and extruding the repeating functions over three further storeys- wrapped around a feature stairwell and access core (incl. lifts for DDA compliance)- the design took on a much more resolved form- one that seems rather successful in the grandeur of theatre and also capitalises on the well-illuminated portion of the site upon which it is currently positioned. This is represented in sketched axonometric, both closed and roughly exploded out into programmatic functions. Finally, I began to consider the full explosion of the programmatic volumes across the entire site- although at this scale accuracy proved difficult by hand. 

More to follow