The ideation process involved narrowing down my options for the building that will house my program. This began with a building analysis consisting of site plans, spacial geometries, lighting, structure, and egress considerations. As I researched each building, I collected a long list of case studies. These influenced the programatic spaces and spacial adjacencies, and gave me insight into successful methods for educational design. A short program and occupancy requirements were developed based on my case study research.
566 W Rich street is also located in the arts district of Franklinton, meaning there are like minded businesses and individuals in the area.
I found looking at the structure and lighting to be particularly helpful in deciding how to program the space. By creating these guides, I felt more comfortable experimenting with form and shape within my final design.
The main issue I saw with Engine House 10 was the fact that the same square footage present in 566 W Rich was split into two floors. This meant there would be large physical division between students and spaces. In creating an inspiring, inclusive, communal environment, I felt this did not set me up for as much success as 566 W Rich.
I found this project particularly inspiring for developing my makerspace. The minimal square footage led to really innovative and flexible designs. This was the only true "robotics makerspace" that I came across in my research and it fit within my square footage requirements and vision perfectly.
I took a lot of inspiration from the learning design ideology. Separating the building into concentration, collaboration, and contemplation led me to researching different learning styles. I came back to this project to reference how to support all types of students.
This STEM workshop displays one method for designing a building similar to 566 W Rich street. The exposed structure creates spacial geometries and depth within the space. I wanted my building to expand in a similar manner, while also providing visual and audible privacy for the students and faculty.
Since this project serves a range of K-12 students, there was a lot I could learn from the public spaces. Each educational space used a similar design language, that was translated for the specific school subject and student age.
The playful forms and colors within the environment inspired me to consider each plane of my design. This case study was picked specifically to learn how to design for young students. The opportunity to play and learn was considered in my design, even if it was not to the extent of this example.
This was my first draft of a short program. The Computer lab, library, think tanks, cafeteria, and interactive playspaces were all reworked into the other spaces. It was necessary to consider a wide range of resources and needs for the students and faculty.
The criteria Matrix and Adjacency diagram were necessary preliminary space planning steps. The. results of these diagrams may not have cemented the spacial organization, but they did spark the iterative process.
In order to legitimize the program and help me decide on the square footage needed, I created a. hypothetical weekly schedule where the students would come to the school in the morning and have busses take them to their regular schools in the afternoon.
