This project served as an introduction to creating spaces through strategies of massing. By working in a ⅛” scale, I sought to create a variety of spatial forms that responded to a size limitation of construction of the space within a 6” x 6” cube (to scale 48’ by 48’) and worked to produce intricate relationships between spaces across the constructed models. I worked in Bristol, Cardboard, bass wood strips, and bass wood sticks, and sought to test the individual massing abilities of each material. The corresponding models explore ideas of massing and also ideas of frame and field.

The first take home assignment tasked students with responding to different formal architectural ideas by making various cardboard and bristol board models. However, there were some provided limitations. For one, the paper models would require limited to almost no glue use. Additionally, these paper creations would need to be closed surfaces. Throughout the course of the assignment, I interpreted the word “closed” as a sort of implication of a continuous surface that extends to wrap around whatever bristol board based form I created. For the cardboard models, none of the glue was meant to appear along the exterior of the model. Instead, the methods of holding together both sets of objects would need to be hidden mechanisms. To better understand the composition of the objects,student were also asked to create a set of orthagraphic drawings that included elevations, cross sections, and plans. There were many deliverables and in class discussion suggested that the next step in the creative process of working with the models would to be envision them as inhabitable spaces.

For my set of models, I began with the cardboard, choosing to work with the more rigid set of materials before moving to the much more pliable bristol board. For the cardboard models, I had a set of drawings of possible forms i could use to experiment with. However, When trying to create these forms through folded shapes, It became apparent that this may not be a feasible direction of working. I instead chose to experiment with layers and cutting out intentional gaps in the surfaces I worked with. For each cardboard model with layers, I tried to take a different approach to stacking. Some forms had stacking that moved in radial directions while others were parallel. These combinations of stacking were also contrasted by some more box like forms. These forms were also meant as a way to experiment with how the ideas of layering and the idea of a cardboard face have different implications of mass. In each cardboard model, they seemed to have a very centralized weight that could not easily be distributed across the scale of the six inch by six inch cube we were working within. This became an area of interest as I continued to develop the bristol board models.

The bristol board models were much easier to work with in many ways but also more difficult. With the cardboard, it was very easy to immediately carve out form due to its three dimensional nature: two sheets of paper and a corrugated skeleton provide for a very easy texture to create space from. On the other hand, the bristol board is a flat sheet which needs more thinking and planning to create a surface that encloses in on itself. For the bristol board, I also had a set of ideas of which only a few panned out completely. I tried to push experimentation in the models and achieve with the bristol what I could not with the cardboard. This was to decentralize mass within a model and try to move it throughout the entire span of the space in which the models existed in. I tried to vary the surfaces from model to model between curved and angular. Transitioning form cardboard to bristol also shaped the way I thought about more rigid shapes. I became very interested in how a seemingly rigid shape in paper and cardboard appeared different due to the material with which they were crafted. My models in bristol had a much more delicate appearance due to the different approaches I crafted the cardboard models with. However, the materiality greatly influenced perception of future functions of the design and also general associations one may carry about the design.

The twelve models and accompanying drawings were presented in a critique and there was a discussion of many ideas mentioned above concerning materiality, and the future of the designs. Specifically, how these designs could change in scale to become something more: to become an inhabitable space. These sketch Models were used to develop internal ideas into something much grander in suggestion. Of course, depending on the model, it could be imagined at different scales. Perhaps some models were better suited to be pieces fo furniture while others resembled the scale of a residential house or even an office space. The next step in our creative journey for these kinds of projects would be to consider how people would interact with the space they would create. How they would travel through, move between different points of the model, how natural elements would interact with different features of the design including light and shade. Most importantly, to consider the experience of those that use the space and how our designs can cater to creating a specific experience within that creation.

The next set of assignments within the MoDP assignments has a similar set of requirements but the materials are different. This time, the models will be made of basswood strips of varying widths. The same set of drawings and accompanying twelve models were presented as deliverables. Although this seems different from the paper and cardboard models, again, there are certain forms and ways in which one can present mass with one medium which is simply not as easily achievable in the other. Each medium has its own strengths in translating mass and centralized weight in a design, and finding these exact moments became an interesting challenge throughout the exploration of these different model making mediums.

The second set of assignments followed very much in the vein of the first. However instead of being two different mediums, both were constructed of basswood. The difference between the two mediums was their width. Through the varying width of each individual provided material, one may assume that there are not many difference in forming connections through the use of various adhesive substances such as super glue or even paper glue. However, differences arose when trying to think about how to join the individual pieces without the use of such adhesives. For the strips, it was easy to create notches since their width was greater. However, it would often be a challenge to cut through the strip in certain ways to notch depending on the direction of the grain. For the sticks, I tried to use a method of joining where i would cut a slit in one stick and then cut the edge off of an other to slide in as a connection. These methods of joining became an area of interest for me in the forms one could get in trying to create a structurally rigid form or something more loose.

With the stick models, I tried to allow for a natural form of line finding, building a three-dimensional sketch of sorts to better understand what kinds of spaces one could achieve with simply improvisational stick joining. Many of the forms were angular, and I often began with a small shape from which i extruded different lines. I found that the forms could be segmented into multiple interesting spaces if one attempts to twist the sticks while joining. Because of my joining method with the sticks, there was always a limited amount of rotation one could achieve from the stick joint. This allowed for more stable structures but also forced me to consider ways in which the sticks could be manipulated to create interesting shapes. One specific idea I tried to create with the sticks was the idea of a decentralized mass. With the cardboard forms we had created in the first part of the assignment, the layering and processes of cutting did not change the fact that cardboard holds a certain weight. Regardless of the form, the mass within the cardboard form always feels central and grounded in whichever way it is placed. I tried to break free of this with the paper, and continued this trend with the sticks. However, instead of just displacing the mass, I wanted to try and direct accumulations of mass to certain parts of the model. I experimented with ideas of density, specifically, dense interconnections of sticks and then a resolution in another part of the model. Questions arose in my mind about how I could direct people through the spaces I created with the idea of density. Would dense interconnections of forms create an area of interest for people to gather by or would it create a more private secluded set of areas inhabited by a singular person.

The idea that these models existed as something other than just a model but rather a scale representation of a truly inhabitable space was really interesting. Since I approached them as three dimensional sketches, the models themselves were not truly how I imagined the spaces to look. Instead, they were delineations of the spaces that would exist with a completely different exterior. This idea that the exteriors were different from the interiors is something I began to explore in the Third assignment. I was interested in the idea that there were many implied spaces in my sketch based models and that it would be interesting to pursue clearer boundaries of these spaces.

The strip models were also approached with similar ideas. Many of the models were focused on creating more rigid forms than the sticks. It was suggested through a desk critique with my professor that I should try to consider more rigid forms while following patterns of dividing a bounded space into more unique spaces. This idea of a rigid form controlling other spaces inside of it became a defining factor in designing many of the strip based forms. Once again, these forms were meant to embrace the inherent materiality of the strips. Many of the methods of joining were somewhat similar to the sticks. I still used holes and parts to slide through to interlock with one another. The main difference came in the method of joining the two strips through the use of a singular notch. 

Both methods of joining were however very different from other methods of joining. One interesting difference between the sticks ands trips was that slotted strips could be easily customized beyond their joined part. I tried to create little cuts and other shapes withing the joined strip peaces to create opporutmities for more connections and more thought provoking divisions of space. Many of the models are equally as sketch-like as the stick models before them. Since the thickness of the strips are very different compared to the more brittle sticks, it also became important to account for and consider this thickness. As noted in critique, there is an inherent tension between the strips and sticks. This tension begins to manifest itself in my work through the short more controlled forms of the strips that seldom extend beyond the linked parts of their extent and the more free sticks that extend beyond the parts at which they connect to accommodate whatever structure is planned. It would be interesting to embrace this set of “limitations” provided by the material and provide a more intentional consideration to its construction. By embracing the material and the way in which it is linked, it can be taken further.

The next set of assignments asked students to consider some of the previous models they had considered and take inspiration from its division of spaces to create a new pavilion. This pavilion was to be designed within a space of 48 feet by 48 feet. From the models, students were asked to produce a series of sketch models and another set of diagrams to better understand how each space fit together within their models. It also became important for the students to plan for the inhabitation of this space as both a pavilion for 100 people for a single day and as an artist residence for a singular artist for the length of 100 days. This set of constraints allowed students to reflect on their previous models that were devoid of any real-world possibilities in construction. In this new light, it allowed for reflection by students and an attempt by the same students to bring a freely constructed model of a spatial concept into the physical world. 

These orthographic drawings were produced alongside the models to better understand drawing conventions of architecture. Moving into the later parts of the semester, drawings were produced digitally and they were also made of more regular models. In these intiaial stages of spatial exploration, these drawings helped to begin thinking in plan and section, a concept I would continue to learn about well into the semester. It also acted as my first formal introduction to concepts of massing models, and model making with the specific  ideas of frame and field.