Resilience - University of Miami School of Architecture

Resilience
An investigation of Tropical Coastal Community
University of Miami Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences:
toward a socially, intellectually, and ecologially resilient coastal campus
Robert Lloyd
University of Miami School of Architecture Master of Architecture Thesis Proposal
Resilience
An investigation of Tropical Coastal Community
University of Miami Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences:
toward a socially, intellectually, and ecologially resilient coastal campus
Robert Lloyd
University of Miami School of Architecture Master of Architecture Thesis Proposal
Table of Contents
Overall ObjecƟve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
9. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
1. Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
high line park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
kilometro rosso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
venice hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
salk insƟtute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
applicability to RSMAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
ethical pracƟce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
urbanism and “nature” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
responsible development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
resilient community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
virginia key development history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
environmental history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
3. Campus History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
rsmas campus development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4. Campus Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
5. Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
land ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
county comprehensive plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
city of miami virginia key plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
university of miami master planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
proposed plan - criƟque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
master planning criƟque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
6. Site Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
site diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
7. Program Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
program criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
virginia key ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
building resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
proposed redevelopment sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
8. Program DefiniƟon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Final Design Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f1
6
Overall Objective
rosens el site
The overall objective of this thesis is to explore the University of Miami Rosenstiel School
of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences as a test site for compact sustainable coastal development. The goal is to develop architectural and open space improvements which would
help create a vibrant academic cluster in which to house a greater range of teaching,
research, living, and recreational activities than are served by the existing campus. This
expansion of architecture and infrastructure would be carried out in a way which reduces
the site’s vulnerability to storm events and climate change while enhancing ecological
function and the site’s interaction with adjacent natural areas.
1
1. Doherty building and campus waterfront
2
2. typical lab, Grosvenor East
1.
Resilience
ethical practice
Tropical Coastal Development
and Ecosystem Health
W
hile architects have contributed in many ways to the richness of contemporary culture, we have also been complicit in the transforma on of living
landscapes into ecologically and socially depauperate environments, nourishing neither human nor non-human life. The AIA code of ethics specifically
states that architects have an obliga on to prac ce in an ethically and environmentally responsible manner. (AIA Code of Ethics, Canon VI) In his speeches
to the design community, the architect Bill McDonough defines negligence as
proceeding with something we know to be harmful. To this end, we as a profession have been negligent in our obliga on to design for a physically, socially,
and ecologically sound future.
Nowhere is this more evident than in resort ci es like Miami, where the natural resources which spurred development have been so quickly and drama cally altered. There is no way back. However, this thesis proposes a way forward which allows for the dynamic evolu on of both human and natural habit
mediated by a core structure which is both stable and resilient.
4. Miam Art Museum landscape proposal, author
3. Shanghai new town concept, author
urbanism and “nature”
Postmodern ecological theorists have wri en extensively about the ar ficiality of our concept of “Nature,” meaning everything which exists outside the
human sphere. In The Social Crea on of Nature, Neil Evernden explains how
this construct is so deeply embedded in our culture that it is difficult to see.
Western religions are based on the assump on that humans exist outside or
above the rest of nature. Yet the system-oriented founda on of modern Ecology is increasingly influencing the way we look at humans’ place in the world.
Ecologists are increasingly recognizing the need to accommodate human settlements into conserva on planning, while architects and planners are giving
increasing priority to ecological func ons as criteria for design.
Coastal ci es like Miami present an especially important challenge. The coastal zone represents the margin between landscape and seascape, and as a linear element represents a very small percentage of terrestrial or marine habitat. Through physical form, chemical characteris cs, and species interac ons,
coastal zones are among the most cri cal and biologically produc ve places on
earth. They are arguably the most threatened.
3
resilient community
As urban designers begin to think about natural systems as a metaphor for human development, vocabulary from the biological sciences has been adopted
by architects, and taken on new meaning. Conserva on biologists have been
interested in the idea of resilience – that is the capacity of a given ecosystem
to maintain its essenƟal characterisƟcs despite stressors including changing
environmental condiƟons. Stressors can be events of short dura on and high
intensity such as fire or hurricane, or long term events such as the aging of a
mature forest canopy.
The concept of resilience has also been applied to human communi es, and
implies durability of a range of elements from economic and social stability
to ability of infrastructure to withstand the pressures of climate change. This
thesis suggests that human communi es are inseparable from the natural
communi es in which they are set. Responsible deve opment should consider
the resilience of both.
5. community workshop, author
responsible development
Humans, perhaps the planet’s most impac ul terrestrial species, have long exploited the richness of the coastal zone, for localized resources such as fish but
also as a point of access to the larger marine environment for resources and
transport. Coastal se lement thus originated as a pragma c solu on to the
habitat problem of a terrestrial species dependent on marine resources. As
a species, we are s ll heavily dependent on the produc vity of marine ecosystems. However, se lement and habita on of the coastal zone is no longer
primarily driven by nutri onal or economic necessity. The majority of coastal
development is now driven by humans’ aesthe c preference for the coastal
zone. While this preference may be biological in origin, we now choose to live
there because we find it pleasurable – for the climate, breezes, recrea onal
swimming, and access to expansive views and light.
4
While the prac cal necessity of coastal living has decreased over me, the
extent of se lement, and its impact on ecological func on has increased. Like
all species, we are dependent on the ecological health of this zone for our own
well being. If we choose to build and live there for aesthe c reasons, it seems
that there is a moral impera ve to make our presence in the coastal zone as
posi ve as possible from an ecological perspec ve. At the same me, coastal
development contains some of our most culturally important urban fabric.
From an ecological standpoint, resilience is o en associated with biodiversity.
The more diversity in a system, the more its essen al elements overlap, creating redundancy which allows for con nuing func on of the system if a par cular component or species is under stress. For example if a cold winter causes
a certain plant to bear no fruit, plant diversity will increase the probability that
there will be an alternate food source for fruit-ea ng species. Resilience is also
associated with abundance. If a stressor causes a certain level of mortality in
a species, a larger popula on will increase likelihood that a minimum viable
popula on survives.
Resilient design incorporates some of the same principles. For example, a resilient building would be designed for natural ven la on lessening dependence
on centralized climate control, a resilient economy would contain a range of
produc ve ac vity, lessening dependence on any single sector.
2.
Site History
virginia key development history
U
nivesity of Miami’s Rosens el School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS) occupies about six and a half acres along the southwest shoreline
of Virginia Key. An island of about 860 acres, Virginia Key is located in Biscayne Bay east of Miami and immediately north of be er known Key Biscayne
(figure 1).
The island is connected to mainland Miami and Key Biscayne by the Rickenbacker Causeway, a county toll road opened in 1947 to provide public access
to the ocean beaches of Key Biscayne. While Miami grew rapidly as a result
of residen al and tourist development, Virginia Key retained large areas of
undeveloped open space, while the balance was divided into large parcels developed for public or ins tu onal purposes.
Atlantic
Ocean
Gulf of
Mexico
Project Site
1. Biscayne Bay Aerial, Google
Miami
Beach
Miami
Rickenbacker
Causeway
Virginia Key
Bear Cut
Biscayne Bay
Key Biscayne
5
Biscayne
Bay
Land-Fill
Rickenbacker Marina
Hobie Beach
Wastewater Plant
Marine Stadium
Mast Academy
Virginia Key Beach Park
NOAA
Biscayne
Bay
Seaquarium
RSMAS
NMFS
Bear Cut
Atlantic
Ocean
6
2. Virginia Key Aerial, Google
Virginia Key currently contains the following primary uses:
recreaƟon
• Miami Seaquarium
• Miami Marine Stadium
• Virginia Key Beach Park
• Hobie Beach
• Rickenbacker Marina
• Rusty Pelican, Jimbo’s and Bayside Hut restaurants
civic
• Miami Dade County Virginia Key Wastewater Treatment
Plant
• Mast Academy High School
• Municipal land-fill site (closed)
is a recogni on of the stadium’s cultural value beyond the Miami community
(figure 3). The ar ficial lagoon to the north of the stadium separates the recrea onal zone along the causeway from the natural and infrastructure uses to
the north.
Situated at the south end of Virginia Key, the RosensƟel School is part of a
somewhat accidental complex of marine related research ac vity. Located
across the Rickenbacker Causeway are regional research centers for the NaƟonal Oceanic and Atmospheric AssociaƟon, and the NaƟonal Marine Fishery Service. Also located on the east side of the causeway is the Mast Academy, a Miami-Dade magnet high school for marine science and technology.
Miami Seaquarium is immediately adjacent to RSMAS on the north. Opened
in 1955, the facility has regional appeal, but has not kept up with other public
aquaria such as Monterrey which have invested in improved facili es designed
to emphasize educa on and marine research.
3. Marine Stadium, Friends of Miami Marine Stadium
research
• US Na onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Associa on Atlan c
Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA)
• Na onal Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS)
• University of Miami Rosens el School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS) (figure 2)
Most of the island is part of the City of Miami, while the southeast corner
(including the RSMAS site) is part of unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The
north end of the island is occupied by the wastewater treatment plant and
the remainder of a municipal land-fill. The land-fill has now been capped,
and is now primarily covered with scrub forest. The ac ve wastewater treatment plant is screened by a forested strip facing Virginia Key Beach Park. The
historic park served African Americans from 1945 un l desegrega on of the
other municipal beaches. The park was closed in 1982 and re-opened in 2008.
The current design emphasizes the park’s history while allowing for contemporary recrea onal use stressing low-impact beach ac vi es and respect for the
site’s ecology. To the west of the treatment plant is the island’s largest remaining patch of mangrove forest.
The eastern p of the island contains the most prominent recrea onal facilies. Hobie Beach faces south, and is a popular spot for windsurfing, small
catamarans etc. On the north side of the causeway is the Rickenbacker Marina and Rusty Pelican Restaurant, in addi on to the island’s most architecturally significant structure, the Miami Marine Stadium. Completed in 1964, the
sculptural concrete structure was designed by a team led by Cuban born architect Hilario Candela. Its lis ng on the World Monuments Fund 2010 watch list
7
environmental history
As is typical of barrier islands, Virginia Key is a naturally dynamic en ty whose
form and character fluctuates over me. Anthropogenic changes to the Biscayne Bay ecosystem have supplanted hurricanes and natural dal fluctuaons as the major cause of landscape change. Peter Harlem’s 1979 analysis
of historical aerial photography provides a comprehensive review of changes
to the structure of Biscayne Bay which parallel the urbaniza on of the region
over the 20th century. The Miami mainland consists of a limestone ridge which
separates the Everglades from the Bay and the Atlan c Ocean. Key Biscayne
forms the southernmost part of a second limestone ridge underlying the chain
of sandy barrier islands which protect the mainland coast (Harlem 16).
Like other islands, Virginia Key was once covered predominantly with Mangrove which anchored sediment deposited by fluctua ng current and dal acvity (Harlem 26). In the 1930’s dredging and wall construc on began to alter
current flow in the Bay. Sediment began to accrete to the north of the island
providing area for expansion of the mangrove swamp. By the 1950’s the island
had expanded to the north by almost a half mile. The eastern third of this
new area was dredged to provide fill for the sewage treatment plant which
was constructed throughout the mid 1950’s. The dredged area created a sink
for sand eroding off Virginia Key Beach to the south. By the mid 1970’s je es
had been constructed to slow erosion of Virginia Key beach. The northern p
of the Key was surrounded by levees in the mid 1960’s and the area was used
as a sanitary landfill (figures 4,5)(Harlem 94). The landfill area is now an EPA
superfund site. The northwestern por on of the island was altered by the
construc on of the Marine Stadium lagoon. The southern por on of the island
was cleared for the Seaquarium, RSMAS campus, and federal facili es by the
end of the 1950’s (figure 6).
5. Virginia Key Aerials, Harlem
4. Biscayne Bay in green, frame on
study area, adapted from Harlem
8
KE
YB
I SC
NI
A
KE
Y
RG
I
N
KE
VI
I
RG
I
V
IA
Y
6. Biscayne Bay land cover changes 1925-1976, adapted from Harlem
KE
AY
N
E
YB
I SC
AY
N
E
9
7. Virginia Key 1960’s, Yehle
10
3.
Campus History
1. Agassiz Building, Yehle. Note exis ng mangrove behind
newly placed fill.
rsmas campus development
choice of site
T
he University of Miami marine laboratory was formally established in
1943, and its ini al home was in a private boathouse on Miami Beach. The
research team grew, and through a series of contracts with state and commercial conserva on and marine resource interests, the ins tu on grew to the
point where it needed a consolidated home. In 1951, Dade County offered the
University a long-term lease on 6.38 acres along Bear Cut if a marine research
building could be built within the year. Funds were raised with contribu ons
from the fishing and boa ng community and through newspaper appeals.
2. Agassiz interior showing open plan and exposed
structure andservices, Yehle
the structure resembled the architecture of 1930’s Miami Beach. However,
the structure was elevated a full story, acknowledging its exposed loca on.
The Collier Building, a similar laboratory structure, was added two years later.
Both were oriented east-west along the shoreline, maximizing southern exposure and onshore breezes for natural cooling poten al (figure 3).
academic core
Over the next decade, the three sec ons of Grosvenor were constructed, allowing for consolida on of the marine library, laboratories, and offices into
3. Collier and Agassiz from Bear Cut 1955, Yehle
original structures
Designed by Marion Manley, the Agassiz Building was opened in 1953 as the
first structure of the Virginia Key Campus (figure 1,2). The elevated structure
had no interior walls, and infrastructure was exposed allowing for adjustment
according to varying research requirements (Yehle). Seawater was pumped
in directly from the adjacent bay, crea ng a literal connec on between the
scien fic life of the University and its physical context. A simple stuccoed concrete volume with jalousie windows and a con nuous horizontal shading fin,
11
one campus. A two level south wing was built first in 1957. A third level and
a two level east wing were completed in 1957. In 1965 the three level North
Grosvenor was completed (Yehle). The north wing was designed for an addi onal two levels. Built with a combina on of reinforced concrete and stuccoed concrete block, the south and east wings have ground levels at grade.
Only the north wing is slightly elevated. The style of the three sec ons is fairly
consistent with horizontal banding, horizontal windows, and simple overhanging concrete plates marking the entries (figure 5).
In contrast to the Manley design, the Grovesnor buildings seem to take li le
cue from their tropical waterfront loca on. South Grosvenor has some southfacing windows, but the other two structures face an internal courtyard used
primarily for outdoor storage of research equipment. Double loaded corridors
mean that workspaces have light only on one side, and li le cross-ven la on.
Low floor-to-floor heights emphasized the horizontality of the structure, but
limited space for horizontal distribu on of u li es and for convec ve cooling
in a hot climate. Had they been built, the upper levels of North Grosvenor
would have had be er poten al to gain views and breeze from the Bay.
6. Grosvenor East entry, Yehle
5. Rendering of Grosvenor South and East, Yehle
The formal entrance of the complex is on the East side, and was originally visible from the Rickenbacker causeway (figures 6-8). Street frontage took precedence over connec on to the site. This core complex was completed with
the construc on of Glassell in 1966. With an open ground level, two levels of
labs, plus roo op salt-water se ling tanks, the bar building created a ver cal
element perpendicular to the original low-slung waterfront labs (figure 9). The
upper levels were marked by an extended concrete frame. The south elevaon facing the water had no windows, relying on an abstract pa ern of scored
stucco to break down the scale. Period photographs show a parking lot covering most of the remaining available space.
4. Founder Walton Smith on tractor, Yehle
7. Campus entry c. 1960, Yehle
ancillary buildings
12
Meanwhile, three small buildings were added in 1960, on an axis perpendicular to the bay. The three two story structures were an opera ons building,
a small dormitory, subsequently converted to the tri um laboratory, and a
refrigera on building (figures 11-14). These were u litarian concrete structures, narrow bar buildings, slight eleva on from exis ng grade and concrete
overhangs being the only concessions to clima c condi ons. Oriented roughly
north south, they were fully exposed to the western sun and minimally exposed to views and onshore breezes. They are also rotated about 20° to the
8. Campus entry 1963, Yehle
west from Grosvenor, Collier and Agassiz, se ng up unresolved spa al relaonships which were only worsened as larger structures picked up this pattern.
In 1968 a steel service building was built on the northern edge of the site following the same axis. Intended originally as a temporary structure, it now
forms the northern edge of the main campus entry zone (figure 13).
campus completed
9. Glassell from Bear Cut, author
The next major structure came in 1971 with construc on of the Doherty Marine Sciences Center. Hugging the west edge of the site, the three level building rose up behind the opera ons building with an elevated entry courtyard
and a series of exposed stairways. Deep overhangs, varied floor heights, and
ver cal concrete brise-soleil place the building in the Brutalist school popular
10. Glassell showing laboratory floors below third floor se ling tanks, author
13. Campus 1969, Yehle. Note full hardening of shoreline.
13
11. Opera ons building, author
14. Dormitory 1959, Yehle. Now Tri um Lab.
at that me for academic architecture (figures 15,17). The building is the most
overtly expressive on campus. A double height lobby and generous waterfront terrace give the building a graciousness which contrasts with the Spartan
character of earlier campus buildings. Elevated a full level, and consciously
reaching toward the water despite its orienta on, the building is also the most
specifically responsive to the site. A cafeteria and bar open to the waterfront
deck, and as the only inten onally designed common spaces on campus, remain its social core (figure 16).
The last major structure mirrored Doherty, framing the east edge of campus
along the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Science Lab and Administra on Building (SLAB) building was completed in 1985 and now houses the library, administra on offices, dry lab and office space. Designed by New York architects
Abramovits-Harris-Kingsland, the building was the result of a comprehensive
1979 master plan completed by the same firm. They also designed a north
wing which was added to Doherty in 1980 to house CIMAS (Coopera ve Ins tute for Marine & Atmospheric Science).
16. Doherty, Commons space, Yehle
14
15. Doherty from Bear Cut, author
17. Doherty courtyard, author
The Administra on building echoes the Tropicalist features of Doherty with
deep overhangs, extensive exterior circula on, and a covered pa o space facing Bear Cut. Parking is contained beneath the elevated structure. In contrast to the durable concrete construc on of many other campus buildings,
the Administra on building contains a large amount of steel structure with
non-structural stucco cover panels. This system has not held up well under the
clima c condi ons of the site (Ray pers com).
19. Administra on Building Model, Abramovitz
20. Administra on Building construc on, Yehle
18. Administra on Building Rendering, Abramovitz
21. Administra on Building detail, author
15
buildings: interior
• Poorly defined entry and common areas
• Limited informal mee ng space
• Limited light and connec on between indoors and
outdoor spaces
• Interior circula on cramped, disorien ng
• Wayfinding difficult
• Limited opporunity for interac on between offices
• Center corridor plan limits flexibility of lab layout
as opposed to external circula on which leaves full
building depth flexible
• Light and ven la on restricted
• New u lity and equipment requirements poorly
interfaced with exis ng structures
• Equipment has been added in corridors and common areas constraining space and ease of movement
• Refrigera on equipment located within air-condioned space (equipment radiates heat into mechanically cooled space)
• Ad hoc addi ons of equipment harder to maintain
and lower opera ng efficiency than centrally integrated systems
buildings: exterior
• Enclosure of formerly open ground levels and accumulated storage vulnerable and poten ally dangerous in flood or storm events
• Ground level views and airflow blocked
• Aesthe cs compromised
• Awkward rela onship between newer and older
buildings
• Interior and exterior experien al quality diminished
• Original views and ven la on blocked
16
site: connections
• Poor connec ons to adjacent ins tu ons (fence to
Seaquarium, Rickenbacker to NOAA, NMFS
• Roadway and parking dominate entry experience
• Campus open spaces have limited physical and visual
connec on to Bear Cut
• No linkage between adjacent waterfronts or pedestrian-friendly connec on to Virginia Key Beach Park
4.
Campus Constraints
site: internal
useability
•
•
•
•
Parking and driveway dominate the site
No clear pedestrian zone
No defined outdoor gathering space
Circula on connects buildings to parking, but connecons between buildings unclear
• Awkward rela onships between front and rear of
adjacent buildings
• Site plan ng, paving, and hardscape treatment lacking in hierarchy
• Wayfinding difficult
ecology
• All original site vegeta on removed
• Pavement covers most unbuilt por ons of site
• Planted areas have li le species variety, li le habitat
value
17
id
1101
1102
1103
1172
1107
1110
1115
1116
1120
1125
1130
1135
1148
1164
1170
Total
building name
date sq. Ō.
DohertyMarineScienceCenter(named)
CIMASBuilding
CentralChiller/IcePlant
ShadeHouse
AplysiaRearingFacility(VKBeachRd.)
CollierBuilding(Named)
g(
)
GrosvenorSouth(Named)
GrosvenorEast(Named)
OperationsBuilding
RefrigerationBuilding(storage)
ServiceBuilding(builtastemporary)
TritiumLabBuilding(builtasdormitory)
g(
y)
GlassellBuilding(named)
GrosvenorNorth(designedfor2morefloors)
ScienceLabandAdministrationBuilding(SLAB)
1971
1980
1995
2004
1979
1954
1957
1960
1960
1960
1968
1961
1966
1966
1985
50,806
9,888
6,700
3,744
3,479
4,678
,
25,890
8,926
4,413
672
7,932
4,066
,
21,695
49,574
82,624
285,087
Source: RSMAS Facili es Management
22. Exis ng Campus rendering, University of Miami
23. Building Inventory, RSMAS Facili es Management
5.
Planning Context
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer
Federal Agencies
Miami-Dade Schools
University of Miami
City or County Parks
1. Land ownership
land ownership
T
he most immediately applicable planning documents are the campus master plans completed by the University of Miami. Before referencing those it
is important to consider the context of Virginia Key as a whole, and its contribu on to the general urban context. The site is located in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County, and is listed as unzoned. With excep on of the federally
owned parcels across the causeway, all the land surrounding the campus, including the Seaquarium site is owned by the Miami-Dade Parks and Recrea on
department. The causeway is owned by the County as well. The wastewater
treatment plant is owned by Miami Dade Water and Sewer. However, the City
of Miami owns all the coastal land north of the causeway including the former
landfill to the north, Virginia Key Beach Park, and the Marine Stadium site (figure 1).
county comprehensive plan
All land in the county is covered by the Comprehensive development Master
Plan (CDMP). Several elements of the plan have par cular relevance to Virginia Key. Perhaps the most impac ul is the introduc on to the Conserva on
element of the plan which states “The environmental sensi vity of MiamiDade county is underscored by the fact that urban por on lies between two
na onal parks Everglades and Biscayne” (Miami-Dade, CDMP IV-1). This secon also emphasizes the economic importance of environmental protec on in
light of the County’s reliance on tourism. The Coastal Management Element
emphasizes restora on of coastal habitat, especially in areas which are potenal habitat corridors. Increasing public waterfront access is also men oned
(VI-9). The designated land uses for 2015 to 2025 are indicated in figure 2. The
RSMAS site is designated for ins tu onal use, but most of the island is designated for parks and recrea on or environmentally protected park.
19
2. 2015 Land Use Plan, Miami-Dade County
city of miami virginia key plan
While the County does not have a specific area plan for the Key, the City of
Miami recently completed a Virginia Key Master Plan. While uses of the island have been historically mixed, the 2009 plan, wri en for the City by EDSA,
focuses exclusively on enhancing sports and recrea onal facili es. The plan
seems misguided from the outset. While the City controls only a por on of
the island, a coordinated plan should have been prepared with coopera on
between City, County, and major ins tu onal stakeholders. Successful planning for an 860 acre island cannot be conducted piecemeal.
The centerpiece of the plan is an ac ve playfields complex containg six soccer
fields, eight baseball diamonds, and a football field, along with running track
and tennis facili es (figure 3).
20
3. Virginia Key Master Plan, EDSA for City of Miami
This kind of program seems ill conceived for several reasons:
• Loca on Crea ng a large campus for ac ve sports far from any popula on center is not compa ble with the kind of mixed-use integrated
development called for in all the City’s planning documents. Coastal
park facili es should priori ze water dependent recrea on.
• Environment Conver ng one of the region’s largest tracts of coastal
forest into a series of maintained sports fields is the environmental
equivalent of urbanizing this area whether or not the grass is green.
The plan goes on to state that 77% of the land in the planning zone is “unuseable” (EDSA 6). By this they mean not available for ac ve public recrea onal
uses. This narrow defini on of benefit reflects the self-iden ty of Miami as a
tourist oriented pleasure metropolis. Diversifying this self-concep on strikes
at the essence of increasing the resilience of the community as a whole.
university of miami master
planning
While the mission of the ins tu on may be more
far reaching, master plans prepared for RSMAS
have focused on space alloca on and distribu on
within the exis ng campus framework. S ll, the
1979 plan by Abramovits illustrates sound goals
for campus enhancement which have yet to be
realized. The following guiding principles are outlined (Abramovits 11):
1. More efficient land use.
2. Non-interrup on of ongoing
research work.
3. Crea on of a collegial environment.
4. Separa on of pedestrians and
vehicles.
5. Compactness and fullest u liza on of working space.
6. Simplified administra on of
research.
7. Reorganiza on, upda ng, and
be er u liza on of energy distribu on and u lity systems.
8. Be er Resolu on of the parking problem.
9. Provision for limited recrea onal space and explicit defini on of outdoor space.
10. An architectural statement of
significance on Virginia Key.
1979 plan
At the heart of this plan was the intensificaƟon
of structure at the perimeter of the site which
would allow the center to be gradually unbuilt,
leaving a classic academic quadrangle with open
water as the fourth wall (figures 4,5). While the
Administra on Building was realized largely according to the 1979 plan, the University is just
preparing to break ground on the second major
structure proposed by the plan. This would allow
for subsequent demoli on of the older buildings
along the water.
5. Proposed quadrangle space, Abramovitz
4. 1979 Rosens el Campus Master Plan, Abramovitz
21
6. Rendering from Rickenbacker entry, Cambridge Seven
2005 master plan update
2005
In 2005, Cambridge Seven Associates submi ed a revised master plan. A er
a programming study, Cambridge Seven proposed a new structure along the
north edge of campus which essen ally followed the 1979 plan. The major
varia on from the 1979 proposal was that a second east-west bar should be
constructed, crea ng two major courtyards, the northerly one fully enclosed,
and a smaller southern space open to the bay. This would allow for added and
updated indoor space, but lost something of the simplicity and impact of the
1979 diagram (figure 5).
2010 seawater lab proposal
The Univesity expects to break ground this spring on an updated version of the
sea-water lab building proposed in 2005. The 2010 version has a simplified
footprint, but much finer grained eleva ons than previous campus buildings.
Parking is proposed for the ground level, with two levels of office and laboratory space above. The building is organized along a central east-west corridor,
with a double height common space at the east end facing the Rickenbacker
Causeway.
lost opportunity for tropicalism?
The building is designed to allow for expansion on the north side. Unfortunately, this means that workspace facing the poten al expansion will have no
natural light. The central corridor, glazed facade, and minimal covered exterior space suggest a a design approach which relies heavily on mechanized
thermal control and ligh ng. It seems that there is a missed opportunity to
design a modern research facility which is s ll connected to the meless qualies of its subtropical loca on.
2010
22
5. Master plan revisions (new in green), Cambridge Seven
poor connecƟon to core of campus
With the main entry and common area at the east end of the building, there is
li le opportunity to connect with the central pedestrian core of campus.
10. Agassiz, Yehle
11. Glassell, author
Original open labs vs. corridor building
proposed plan - critique
Interior spaces, no ven la on or natural light
Internal corridors limit flexibility of plan
No entries or access to campus center
7. 2010 eleva ons and sec on,, Cambridge Seven
Common space faces arterial road
8. 2010 proposed plan, Cambridge Seven
9. 2010 proposed future expansion, Cambridge Seven
master planning critique
make bigger plans
Virginia Key as Tropical Marine Research Hub While there is some interac on
between RSMAS and the federal facili es, there is poten al for much greater
integra on of these ins tu ons given the overlap in their respec ve missions.
The Miami master plan for Virginia Key focuses primarily on redeveloping the
parks to increase their recrea onal poten al. However, the opportunity to
develop a more integrated community of top-level marine research and educa on facili es holds poten al for crea on of an economic development node
which could help diversify Miami’s service oriented economy. A similar node
for medical and biotech research is being developed with involvement by the
University in the area of Jackson Memorial Hospital.
tropical research hub as economic development opportunity
Miami is the major metropolis of the Caribbean, and as such is a center for
tourism, but also for banking, trade, health care, higher educa on and research. The adjacency of RSMAS to federal tropical research facili es, and
the poten al for Seaquarium and MAST Academy to deepen the rigor of their
missions, gives Virginia Key unique poten al to emerge as regional center for
tropical coastal science. In addi on, the natural resources of the key, and the
urban infrastructural challenges of the wastewater treatment plant and former landfill provide an ideal laboratory for research on resilient and restora ve coastal development.
This cluster of academic and federal research facili es exists in only four other
places in the United States: La Jolla/San Diego, Monterrey, Sea le and Woodshole Massachuse s. In all of these loca ons, the concentra on of marine research ac vity has drawn other related academic and economic interests, and
has a significantly benefi ed the local economy through the crea on of highwage technical jobs, and increased a rac veness to educated entrepreneurial
residents. These places are models of economist Richard Florida’s asser on
that the most dynamic economic growth will occur in areas which combine
natural beauty, dynamic urban culture, and high level economic opportunity
(Florida reference)
24
While this project does not a empt to develop a revised master plan for Virginia Key, or the RSMAS campus, the principles which guide it will be an integra on of the values expressed in the various exis ng plans. Not intended as
a comprehensive list, the following are some important principles which will
guide the design.
as per rsmas planning documents
• Create a more unified and hierarchical campus experience.
• Expand and organize facili es for research (both indoor and site
based).
as per miami-dade county comprehensive planning
• Respect and enhance ecological func on as per Miami-Dade County
comprehensive planning.
as per cty of miami virginia key master plan
• Enhance public access to waterfront.
• Create opportuni es for non-motorized circula on throughout the
Key.
addiƟonal principles
• Enhance visual and func onal connec on between campus and surrounding urban and natural resources.
• Enhance poten al for programma c interac on between exis ng
ins tu onal uses.
• Encourage development of the en re key as a laboratory for urban
ecological research.
6.
P
erhaps because of the newness of the school, and the newness of
its city, the Campus of the University of Miami began as a laboratory
for forward thinking ins tu onal planning and architecture. Post-war
Miami enjoyed a luxury of space and cultural youth which allowed for
the development of the sprawling modernist Main Campus. The campus has become a verdant counterpoint to the densifying city around it.
While similar architecture has been employed for the Rosens el School
of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, the physical context is quite different. Situated on approximately six and a half acres at the southwest
corner of Virginia Key, the school overlooks Bear Cut and the mangrove
fringe of Key Biscayne.
Site Analysis Summary
Currently, several smaller buildings block visual, and to a certain extent physical access to campus waterfront. Access to views, and connec on to water
for func onal research purposes will be an important design considera on.
Ecological considera on of the land/water interface will provide an addi onal
criterion by which to evaluate si ng considera ons.
relaƟonship to virginia key
Finally, the Rosens el School should take be er advantage of its loca on. A
rela vely undeveloped tropical island is a rare and valuable thing, even more
so at the center of a major metropolis. The interiority of the campus and
buildings within should be reversed, and RSMAS should seek a way forward
which engages its surrounding community and ecology.
Occupying filled land at the edge of the bay, the Rosens el site epitomizes Miami’s juxtaposi on of fragile marine ecosystems with urban development. Within the campus, the concrete buildings which provide a
backdrop for green on the Main Campus are almost en rely surrounded
by parking and roadway. Casual building placement fails to create posive outdoor spaces on the small site. Despite its spectacular se ng,
the physical campus is an underwhelming home for a globally renowned
center of the marine environment.
increase richness and intensity
It seems that there is poten al to create a much more vibrant human
center, while also enhancing the campus open space and its rela on to
surrounding natural context. If the UM Main campus can be seen as
a park, an area of vegeta on, openness, and relief from the city, I can
envision the RSMAS campus as the opposite – a dense, rich cluster of
complex human ac vity, set against parks and open space (figure 1).
um main campus
The exis ng campus was developed in a somewhat ad-hoc manner,
where buildings were added over me based on available space, but
without any overriding spa al organiza on. The two largest buildings
line the east and west edges of the site, and are of more recent construc on, presumably func onally viable for the medium term. A new
wet lab has been proposed and designed to line the north edge of the
site. The remaining structures are sca ered throughout the middle of
the site, and are all considered func onally obsolete. Even the most
rudimentary master planning suggests that the core of the site could be
opened up to create more clearly defined campus space. Placement of
proposed buildings would have to reflect a compromise between ideal
future loca on and phased replacement of space in exis ng buildings.
rsmas
25
1. figure/ground - urban/green
site diagrams
relaƟon to causeway
26
2. current site aerial, google
primary axis
paved and open space
7.
A
Program Framework
n essen al characteris c of good architecture is the integra on of mul ple disparate program requirements into a unified composi on. I will use the
several meanings of resilience as a means of organizing the programming
phase of this project. As defined at the beginning of this document, resilience – is the capacity of a given ecosystem to maintain its essenƟal characterisƟcs despite stressors including changing environmental condiƟons.
The Rosens el campus offers an opportunity to test the poten al for thoughtful, humane, and ecologically sensi ve coastal urban redevelopment. As with
any ins tu onal client, various interests must be balanced in order to create
a campus which op mizes benefit to the larger community while serving the
specific programma c needs of its members. In this instance, there are three
primary client interests:
Addressing the defini on given above, there are three components. First I
will work with RSMAS to create a working list of “essen al characteris cs”
which define two ecosystems; one, the Virginia Key/Bear Cut coastal margin,
and two, the University community which I view as part of the Virginia Key
system. Second, I will outline expected system-level stressors. Third, I will
iden fy those which may be mi gated through architecture.
• The University of Miami as a whole
• Specific interests of the Rosens el School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
• The Virginia Key ecosystem
program criteria
A truly resilient campus will sa sfy a broad range of program needs. In the
largest sense, the goal is to create a place which supports a thriving intellectual
community in a manner which is integrated into its urban and ecological context. Improvements to the RSMAS campus should be evaluated in the context
of campus planning needs, but also for how they contribute to the enrichment
of the larger Viginia Key/Bear Cut ecosystem. Campus planning for RSMAS
should consider basic issues such as parking and transporta on in conjuncon with adjacent facili es, development of pedestrian and bicycle networks,
public waterfront access, visibility of RSMAS campus func ons to the public,
and program diversifica on including addi on of housing and compelling community spaces.
Beyond this, campus improvements should be designed to enhance the interface with Bear Cut. Improvements should go beyond a generalized low-impact
building approach, and target enhancement of specific ecological func ons.
For example, green roofs could be designed to provide habitat for shorebird species which would have found refuge in the na ve coastal scrub forest. Buildings could be connected by elevated walkways which would allow
for restora on of seasonal flooding on parts of the campus and replan ng of
func onal pockets of mangrove. By iden fying quan fiable ecological goals,
input from disciplines such as restora on ecology is given greater weight in the
design process.
client
Because of their centralized structure, informed decision making process, long
planning horizons, and respect for innova on, universi es can play a unique
role in se ng the tone for future development of surrounding communi es.
A successful program will have to balance the some mes conflic ng needs of
the three communi es above. A successful design will both reinforce the essen al characteris cs of the three, as well as improve their resilience to future
stress. Preliminary ques ons are as follows:
university prioriƟes
• How can RSMAS be be er integrated into the academic and social life
of students on Main Campus?
• How can RSMAS campus facili es be improved to provide opportunies for students from a variety of disciplines to study coastal issues in
an integrated manner?
• Could an improved RwSMAS campus serve as a recrui ng tool for the
larger University?
• Can the RSMAS campus reflect the President’s desire to incorporate
housing into new University structures?
rsmas prioriƟes
• How can new construc on improve spa al defini on of the campus,
helping describe a hierarchical sequence of posi ve open spaces?
• How can infrastructure, u li es and circula on be streamlined?
• What kinds of spaces are needed to improve the func on of the
research community?
• How can obsolete structures best be replaced?
• What combina ons of program would be most easily financed?
• What kinds of non-academic program would improve campus life (ie.
housing, community space?)
• If housing were to be added, what type and how many units would
create a cri cal mass of residents?
• How can physical improvements impact the durability of RSMAS as a
human community focused on top-level marine ecological research
and conserva on?
27
virginia key ecosystem
urban
• How can be er physical connec ons be made to adjacent ins tuons?
• How can the RSMAS campus be opened up and integrated into the
system of public waterfront trails which runs from Brickell, out the
Rickenbacker Causeway, and onto Crandon Park?
• How could campus edges be redeveloped to func on as es, rather
than barriers to adjacent uses?
ecological
• What func ons of the system have been most compromised by
coastal development?
• What off-site impacts does the campus have?
• What adverse impacts could be mi gated through architectural or
site improvements?
• What campus improvements could contribute to increased func on
or resilience of the ecosystem?
building resilience
sea-level Rise
The concept of resilience has several implica ons in terms of evalua ng the
architecture itself. Most obvious is physical resilience to climate events including hurricanes and sea-level rise. Examples from other low-lying geographies are informa ve, but South Florida presents an unusual set of condi ons.
Dutch architecture represents a cultural bias toward long planning horizons
and durable, well detailed architecture. These quali es are appropriate to
planning for university structures which are expected to accommodate sophis cated program requirements and endure over me. However, hurricane
winds, intense sun, and humidity add addi onal stresses not considered in
Dutch architecture. Coastal developments in Southeast Asia do face similar
climate condi ons, yet few examples are expected to meet the high performance standards of University-level research facili es.
thermal comfort
28
Ability to provide climate comfort through passive or renewable means is another aspect of resilience. Again, Southeast Asia provides some precedents.
Integra ng tradi onal strategies into a high-performance building will be part
of the challenge. Ideally, a combina on of passive thermal comfort strategies, efficient building envelope, minimizing ar ficial ligh ng demand, and
though ul design of specialized laboratory equipment could result in a high
performance research building which could operate with less dependence on
outside power. While this seems unusual for a university building, there are
many examples of field research facili es which allow for high quality scienfic inves ga on in a much less resource dependent manner. Field sta ons
should also provide good precedent for the integra on of housing into scienfic research facili es. While the actual number of units may be small in terms
of the overall university popula on, I would hope to determine how many residents would be required to support the culture of integrated life and learning
which is evident at facili es such as Duke Marine labs which incorporate some
housing.
program adaptability
Another aspect of resilience, is the ability of a system to adjust to change while
s ll maintaining its overall form. For architecture this implies a building which
meets its current program, but is designed in such a manner as to accommodate future needs which may be quite different. Generally, this implies a
modular system where structure and internal par ons are separate, as well
as design of mechanical systems which can be easily accessed and adapted.
The thesis will have to explore what this means in response to the par cular
program.
habitat
In responding to the third client, the Virginia Key ecosystem, another set of
metrics apply. From an ecosystem standpoint, resilience is o en a result of
diversity of species and habitat structure. A building will impact these in two
ways. First, off-site impacts need to be considered in terms of drainage, air
pollu on, shadow cas ng, light pollu on etc. This kind of impact is fairly well
described by the USGBC LEED ra ng system. In a coastal marine loca on
adjacent to fragile habitat, a range of impacts must be considered including
site disturbance during construc on, release of pollutants during maturing of
building structure, and impact of maintenance prac ces such as pain ng or
window cleaning.
Second, and less explored is how the building can in fact replace or augment
physical habitat structure which has been lost. One area I am curious about is
the poten al for vegetated roofs to be designed to meet the habitat needs of
specific species. An unintended but well documented example is the colonizaon of parapets and cornice structures by Peregrine Falcons in New York City.
In the context of sea-level rise and climate change, roofscapes may be able to
provide refuge for species such as shorebirds who may lose their natural habitat due to flooding, even if only during temporary storm events.
cultural context
Finally, architecture is a cultural product. A building is an expensive and impac ul statement about the aesthe cs and cultural values of its architects and
client. While it will inevitably express the dominant values and aesthe cs of
its moment of incep on, a resilient building will have aesthe c and cultural
meaning whose value and legibility endure over me. Despite the newness of
Miami as an urban center, there is a rich architectural vocabulary to draw from.
While there is no history of se lement in Virginia Key prior to the 1940’s, the
early se lers of the region followed the light wooden vernacular common to
the American South.
At present, there is a large collec on of mid-century concrete structures which
represent the playful experimenta on with reinforced concrete construc on.
Best known is the Marine Stadium, but are many other structures including
park facili es and the concrete-screened NOAA facility which represent this
period of Miami’s history (figures 1-3). The heavy brise soleil of the campus
commons building place it in the company of other brutalist buildings of the
period which con nue to explore the plas c quali es of concrete and the drama c shadowing possible with intense tropical light (figure 4). The more recent Administra on Building con nues to explore the vocabulary of Tropicalist
ins tu onal architecture with its massive overhanging roof (figure 5). Any new
architecture on the campus must be designed with these tradi ons in mind.
2. materials, aesthe cs of exis ng campus
29
proposed redevelopment sequence
The redevelopment sequence illustrated below reflects current University redevelopment plans. The seawater lab is scheduled to begin
construc on in 2011, with demoli on of Collier and Glassell to follow. Grosvenor and the Tri um Lab are considered obsolete due to
restricted floor plans, dated infrastructure, and vulnerability to storm events. This leaves a large area at the center of Campus open for
considera on. This will be the primary target area for interven ons proposed here.
proposed seawater lab
scheduled for demoliƟon
obsolete - future demoliƟon
primary area available for future redevelopment
8.
A
s has been outlined earlier, this project will use rela vely expansive defini on of program. Specific site and building interven ons will be designed
with an eye to the immediate func onal needs of the School, but also with
reference to the idea of resilient community. The proposal will include a combina on of structure, site and landscape interven ons which will support the
school in its growth, as well as suppor ng the Virginia Key community and
ecology.
3. Indoor Housing for graduate students and visi ng scholars
IntervenƟons will include the four primary funcƟonal elements:
4. Coastal landscape and mangrove restora on cells for habitat crea on and
research
1. Addi onal laboratory and research office space
•
•
•
•
•
+/- 60,000sf
Replace and update capacity of buildings to be removed
Provide addi onal capacity in specific areas
Emphasis on flexibility of space, and infrastructure adaptability
Hierarchy of systems, maximize passive strategies, fully condi oned
space only where needed
• Strong physical and visual connec ons to site
• Minimize vulnerability to sea level rise and storm events
2. Indoor and outdoor conference and social areas
• +/- 10,000sf
• Seminar spaces, larger informal gathering areas
• Strong connec on to outdoor spaces
Program Definition
• 18-24 units
• 400-800sf range for units
• Housing placement to enhance sense of community and extend acve use of public areas
• Design for adaptability to changing housing needs of community
• Design for natural thermal comfort
• U lize at-grade and roo op spaces for poten al habitat develpment
• Design spaces in modular way to maximize poten al for quan ta ve
urban ecological research
• Design to explicitly specified and achievable habitat and ecological
func onal goals
Site planning improvements will address the following:
•
•
•
•
Delinea on of posi ve common open spaces
Strengthening of visual connec ons to the Bay
Improving circula on hierarchy and clarity
Development of pedestrian and habitat areas as primary over parking
and vehicular circula on
• Enhancing openness and connec vity with adjacent uses while respec ng safety and security of the campus community
31
1. Glen Murcu , Bowali Visitor Informa on Center, drawing by author
campus square footage studies
building id
building name
date
sq. ft.
existing
1101
1102
1103
1172
1107
1110
1115
1116
1120
1125
1130
1135
1148
1164
1170
Total
Balance
32
DohertyMarineScienceCenter
CIMASBuilding
CentralChiller/IcePlant
ShadeHouse
AplysiaRearingFacility(VKBeachRd.)
CollierBuilding
G
GrosvenorSouth
S th
GrosvenorEast
OperationsBuilding
RefrigerationBuilding(storage)
ServiceBuilding(builtastemporary)
g(
p
y)
TritiumLabBuilding(builtasdormitory)
GlassellBuilding
GrosvenorNorth(designedfor2morefloors)
ScienceLabandAdministrationBuilding(SLAB)
Seawater Lab
SeawaterLab
1971
1980
1995
2004
1979
1954
1957
1960
1960
1960
1968
1961
1966
1966
1985
2011
+ new
lab
planned
demo
demo
grov
add to
grov
hybrid
50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806
9,888
9,888
9,888
9,888
9,888
9,888
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
3,744
3,744
0
0
0
0
3,479
3,479
3,479
3,479
3,479
3,479
4,678
4,678
0
0
0
0
25
25,890
890 25
25,890
890 25
25,890
890
0 25
25,890
890
0
8,926
8,926
8,926
0
8,926
0
4,413
4,413
4,413
4,413
4,413
4,413
672
672
672
672
672
672
7,932
7,932
7,932
7,932
7,932
7,932
,
,
,
,
,
,
4,066
4,066
4,066
4,066
4,066
4,066
21,695 21,695
0
0
0
0
49,574 49,574 49,574
0 98,000 98,000
82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624
0 90,000
90 000 90,000
90 000 90,000
90 000 90,000
90 000 90,000
90 000
285,087 375,087 344,970 260,580 393,396 358,580
0
90,000
59,883 Ͳ24,507 108,309 Ͳ16,507
massing option studies
exis ng massing
33
“Landscape Urbanism describes a disciplinary realignment currently underway in which
landscape replaces architecture as the basic building block of contemporary urbanism”
(Charles Waldheim, ‘Reference Manifesto’ in introduc on to the Landscape Urbanism Reader).
“Last April, upon a ending a remarkable conference at the Harvard GSD, I predicted
that it would be taken over in a coup. I recognized a classic La n American-style opera on. It was clear that the venerable Urban Design program would be eliminated
or replaced by Landscape Urbanism. Today, it is possible to confirm that the coup was
completed in September—and that it was a strategic masterpiece.”
(Andres Duany, Metropolis, November 3, 2010).
“Then to create places
Coralize
Means: exigency
Opening to all solicita ons
And variabili es of the ci zen
And concrete acts, precise and definite
Incorporated to this reality.”
(Guillermo Jullian on Mat Building, in Allard 22).
“Picasso could come to visit”
(Jonas Salk describing his vision for the Salk Ins tute in Steele 12).
34
9.
A
1. High Line Park. author photo
Case Studies
resilient ecosystem needs to have stable popula ons of the core group
of species and stable func on in terms of ability to propagate itself. For this to
happen, it must have a stable physical structure. This is the defini on of habitat: a physical structure which allows for the successful propaga on of a community. In developing the idea of a resilient campus suppor ng con nuing
high-level study of the marine environment, a program can be defined which
enumerates the variety and propor on of various func ons. However, in the
same way that neither a plant nursery nor a pet shop is an ecosystem, a collec on of specified spaces does not inherently make an academic community.
The ques on becomes, what cons tutes resilient habitat for the RSMAS community? The following paragraphs examine the dialec c between formalism
and func onalism as generators of architectural and urban pa ern. Rather
than viewing them as mutually exclusive approaches, I would argue that they
are inherently complementary.
The two pairs of text above illustrate two separate but overlapping debates
on the nature of contemporary architecture and urban design. At the urban
design scale, Landscape Urbanism is challenging the formalist basis of New
Urbanism in favor of a fluid reading of urban space which emphasizes interconnec vity of infrastructure and ecological systems overlaid with site specific
narra ve reference. The first reference is an excerpt from Charles Waldheim’s
introduc on the Landscape Urbanism Reader, a collec on of essays which
suggest a framework for meaningful urbanism in the post-industrial city. The
emphasis is on reappropria on of the horizontal plane, replacing the insustrialized asphalted ground plane with contemporary gardens which provide ecological func on in addi on to providing space for social interac on. Andres
Duany has explicitly cri cized this movement for its inability to address quesons of architectural density, spa al hierarchy, and func onal efficiency which
cons tute important elements of New Urbanist theory. That he sees it as a
threat to the supremacy of New Urbanism is an indica on of the resonance of
the Landscape Urbanist approach in contemporary culture, as well as the connuing percep on that urban design theories are mutually exclusive. I would
argue that both theories provide valuable tools for analyzing and designing the
contemporary city, and are in fact quite complementary.
high line park
An example of the successful integra on of ideals from both camps can be
found in the redevelopment of New York’s High Line. A mile long ribbon of
green floa ng over Manha an’s Lower West Side, the High Line opened to the
public in June 2009. The High Line is the glamorous cousin of the “rails to trails”
projects which have gradually been transforming disused rail corridors into
linear public open spaces. Combining an innova ve design, high quality materials, and me culous quality of construc on, the ini al sec on of the High Line
Park has become a showpiece of contemporary urban public space. However,
underneath the showy visuals lies a though ul strategy for the transi on of an
underu lized industrial quarter into a vibrant mixed-use urban neighborhood
with the park at its heart. While the spectacular Manha an loca on is unique,
the project represents a scalable and replicable approach for catalyzing redevelopment of centrally located industrial districts.
Running from West 34th Street south to Gansevoort Street, a block east of
the Hudson River, the High Line was constructed in 1934. The 1.5 mile rail line
was elevated 30 feet to separate industrial rail ac vity from surface streets.
The line was placed mid-block north to south in order to avoid the blight associated with elevated subways (Friends of the High Line, 2010). The railroads
owned an elevated easement, but the land underneath and air rights con nued to be a ached to adjacent lots. This created a unique urban pa ern which
has impacted contemporary op ons for redevelopment.
By the 1980’s the line was unused and owners of adjacent proper es formed
Chelsea Property Owners, Inc. promo ng demoli on in order to facilitate redevelopment of their land. However, rail preserva on advocates fought the
demoli on, and in 1999 neighborhood residents Joshua David and Robert
Hammond founded the non-profit Friends of the High Line, seeking redevelopment of the structure as a unique public open space. Despite the concern of
adjacent owners, poli cal support for a public adap ve re-use and the lack of
open space in that por on of the city led to a commitment from the City and
the State to preserve the line. (Design Trust, 7)
35
2. High Line route. adapted from google
Designed by James Corner Field Opera ons and Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the
park combines sleek pavement and furnishings with wispy eclec c plan ngs
meant to evoke the weeds which were colonizing the abandoned elevated rail
line. The lightness of form and material emphasizes the solidity of the original
suppor ng structure giving “weight” to historical memory (figures 1,3). The
park spaces are loosely programmed but mul -func onal, providing an aesthe cally appealing pedestrian route as well as space for lounging, viewing
the city and river, and taking in informal music and art events. Ecologically,
the park serves as both patch and corridor, a linear habitat element for birds
and insects created by an isolated island of vegeta on. The non-hierarchical
nature of the design allows for unlimited future expansion, implicitly valuing
flexibility and connec vity over autonomy of the ar s c endeavor.
3. High Line Park. author photo
on together, suppor ng Landscape Urbanist ideals of socially, ecologically,
and historically referen al landscape in the context of the dense mul -use
urban structure advocated by the New Urbanists.
In the example of High Line Park the open space repurposes what was an
anomalous open patch within non-hierarchichal grid matrix. By crea ng a moment of importance in that patch, the grid is given hierarchy through a gradient of proximity to the new space. It is the interplay of infrastructure, site
specific open space, and built urban fabric which gives meaning for Landscape
Urbanist and New Urbanist readings.
Despite safety concerns about urban open spaces segregated from the street,
the park has been immensely popular from the start. Combining cri cal and
popular favor, the park has become an instant “monument,” a spa ally explicit
icon which serves as an urban reference point. This is the key point of convergence with New Urbanist ideas. As a monument the park becomes a catalyst
around which new or repurposed urban fabric can be structured.
36
A West Chelsea Special Zoning District was created, and specific formal guidelines were wri en to guide the development of adjacent structures. An es mated $2 billion has been invested in the neighborhood as a result of development of the park (HR&A), sugges ng that the park has had significant impact
on the surrounding architectural fabric. The zoning guidelines emphasize a
mix of uses with retail and gallery space at the ground level of office and residen al towers, and aim to protect the diversity of use in the neighborhood
while assuring consistency of form (NYC Zoning Code Ar cle IX, Ch. 8 98-00 to
98-25). In this way it seems that the park and surrounding urban district func4. High Line Park and W Hotel. author photo
kilometro rosso
Both theore cal structures purport to address both center-urban and peripheral condi ons. An interes ng example of the peripheral condi on can be
seen in Jean Nouvel’s Red Wall project in Bergamo Italy. Located along the
A3, an eight-lane limited access highway, the site consisted originally of an
exposed grouping of low-rise research buildings. Nouvel’s scheme lines the
A3 with a kilometer long red wall roughly five meters high. The wall creates
structure at the scale of infrastructure, a landscape piece which stands up to
the highway and creates protec ve shelter from it. New research buildings are
aligned perpendicular to the wall to create a series of comfortably scaled open
spaces. The central open spaces are more park-like with lawn and sca ered
canopy trees, while the landscapes into which the wall terminates have been
developed as constructed marshes.
1 exis ng urbaniza on
2 autostrada introduced
3 freestanding commercial space linked to highway
4 red wall added blocking wind and noise, crea ng south facing space
5. project views, Lotus
The wall, a landscape interven on of post-industrial scale and character thus
mediates the effect of the highway and creates a zone for habitable gardens
and more delicate architecture behind. In this way the interplay between
infrastructure and landscape emerging from the Landscape Urbanist toolkit
creates space which can be urbanized with the structure and scale more commonly addressed in New Urbanism. The drama c length of the red wall suggests the linear and indeterminate character of the autostrada, but in fact has
a beginning and end, and carefully located penetra ons. This provides the
transi on in scale and spa al defini on which allows transforma on of landscape and infrastructure into garden and building.
5 commercial campus forms in protected space behind wall
6 buildings infill along wall
7 commercial ‘village’ develops along wall
8 exis ng urban fabric grows, connec ng to highway uses.
6. par sketch, author
7. site redevelopment sequence, author
8. Venice Hospital model, from Allard
venice hospital
Landscape Urbanism is only the most recent manifesta on of a con nuing
search for a design framework which can accommodate the fluid and complex
nature of the modern city and its vast horizontal spread. The second pair of
quotes above references differing approaches to this ques on at a more architectural scale. The first is from Guillermo Jullian, a protégé of Le Corbusier
and his collaborator on the 1964 proposal for a hospital in Venice. Having just
returned from a Team 10 conference, Jullian became interested in models of
organic growth as form-givers for architecture (Allard 20). “Then to create
places Coralize” suggests an interest in the repeatable and scalable forms we
now call fractals.
The plan for the hospital consisted of horizontally layered programma c strata
organized around a series of repeatable courtyards. Extending from medieval Vene an fabric out over the water, the design recalled the texture of the
old city while proposing a formal system which could adapt to the complex
and dynamic demands of a large modern ins tu on. Like a coral, the overall
structure was generalized and non-hierarchical while the specific elements –
pa ent rooms, opera ng theaters etc. -- were carefully detailed to serve their
specific func ons. The low, inward-looking hospital complex would appear to
grow naturally from the exis ng city, eschewing the heroic modernism generally associated with Le Corbusier.
Jullien made the analagy to coral in reference to a larger discussion about organically formed architecture, but it is par cularly apt for the Venice hospital. As the hospital is built largely over water, the buildings are free to take
the form which emerges naturally from func onal and programma c requirements. Rather than exis ng within, the buildings create their own urban structure. The biological analagy is also evident in the ver cal layering of the plan.
The first level contains primarilly outpa ent func ons, while the top level is
designed for flexible placement of inpa ent wards (figure 8). Sandwiched between is a mezzanine devoted to circula on and service, a kind of vascular
system for the hospital.
38
In a way, this approach has es to the current interest in parametric design.
Yet, there is also a strong sense of his rical reference, as if a piece of the gene c code of old Venice has be implanted into the work. The scale and rythm
of the courtyards echoes the adjacent fabric, while the organic adaptabli y of
the plan carries with it some of the spontaneous quality of an evolved place.
9.. upper level and mezzanine plans, Le Corbusier from Allard
salk institute
Almost exactly contemporary to the Venice hospital proposal, is
Louis Kahn’s iconic Salk Ins tute. Completed in 1966, the project is an altar to the scien st-hero cult of a confident post-war
America. Where the Venice hospital references the common matrix of the city, the Salk ins tute alludes to the temple-framed
central spaces of ancient Greek ci es like Ephesus, simultaneously celebra ng civic achievement, and humbling it in rela on
to the vast ocean beyond. Like Le Corbusier, Kahn is also intent
on enhancing the space of the individual within the complex. The
serrated facades give expression to the spaces of individual study
which form the heart of the program. Yet the individual units
are clearly subordinate to the powerful axial central plaza, and
the dialog established between civilized humanity and mys cal
ocean. Salk’s desire for a place “Picasso could come to visit” is
sa sfied by Kahn’s presenta on of a “complete” work of art.
Like Le Corbusier, Kahn uses sec onal layering to separate infrastructural space from primary spaces. Mezzanine mechanical
spaces are sandwiched between primary levels containing open
labs and individual studies. Within each floor, spaces are le open
to allow for maximum flexibility (figure 9). Flexibility is given at
the scale of large indiviual rooms which are contained within a
strictly defined plan diagram. This differs from the Venice hospital plan where individual workspaces are more proscribed, but
the overall structure is adaptable.
The contrast between the “Mat Building” approach to Venice
hospital and the formal symmetrical hierarchy of the Salk ins tute provides an interes ng parallel to the current debate between organically inspired Landscape Urbanism, and the formalist basis of New Urbanism. Mat buildings are flexible, adaptable,
democra c. They could also seem labyrinthine, herme c, and
pedestrian. The Classical formalism of the Salk Ins tute is legible,
engaging, and inspiring, but also rigid and difficult to adapt. Its
reliance on formal harmony subjugates the individual user and his
or her changing requirements.
10. Salk Ins tute courtyard, Steele
11.. Salk Ins tute typical lab wing sec on and plan, Steele
applicability to RSMAS
The four case studies referenced above all seek to balance funconal structure and narra ve reference to create meaningful urban districts. A resilient campus community will have to address
the changing func onal requirements of a complex ins tu on.
However, it will also have to have a legible structure which gives
form to the dreams and desires of the community. As Central
Park or the High Line give meaning to the Manha an grid, or
Saarinen’s hall gives meaning to flight at JFK Airport, func onal
matrices can be inflected by spaces which give meaning to the
whole.
39
40
Works Cited
Abramovitz-Harris-Kingsland. Master Plan: RosensƟel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. New York. 1979.
Steele, James. Salk InsƟtute: Louis I Kahn. Architecture in Detail Series. London: Phaidon Press. Print.
Allard, Pablo. “Bridge Over Venice.” Case: Le Corbusier’s Venice Hospital and
the mat building revival. Ed. Hashim Sarkis with Pablo Allard and Timothy
Hyde. Munich: Prestel, 2001. 18-35. Print.
Waldheim, Charles. “Introduc on: A Reference Manifesto.” Landscape Urbanism Reader. Princeton NJ: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. 13-19.
Print.
American Ins tute of Architects. AIA Code of Ethics. Web. December 15, 2010.
h p://www.aia.org/about/ethicsandbylaws.
Yehle, Jean. “The History of the Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science: 1940-2010.” University of Miami, 2010. Web. 2 December 2010.
h p://www.rsmas.miami.edu/about-rsmas/history/
Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. Final Submission for RosensƟel School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science. Cambridge MA. 2005.
---. Pre-SchemaƟc Design Drawings: Marine Technology and Life Sciences Seawater Research Building. Cambridge MA. 2010
Design Trust for Public Space. Public Space Makers: The Future of the High
Line. Conference Proceedings. New York: Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey World Trade Center. 2001. Online.
Duany, Andres. “Duany vs Harvard GSD.” Metropolis. Web. 11 November
2010. h p://www.metropolismag.com/pov/20101103/duany-vs-harvardgsd
EDSA Virginia Key Master Plan Fort Lauderdale FL. Sept. 2009.
Evernden, Neil. The Social CreaƟon of Nature. Bal more: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1992. Print.
Friends of the High Line. “Official Website of the High Line.” Web. 27 Oct. 2010.
<h p://www.thehighline.org>.
Friends of Miami Marine Stadium
Harlem, Peter Wayne. Aerial Photographic InterpretaƟon of the Historical
Changes in Northern Biscayne Bay, Florida: 1925 to 1976. Sea Grant Technical Bulle n No. #40. Miami: University of Miami, December 1979. Print.
HR&A Advisors Inc. “Transforming the High Line.” Web. 27 Oct. 2010. <h p://
www.hraadvisors.com/projects/highline.shtml>.
Editoriale Lotus “Kilometro Rosso.” Lotus 139 (2009). Print.
Miami-Dade County Adopted 2015-2025 Comprehensive Development Master
Plan. Miami. Miami-Dade County. 2010. Online.
New York City. Department of Planning. Establishment of West Chelsea Special
District. Zoning Code. Ar cle IX, Chapter 8. New York City: 2005. Online.
41
final design documents
Resilience
An investigation of Tropical Coastal Community
University of Miami Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences:
toward a socially, intellectually, and ecologially resilient coastal campus
Robert Lloyd
University of Miami School of Architecture Master of Architecture Thesis
Resilient Community
As urban designers think about natural systems as a metaphor for human development, vocabulary from the biological sciences has been adopted by architects,
and taken on new meaning. ConservaƟon biologists have been interested in the idea of resilience – that is the capacity of a given ecosystem to maintain its essenƟal characterisƟcs despite stressors including changing environmental condiƟons. Stressors can be events of short duraƟon and high intensity such as fire or
hurricane, or long term events such as the aging of a mature forest canopy.
The concept of resilience has also been applied to human communiƟes, and implies durability of a range of elements from economic and social stability to ability
of infrastructure to withstand the pressures of climate change. This thesis suggests that human communiƟes are inseparable from the natural communiƟes in
which they are set. Responsible development should consider the resilience of both.
The goal is to develop architectural and open space improvements which would help create a vibrant academic cluster in which to house a greater range of teaching, research, living, and recreaƟonal acƟviƟes than are served by the exisƟng campus. This expansion of architecture and infrastructure would be carried out
in a way which reduces the site’s vulnerability to storm events and climate change while enhancing ecological funcƟon and the site’s interacƟon with adjacent
natural areas.
f1
ecological
campus challenges/
proposed solutions
Virginia key was originally a valuable produc ve mangrove at the head of Biscayne Bay. The en re key is now filled. The area in proximity to the University’s marine campus as well as the Seaquarium is currently en rely paved for
parking. All ecological value is lost. In addi on, the paved areas contribute
to the heat island effect. The lack of vegeta on and topographic diversity
make the developed structures extremely vulnerable to storm events. Given
sea level rise and increasing ocean temperatures the frequency of storm
events are predicted to increase.
Atlantic
Ocean
Gulf of
Mexico
Solu ons:
Project Site
Miami Beach
Miami
Virginia Key
Rickenbacker Causeway
Bear Cut
Biscayne Bay
Key Biscayne
• Virginia Key as a gateway to Biscayne Bay Na onal Park
• Set Development Boundaries and create clearly defined research district in the
Southwest corner of the island
• Develop parking structures, shared parking and encourage transit to allow for
the conversion of the surface parking to park and restore natural areas
• Extend mangroves to restore east/west and north/south connec ons between
the Bay and Bear Cut
• Restore complete habitats where possible following established habitat types
• Restore habitat func on as feasible in developed areas by increasing tree cover,
replan ng mangroves, vegeta ng roofs, etc.
• Minimize pavement, shade required paved areas to minimize heat island effect
• Excavate to restore hydrology favorable to mangroves, berms created from excava on spoils can be vegetated with coastal strand plants to protect developed
area from coastal hazards
physical
Campus buildings are obsolete in terms of plan, infrastructure and campus
urban design.
Plan:
• nterior circula on is currently ineffec ve or non-existent (e.g. closed cubicle
work spaces and labs)
• Poor rela onship to exterior
• Poor ven la on
Infrastructure
Land-Fill
Rickenbacker Marina
Hobie Beach
Wastewater Plant
Marine Stadium
Mast Academy
Virginia Key Beach Park
NOAA
Seaquarium
f2
RSMAS
NMFS
• Building systems are outdated and inefficient
• Lack of passive cooling op ons thus heavy reliance on air condi oning 12
months a year
• Refrigiera on of science equipment retrofit into circula on space crea ng addi onal heat load and inefficient opera on
• Limited dayligh ng and interior corridors do not func on during power outage
• Ground floor spaces not designed for storm surge or weather event
• Servicing spaces is difficult and o en presented with a lack of flexibility
Urban design
• Lack of interior/exterior central gathering space
• Parking dominates ground plane
• Front/rear building rela onships are not well defined and orchestrated
institutional
RSMAS is a well respected top level ins tu on, but research and teaching take
place in very fragmented, siloized ways. Faculty and students work on a range
of marine and climate topics, but the school lacks a coherent sense of mission
with regards to sustainability – humanis c values, connec on and purpose for
local region. Lack of communica on between researchers diminishes potenal for learning synergies. A resilient ins tu on will have diversity of output
within a clear values framework as well as strong communica on between
members. Strong academic ins tu ons usually engage with their communies/regions which provide students, staff, and a learning environment –they
need to act as engaged corporate ci zens.
Solu on:
• Create more open lab and learning space.
• Reverse par of major buildings so that circula on is on exterior and facing on
to posi ve open spaces.
• Add housing to allow for core resident community, visi ng scholars, and more
informal campus life which can strengthen community sensibility.
• Facilitate the connec on between campus and its neighbors through improved
physical connec ons, provision of common space for shared mee ngs and conferences, enhance connec ons to natural physical context.
design inspiration
• Ruins and tents: meless structures with adaptable skin
• Structure of buildings inspired by marine forms (e.g. coral forms, whale and
skeletons)
program
As has been outlined earlier, this project will use rela vely expansive defini on
of program. Specific site and building interven ons will be designed with an
eye to the immediate func onal needs of the School, but also with reference
to the idea of resilient community. The proposal will include a combina on of
structure, site and landscape interven ons which will support the school in its
growth, as well as suppor ng the Virginia Key community and ecology.
Interven ons will include the four primary func onal elements:
1. Addi onal laboratory and research office space
•
•
•
•
•
+/- 60,000sf
Replace and update capacity of buildings to be removed
Provide addi onal capacity in specific areas
Emphasis on flexibility of space, and infrastructure adaptability
Hierarchy of systems, maximize passive strategies, fully condi oned space only
where needed
• Strong physical and visual connec ons to site
• Minimize vulnerability to sea level rise and storm events
2. Indoor and outdoor conference and social areas
• +/- 10,000sf
• Seminar spaces, larger informal gathering areas
• Strong connec on to outdoor spaces
3. Indoor Housing for graduate students and visi ng scholars
• 24 units
• 400-800sf range for units
• Housing placement to enhance sense of community and extend ac ve use of
public areas
• Design for adaptability to changing housing needs of community
• Design for natural thermal comfort
4. Coastal landscape and mangrove restora on cells for habitat crea on and
research
• U lize at-grade and roo op spaces for poten al habitat develpment
• Design spaces in modular way to maximize poten al for quan ta ve urban
ecological research
• Design to explicitly specified and achievable habitat and ecological func onal
goals
Site planning improvements will address the following:
•
•
•
•
Delinea on of posi ve common open spaces
Strengthening of visual connec ons to the Bay
Improving circula on hierarchy and clarity
Development of pedestrian and habitat areas as primary over parking and
vehicular circula on
• Enhancing openness and connec vity with adjacent uses while respec ng
safety and security of the campus community
f3
site master plan
Hobie Beach
To Marine Stadium, Causeway,
and Downtown Miami
legend
excavated flood channel
•
•
planted with mangrove
restores hydrologic connectivity across island
berm with native plantings
•
•
created with excavation spoils
provides flood barrier
bridge
•
•
open steel grating allows light and encourages fish passage
grating slows vehicular traffic and marks pedestrian crossing
bicycle path
•
raised on crest of berm where possible for enhanced landscape views
primary pedestrian connections
service access
proposed future structured
parking and additional marine
research space
NOAA
to Virginia Key Beach Park
NMFS
Miami Seaquarium
f4
RSMAS
legend
Future Seawater Lab
Grosvenor North
(proposed library and labs)
Proposed
visi ng scholars housing
Administra on
Grosvenor South
(proposed group office and classrooms)
Proposed mangrove research ponds
Doherty
black indicates area of interven on
sec on cut
typical floor plans
and section
lab ven la on and exhaust
study mezzanine
library stacks
reading room
laboratory
laboratory
office
open service core
field equipment
tanks (modified from exis ng)
f6
grosvenor north transformation
office
office
faculty and graduate student work areas
(grosvenor south)
library stacks
laboratories
(grosvenor north)
reading room
library (grosevenor north new 4th level)
seminar and lecture space
visi ng scholar housing
typical floor plans
grosvenor north
transformation
shell
labs and core
library stacks and mezzanine
f8
shading structures
skin
f9
circulation
interior circula on
service core closed
workspace with no natural light
interior circula on
no cross-ven la on
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
circulation
program
f10
existing
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
exterior circula on
• shades workspaces
• creates ac ve visual connec on to landscape
spaces
service core open
• visual connec on between lab spaces
• ease of servicing
consolodated workspaces
•
•
•
•
all have natural light
cross ven la on
program flexibility
ease of servicing for data and specialized lab
requirements
proposed
residen al - levels 2-6 (visi ng scholars)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
f11
climate comfort
exis ng condi ons
• all spaces fully air-condi oned
• no natural ven la on
• minimal sensory connec on to landscape and
adjacent Biscayne Bay
• high u lity costs
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
full air-conditioning
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
ventilation control (adjustable louvers, fans)
simple shading
f12
existing
grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
exterior circula on
• creates shaded buffer zone
• minimizes heat gain for condi oned space
fully air-condi oned space
• reserved for areas with specific climate conrol
requirements (ie. library stacks, laboratories)
semi-condi oned space
• oriented to provide access to prevailing onshore
breeze
• light and ven la on control through louver systems
proposed
residen al - levels 2-6 (visi ng scholars)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
f13
social interaction
exis ng condi ons
• spaces highly fragmented
• minimal interac on between individual researchers and between disciplines
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
common spaces
shared workspaces
private office
f14
existing
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
open office space
• efficient and flexible space alloca on
• exchange between faculty and
students of different disciplines
private office space
open reading room
• flexible use for phone calls or
mee ngs
• can be asssigned to faculty or
lab leaders
• flexibly programmed common space
• could be used for variety of RSMAS or UM
func ons as well as quiet study
• allows for increased interac on between “interior” and “landscape”
open laboratory floors
• space can be flexibly reconfigured depending
on changing research programs and funding
levels
• students and researchers from different
disciplines can interact socially and intellectually fostering exchange of knowledge and
strengthening of community
proposed
residen al - levels 2-6 (visi ng scholars)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
f15
laboratory ven la on stacks
campus entry
metal mesh skin
mezzanine level view/ven la on slots
steel frame aligned with floorplates
and column grid
wooden louvers
• screen circula on and lab spaces
• provide visual contrast to steel and
concrete
existing
proposed
visi ng scholars residences
• add vital residen al component to
campus
• increase u liza on of exis ng campus
facili es
• anchor loca on ac vates courtyard
between Grosvenor and Doherty
• narrow courtyard form enhances venturi
effect allowing for natural ven la on of
individual units
vegetated screen shelters east and west
exposures
larger scale wooden shade system
exposed concrete frame
raised walkways
• connect exis ng primary level of Administra on and Doherty
• add shade for ground level pathways
• provide circula on network above flood
level
restored na ve landscape systems
new entry stair
• provides access to raised
first floor
• creates visual linkage
between Grosvenor and
Administra on buildings
f16
open lab spaces
library/campus great room
• “screened porch” for campus
• shared parking agreement and/or future
structured parking at Seaquarium frees
up ground level land
• habitat crea on
• flood a enua on
• urban-ecological research opportunity
library/
campus great room
steel “v” roof structure
• borrows from shipbuilding techniqe to
frame curved roof plane
• thin profile for lightness
• influenced by skeletel structure of marine
life
adjustable steel louver system
• flexible for op mum light and ven la on
control on south eleva on
existing
proposed
metal mesh skin
• filters sunlight
• capillary barrier for rainwater
• welded mesh shear membrane provides
lateral resistence
“picture windiow”
• large opening in front of casual study area
privides focal point for gathering space
and emphasizes water view
ver cal core
• laboratory exhaust stacks
• plumbing needs and bathrooms
• protected areas for storage during
storms
• “chimney form” provides anchor for
open plan spaces
• cast in place concrete visual contrast to
glass stacks and steel shading systems
library stacks and staff offices
• glass enclosure allows for full climate and
humidity control while retaining visual
connec ons
f18
waterfront
quadrangles
visi ng scholars residen al tower
existing
proposed
restored hydrologic connec on between
bay and center-island mangroves
• learning park for Seaquarium
• tropical urban ecology research area for
University of Miami
• creates buffer zone for storm and flood
events
• restores na ve plant communi es
restored grosvenor north with library/great
room addi on
restored grosvenor south
• open to water views and natural ven laon
• open office space and water-view classroom/mee ng space
• green roof provides habitat and cooling
effect
• vegeta on screens and cools east and
west walls
elevated walkways
• connect primary building levels
• provided shade for grade-level paths
• create raised circula on system in case of
flooding
mangrove research cells
f20
• excavated zone behind exis ng seawall
• controlled water level for research purposes
• receiving zone during mes of flooding