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 Objecve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1. Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
ethical pracce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
urbanism and “nature” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
responsible development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
resilient community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
virginia key development history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
environmental history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
9. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
high line park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
kilometro rosso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
venice hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
salk instute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
applicability to RSMAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Final Design Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f1
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 - crique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
master planning crique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 Definion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Overall Objective
rosensel 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

2
1. Doherty building and campus waterfront 2. typical lab, Grosvenor East

ethical practice
1.
Resilience
Tropical Coastal Development
and Ecosystem Health
While architects have contributed in many ways to the richness of contemporary
culture, we have also been complicit in the transformaon 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 obligaon to pracce 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 obligaon to design for a physically, socially,
and ecologically sound future.
Nowhere is this more evident than in resort cies like Miami, where the natural
resources which spurred development have been so quickly and dramacally
altered. There is no way back. However, this thesis proposes a way forward
which allows for the dynamic evoluon 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 wrien extensively about the arficiality
of our concept of “Nature,” meaning everything which exists outside the
human sphere. In The Social Creaon 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 assumpon that humans exist outside or
above the rest of nature. Yet the system-oriented foundaon 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 conservaon planning, while architects and planners are giving
increasing priority to ecological funcons as criteria for design.
Coastal cies 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 characteriscs, and species interacons,
coastal zones are among the most crical and biologically producve places on
earth. They are arguably the most threatened.
3

esilient 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. Conservaon biologists have been
interested in the idea of resilience – that is the capacity of a given ecosystem
to maintain its essenal characteriscs despite stressors including changing
environmental condions. Stressors can be events of short duraon 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 communies, 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 communies are inseparable from the natural
communies in which they are set. Responsible deve opment should consider
the resilience of both.
responsible development
5. community workshop, author
Humans, perhaps the planet’s most impacul 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 selement thus originated as a pragmac soluon to the
habitat problem of a terrestrial species dependent on marine resources. As
a species, we are sll heavily dependent on the producvity of marine ecosystems.
However, selement and habitaon of the coastal zone is no longer
primarily driven by nutrional or economic necessity. The majority of coastal
development is now driven by humans’ aesthec 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, recreaonal
swimming, and access to expansive views and light.
From an ecological standpoint, resilience is oen associated with biodiversity.
The more diversity in a system, the more its essenal elements overlap, creating
redundancy which allows for connuing funcon of the system if a parcular
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-eang species. Resilience is also
associated with abundance. If a stressor causes a certain level of mortality in
a species, a larger populaon will increase likelihood that a minimum viable
populaon survives.
Resilient design incorporates some of the same principles. For example, a resilient
building would be designed for natural venlaon lessening dependence
on centralized climate control, a resilient economy would contain a range of
producve acvity, lessening dependence on any single sector.
4
While the praccal necessity of coastal living has decreased over me, the
extent of selement, and its impact on ecological funcon 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 aesthec reasons, it seems
that there is a moral imperave to make our presence in the coastal zone as
posive as possible from an ecological perspecve. At the same me, coastal
development contains some of our most culturally important urban fabric.

virginia key development history
Univesity of Miami’s Rosensel 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 beer k nown Key B is c ay ne
(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 residenal and tourist development, Virginia Key retained large areas of
undeveloped open space, while the balance was divided into large parcels developed
for public or instuonal purposes.
Gulf of
Mexico
Project Site
Atlantic
Ocean
1. Biscayne Bay Aerial, Google
2.
Site History
Miami
Miami
Beach
Rickenbacker
Causeway
Virginia Key
Biscayne Bay
Bear Cut
Key Biscayne
5

Biscayne
Bay
Land-Fill
Rickenbacker Marina
Hobie Beach
Marine Stadium
Wastewater Plant
Mast Academy
Virginia Key Beach Park
Biscayne
Bay
NOAA
Seaquarium
NMFS
RSMAS
Bear Cut
Atlantic
Ocean
6
2. Virginia Key Aerial, Google

Virginia Key currently contains the following primary uses:
recreaon
• 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 recognion of the stadium’s cultural value beyond the Miami community
(figure 3). The arficial lagoon to the north of the stadium separates the recreaonal
zone along the causeway from the natural and infrastructure uses to
the north.
Situated at the south end of Virginia Key, the Rosensel School is part of a
somewhat accidental complex of marine related research acvity. Located
across the Rickenbacker Causeway are regional research centers for the Na-
onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Associaon, and the Naonal 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 facilies designed
to emphasize educaon and marine research.
3. Marine Stadium, Friends of Miami Marine Stadium
research
• US Naonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Associaon Atlanc
Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA)
• Naonal Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science
Center (NMFS)
• University of Miami Rosensel 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 acve wastewater treatment
plant is screened by a forested strip facing Virginia Key Beach Park. The
historic park served African Americans from 1945 unl desegregaon 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
recreaonal use stressing low-impact beach acvies 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 recreaonal facili-
es. 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 addion 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 lisng on the World Monuments Fund 2010 watch list
7

environmental history
As is typical of barrier islands, Virginia Key is a naturally dynamic enty whose
form and character fluctuates over me. Anthropogenic changes to the Biscayne
Bay ecosystem have supplanted hurricanes and natural dal fluctua-
ons 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 urbanizaon of the region
over the 20th century. The Miami mainland consists of a limestone ridge which
separates the Everglades from the Bay and the Atlanc 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 fluctuang current and dal ac-
vity (Harlem 26). In the 1930’s dredging and wall construcon 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 jees
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 poron of the island was altered by the
construcon of the Marine Stadium lagoon. The southern poron of the island
was cleared for the Seaquarium, RSMAS campus, and federal facilies 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

VIRGINIA KEY
KEY BISCAYNE
6. Biscayne Bay land cover changes 1925-1976, adapted from Harlem
9
VIRGINIA KEY
KEY BISCAYNE

10
7. Virginia Key 1960’s, Yehle

3.
Campus History
1. Agassiz Building, Yehle. Note exisng mangrove behind
newly placed fill.
rsmas campus development
choice of site
The University of Miami marine laboratory was formally established in
1943, and its inial home was in a private boathouse on Miami Beach. The
research team grew, and through a series of contracts with state and commercial
conservaon and marine resource interests, the instuon 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 contribuons
from the fishing and boang community and through newspaper appeals.
the structure resembled the architecture of 1930’s Miami Beach. However,
the structure was elevated a full story, acknowledging its exposed locaon.
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 potenal (figure 3).
academic core
Over the next decade, the three secons of Grosvenor were constructed, allowing
for consolidaon of the marine library, laboratories, and offices into
3. Collier and Agassiz from Bear Cut 1955, Yehle
2. Agassiz interior showing open plan and exposed
structure andservices, 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, creang a literal connecon between the
scienfic life of the University and its physical context. A simple stuccoed concrete
volume with jalousie windows and a connuous 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 addional
two levels. Built with a combinaon 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 secons 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 lile
cue from their tropical waterfront locaon. 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 lile cross-venlaon.
Low floor-to-floor heights emphasized the horizontality of the structure, but
limited space for horizontal distribuon of ulies and for convecve cooling
in a hot climate. Had they been built, the upper levels of North Grosvenor
would have had beer potenal to gain views and breeze from the Bay.
6. Grosvenor East entry, Yehle
4. Founder Walton Smith on tractor, 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 connecon to the site. This core complex was completed with
the construcon of Glassell in 1966. With an open ground level, two levels of
labs, plus rooop salt-water seling tanks, the bar building created a vercal
element perpendicular to the original low-slung waterfront labs (figure 9). The
upper levels were marked by an extended concrete frame. The south eleva-
on facing the water had no windows, relying on an abstract paern of scored
stucco to break down the scale. Period photographs show a parking lot covering
most of the remaining available space.
7. Campus entry c. 1960, Yehle
12
ancillary buildings
Meanwhile, three small buildings were added in 1960, on an axis perpendicular
to the bay. The three two story structures were an operaons building,
a small dormitory, subsequently converted to the trium laboratory, and a
refrigeraon building (figures 11-14). These were ulitarian concrete structures,
narrow bar buildings, slight elevaon from exisng grade and concrete
overhangs being the only concessions to climac condions. 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, seng up unresolved spaal rela-
onships 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).
9. Glassell from Bear Cut, author
campus completed
The next major structure came in 1971 with construcon of the Doherty Marine
Sciences Center. Hugging the west edge of the site, the three level building
rose up behind the operaons building with an elevated entry courtyard
and a series of exposed stairways. Deep overhangs, varied floor heights, and
vercal concrete brise-soleil place the building in the Brutalist school popular
10. Glassell showing laboratory floors below third floor seling tanks, author
13. Campus 1969, Yehle. Note full hardening of shoreline.
11. Operaons building, author
14. Dormitory 1959, Yehle. Now Trium Lab.
13

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 orientaon, the building is also the most
specifically responsive to the site. A cafeteria and bar open to the waterfront
deck, and as the only intenonally 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 Administraon Building
(SLAB) building was completed in 1985 and now houses the library, administraon
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 (Cooperave Instute
for Marine & Atmospheric Science).
16. Doherty, Commons space, Yehle
14
15. Doherty from Bear Cut, author 17. Doherty courtyard, author

The Administraon building echoes the Tropicalist features of Doherty with
deep overhangs, extensive exterior circulaon, and a covered pao space facing
Bear Cut. Parking is contained beneath the elevated structure. In contrast
to the durable concrete construcon of many other campus buildings,
the Administraon building contains a large amount of steel structure with
non-structural stucco cover panels. This system has not held up well under the
climac condions of the site (Ray pers com).
19. Administraon Building Model, Abramovitz
20. Administraon Building construcon, Yehle
18. Administraon Building Rendering, Abramovitz
21. Administraon Building detail, author
15

uildings: interior
• Poorly defined entry and common areas
• Limited informal meeng space
• Limited light and connecon between indoors and
outdoor spaces
• Interior circulaon cramped, disorienng
• Wayfinding difficult
• Limited opporunity for interacon between offices
• Center corridor plan limits flexibility of lab layout
as opposed to external circulaon which leaves full
building depth flexible
• Light and venlaon restricted
• New ulity and equipment requirements poorly
interfaced with exisng structures
• Equipment has been added in corridors and common
areas constraining space and ease of movement
• Refrigeraon equipment located within air-condi-
oned space (equipment radiates heat into mechanically
cooled space)
• Ad hoc addions of equipment harder to maintain
and lower operang efficiency than centrally integrated
systems
buildings: exterior
• Enclosure of formerly open ground levels and accumulated
storage vulnerable and potenally dangerous
in flood or storm events
• Ground level views and airflow blocked
• Aesthecs compromised
• Awkward relaonship between newer and older
buildings
• Interior and exterior experienal quality diminished
• Original views and venlaon blocked
16

site: connections
• Poor connecons to adjacent instuons (fence to
Seaquarium, Rickenbacker to NOAA, NMFS
• Roadway and parking dominate entry experience
• Campus open spaces have limited physical and visual
connecon to Bear Cut
• No linkage between adjacent waterfronts or pedestrian-friendly
connecon to Virginia Key Beach Park
site: internal
4.
Campus Constraints
useability
• Parking and driveway dominate the site
• No clear pedestrian zone
• No defined outdoor gathering space
• Circulaon connects buildings to parking, but connec-
ons between buildings unclear
• Awkward relaonships between front and rear of
adjacent buildings
• Site planng, paving, and hardscape treatment lacking
in hierarchy
• Wayfinding difficult
ecology
• All original site vegetaon removed
• Pavement covers most unbuilt porons of site
• Planted areas have lile species variety, lile habitat
value
17

id building name date sq. .
1101 DohertyMarineScienceCenter(named) 1971 50,806
1102 CIMASBuilding 1980 9,888
1103 CentralChiller/IcePlant 1995 6,700
1172 ShadeHouse 2004 3,744
1107 AplysiaRearingFacility(VKBeachRd.) 1979 3,479
1110 CollierBuilding(Named) g( 1954 4,678
1115 GrosvenorSouth(Named) 1957 25,890
1116 GrosvenorEast(Named) 1960 8,926
1120 OperationsBuilding 1960 4,413
1125 RefrigerationBuilding(storage) 1960 672
1130 ServiceBuilding(builtastemporary) 1968 7,932
1135 TritiumLabBuilding(builtasdormitory) g( 1961 4,066
1148 GlassellBuilding(named) 1966 21,695
1164 GrosvenorNorth(designedfor2morefloors) 1966 49,574
1170 ScienceLabandAdministrationBuilding(SLAB) 1985 82,624
Total 285,087
Source: RSMAS Facilies Management
22. Exisng Campus rendering, University of Miami 23. Building Inventory, RSMAS Facilies Management

Miami-Dade Water & Sewer
5.
Planning Context
Federal Agencies
Miami-Dade Schools
University of Miami
City or County Parks
1. Land ownership
land ownership
The 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 contribuon
to the general urban context. The site is located in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County, and is listed as unzoned. With excepon 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 Recreaon
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 parcular relevance to Virginia
Key. Perhaps the most impacul is the introducon to the Conservaon
element of the plan which states “The environmental sensivity of Miami-
Dade county is underscored by the fact that urban poron lies between two
naonal parks Everglades and Biscayne” (Miami-Dade, CDMP IV-1). This sec-
on also emphasizes the economic importance of environmental protecon in
light of the County’s reliance on tourism. The Coastal Management Element
emphasizes restoraon of coastal habitat, especially in areas which are poten-
al habitat corridors. Increasing public waterfront access is also menoned
(VI-9). The designated land uses for 2015 to 2025 are indicated in figure 2. The
RSMAS site is designated for instuonal use, but most of the island is designated
for parks and recreaon or environmentally protected park.
2. 2015 Land Use Plan, Miami-Dade County
19

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, wrien for the City by EDSA,
focuses exclusively on enhancing sports and recreaonal facilies. The plan
seems misguided from the outset. While the City controls only a poron of
the island, a coordinated plan should have been prepared with cooperaon
between City, County, and major instuonal stakeholders. Successful planning
for an 860 acre island cannot be conducted piecemeal.
The centerpiece of the plan is an acve playfields complex containg six soccer
fields, eight baseball diamonds, and a football field, along with running track
and tennis facilies (figure 3).
This kind of program seems ill conceived for several reasons:
• Locaon Creang a large campus for acve sports far from any populaon
center is not compable with the kind of mixed-use integrated
development called for in all the City’s planning documents. Coastal
park facilies should priorize water dependent recreaon.
• Environment Converng 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 acve public recreaonal
uses. This narrow definion of benefit reflects the self-identy of Miami as a
tourist oriented pleasure metropolis. Diversifying this self-concepon strikes
at the essence of increasing the resilience of the community as a whole.
20
3. Virginia Key Master Plan, EDSA for City of Miami

university of miami master
planning
While the mission of the instuon may be more
far reaching, master plans prepared for RSMAS
have focused on space allocaon and distribuon
within the exisng campus framework. Sll, 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-interrupon of ongoing
research work.
3. Creaon of a collegial environment.
4. Separaon of pedestrians and
vehicles.
5. Compactness and fullest ulizaon
of working space.
6. Simplified administraon of
research.
7. Reorganizaon, updang, and
beer ulizaon of energy distribuon
and ulity systems.
8. Beer Resoluon of the parking
problem.
9. Provision for limited recreaonal
space and explicit definion
of outdoor space.
10. An architectural statement of
significance on Virginia Key.
1979 plan
At the heart of this plan was the intensificaon
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
Administraon 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 demolion of the older buildings
along the water.
4. 1979 Rosensel Campus Master Plan, Abramovitz
5. Proposed quadrangle space, Abramovitz
21

6. Rendering from Rickenbacker entry, Cambridge Seven
2005
2005 master plan update
In 2005, Cambridge Seven Associates submied a revised master plan. Aer
a programming study, Cambridge Seven proposed a new structure along the
north edge of campus which essenally followed the 1979 plan. The major
variaon from the 1979 proposal was that a second east-west bar should be
constructed, creang 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).
22
2010
5. Master plan revisions (new in green), Cambridge Seven
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 elevaons 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 potenal 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 lighng. It seems that there is a missed opportunity to
design a modern research facility which is sll connected to the meless quali-
es of its subtropical locaon.
poor connecon to core of campus
With the main entry and common area at the east end of the building, there is
lile 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 venlaon or natural light
Internal corridors limit flexibility of plan
No entries or access to campus center
7. 2010 elevaons and secon,, 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 interacon
between RSMAS and the federal facilies, there is potenal for much greater
integraon of these instuons given the overlap in their respecve missions.
The Miami master plan for Virginia Key focuses primarily on redeveloping the
parks to increase their recreaonal potenal. However, the opportunity to
develop a more integrated community of top-level marine research and educaon
facilies holds potenal for creaon 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 educaon and research.
The adjacency of RSMAS to federal tropical research facilies, and
the potenal for Seaquarium and MAST Academy to deepen the rigor of their
missions, gives Virginia Key unique potenal to emerge as regional center for
tropical coastal science. In addion, 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 restorave
coastal development.
This cluster of academic and federal research facilies exists in only four other
places in the United States: La Jolla/San Diego, Monterrey, Seale and Woodshole
Massachuses. In all of these locaons, the concentraon of marine research
acvity has drawn other related academic and economic interests, and
has a significantly benefied the local economy through the creaon of highwage
technical jobs, and increased aracveness to educated entrepreneurial
residents. These places are models of economist Richard Florida’s asseron
that the most dynamic economic growth will occur in areas which combine
natural beauty, dynamic urban culture, and high level economic opportunity
(Florida reference)
While this project does not aempt to develop a revised master plan for Virginia
Key, or the RSMAS campus, the principles which guide it will be an integraon
of the values expressed in the various exisng 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 facilies for research (both indoor and site
based).
as per miami-dade county comprehensive planning
• Respect and enhance ecological funcon as per Miami-Dade County
comprehensive planning.
as per cty of miami virginia key master plan
• Enhance public access to waterfront.
• Create opportunies for non-motorized circulaon throughout the
Key.
addional principles
• Enhance visual and funconal connecon between campus and surrounding
urban and natural resources.
• Enhance potenal for programmac interacon between exisng
instuonal uses.
• Encourage development of the enre key as a laboratory for urban
ecological research.
24

6.
Site Analysis Summary
Perhaps 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 instuonal 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 Rosensel 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.
Occupying filled land at the edge of the bay, the Rosensel site epitomizes
Miami’s juxtaposion 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 enrely surrounded
by parking and roadway. Casual building placement fails to create posi-
ve outdoor spaces on the small site. Despite its spectacular seng,
the physical campus is an underwhelming home for a globally renowned
center of the marine environment.
Currently, several smaller buildings block visual, and to a certain extent physical
access to campus waterfront. Access to views, and connecon to water
for funconal research purposes will be an important design consideraon.
Ecological consideraon of the land/water interface will provide an addional
criterion by which to evaluate sing consideraons.
relaonship to virginia key
Finally, the Rosensel School should take beer advantage of its locaon. A
relavely 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.
increase richness and intensity
It seems that there is potenal to create a much more vibrant human
center, while also enhancing the campus open space and its relaon to
surrounding natural context. If the UM Main campus can be seen as
a park, an area of vegetaon, openness, and relief from the city, I can
envision the RSMAS campus as the opposite – a dense, rich cluster of
complex human acvity, set against parks and open space (figure 1).
um main campus
rsmas
The exisng campus was developed in a somewhat ad-hoc manner,
where buildings were added over me based on available space, but
without any overriding spaal organizaon. The two largest buildings
line the east and west edges of the site, and are of more recent construcon,
presumably funconally 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 scaered throughout the middle of
the site, and are all considered funconally 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 locaon and phased replacement of space in exisng buildings.
1. figure/ground - urban/green
25

site diagrams
relaon to causeway
primary axis
paved and open space
26
2. current site aerial, google

7.
Program Framework
An essenal characterisc of good architecture is the integraon of mulple
disparate program requirements into a unified composion. 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 essenal characteriscs
despite stressors including changing environmental condions.
Addressing the definion given above, there are three components. First I
will work with RSMAS to create a working list of “essenal characteriscs”
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
idenfy those which may be migated through architecture.
program criteria
A truly resilient campus will sasfy 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 transportaon in conjunc-
on with adjacent facilies, development of pedestrian and bicycle networks,
public waterfront access, visibility of RSMAS campus funcons to the public,
and program diversificaon including addion 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 funcons.
For example, green roofs could be designed to provide habitat for shorebird
species which would have found refuge in the nave coastal scrub forest.
Buildings could be connected by elevated walkways which would allow
for restoraon of seasonal flooding on parts of the campus and replanng of
funconal pockets of mangrove. By idenfying quanfiable ecological goals,
input from disciplines such as restoraon 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 innovaon, universies can play a unique
role in seng the tone for future development of surrounding communies.
The Rosensel campus offers an opportunity to test the potenal for thoughtful,
humane, and ecologically sensive coastal urban redevelopment. As with
any instuonal client, various interests must be balanced in order to create
a campus which opmizes benefit to the larger community while serving the
specific programmac needs of its members. In this instance, there are three
primary client interests:
• The University of Miami as a whole
• Specific interests of the Rosensel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
• The Virginia Key ecosystem
A successful program will have to balance the somemes conflicng needs of
the three communies above. A successful design will both reinforce the essenal
characteriscs of the three, as well as improve their resilience to future
stress. Preliminary quesons are as follows:
university priories
• How can RSMAS be beer integrated into the academic and social life
of students on Main Campus?
• How can RSMAS campus facilies be improved to provide opportuni-
es for students from a variety of disciplines to study coastal issues in
an integrated manner?
• Could an improved RwSMAS campus serve as a recruing tool for the
larger University?
• Can the RSMAS campus reflect the President’s desire to incorporate
housing into new University structures?
rsmas priories
• How can new construcon improve spaal definion of the campus,
helping describe a hierarchical sequence of posive open spaces?
• How can infrastructure, ulies and circulaon be streamlined?
• What kinds of spaces are needed to improve the funcon of the
research community?
• How can obsolete structures best be replaced?
• What combinaons 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 crical mass of residents?
• How can physical improvements impact the durability of RSMAS as a
human community focused on top-level marine ecological research
and conservaon?
27

28
virginia key ecosystem
urban
• How can beer physical connecons be made to adjacent instu-
ons?
• 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 funcon as es, rather
than barriers to adjacent uses?
ecological
• What funcons of the system have been most compromised by
coastal development?
• What off-site impacts does the campus have?
• What adverse impacts could be migated through architectural or
site improvements?
• What campus improvements could contribute to increased funcon
or resilience of the ecosystem?
building resilience
sea-level Rise
The concept of resilience has several implicaons in terms of evaluang the
architecture itself. Most obvious is physical resilience to climate events including
hurricanes and sea-level rise. Examples from other low-lying geographies
are informave, but South Florida presents an unusual set of condions.
Dutch architecture represents a cultural bias toward long planning horizons
and durable, well detailed architecture. These qualies are appropriate to
planning for university structures which are expected to accommodate sophiscated
program requirements and endure over me. However, hurricane
winds, intense sun, and humidity add addional stresses not considered in
Dutch architecture. Coastal developments in Southeast Asia do face similar
climate condions, yet few examples are expected to meet the high performance
standards of University-level research facilies.
thermal comfort
Ability to provide climate comfort through passive or renewable means is another
aspect of resilience. Again, Southeast Asia provides some precedents.
Integrang tradional strategies into a high-performance building will be part
of the challenge. Ideally, a combinaon of passive thermal comfort strategies,
efficient building envelope, minimizing arficial lighng demand, and
thoughul 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 facilies which allow for high quality scien-
fic invesgaon in a much less resource dependent manner. Field staons
should also provide good precedent for the integraon of housing into scien-
fic research facilies. While the actual number of units may be small in terms
of the overall university populaon, I would hope to determine how many residents
would be required to support the culture of integrated life and learning
which is evident at facilies 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
sll 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 parons 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 parcular
program.
habitat
In responding to the third client, the Virginia Key ecosystem, another set of
metrics apply. From an ecosystem standpoint, resilience is oen 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
polluon, shadow casng, light polluon etc. This kind of impact is fairly well
described by the USGBC LEED rang system. In a coastal marine locaon
adjacent to fragile habitat, a range of impacts must be considered including
site disturbance during construcon, release of pollutants during maturing of
building structure, and impact of maintenance pracces such as painng 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 potenal for vegetated roofs to be designed to meet the habitat needs of
specific species. An unintended but well documented example is the coloniza-
on 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 impacul
statement about the aesthecs and cultural values of its architects and
client. While it will inevitably express the dominant values and aesthecs of
its moment of incepon, a resilient building will have aesthec 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 selement in Virginia Key prior to the 1940’s, the
early selers of the region followed the light wooden vernacular common to
the American South.

At present, there is a large collecon of mid-century concrete structures which
represent the playful experimentaon with reinforced concrete construcon.
Best known is the Marine Stadium, but are many other structures including
park facilies 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 connue to explore the plasc qualies of concrete and the dramac
shadowing possible with intense tropical light (figure 4). The more recent
Administraon Building connues to explore the vocabulary of Tropicalist
instuonal architecture with its massive overhanging roof (figure 5). Any new
architecture on the campus must be designed with these tradions in mind.
2. materials, aesthecs of exisng campus
29

proposed redevelopment sequence
The redevelopment sequence illustrated below reflects current University redevelopment plans. The seawater lab is scheduled to begin
construcon in 2011, with demolion of Collier and Glassell to follow. Grosvenor and the Trium 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
consideraon. This will be the primary target area for intervenons proposed here.
proposed seawater lab scheduled for demolion obsolete - future demolion primary area available for future redevelopment

As has been outlined earlier, this project will use relavely expansive definion
of program. Specific site and building intervenons will be designed
with an eye to the immediate funconal needs of the School, but also with
reference to the idea of resilient community. The proposal will include a combinaon
of structure, site and landscape intervenons which will support the
school in its growth, as well as supporng the Virginia Key community and
ecology.
Intervenons will include the four primary funconal elements:
1. Addional laboratory and research office space
• +/- 60,000sf
• Replace and update capacity of buildings to be removed
• Provide addional capacity in specific areas
• Emphasis on flexibility of space, and infrastructure adaptability
• Hierarchy of systems, maximize passive strategies, fully condioned
space only where needed
• Strong physical and visual connecons 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 connecon to outdoor spaces
3. Indoor Housing for graduate students and vising scholars
• 18-24 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 restoraon cells for habitat creaon and
research
• Ulize at-grade and rooop spaces for potenal habitat develpment
• Design spaces in modular way to maximize potenal for quantave
urban ecological research
• Design to explicitly specified and achievable habitat and ecological
funconal goals
Site planning improvements will address the following:
• Delineaon of posive common open spaces
• Strengthening of visual connecons to the Bay
• Improving circulaon hierarchy and clarity
• Development of pedestrian and habitat areas as primary over parking
and vehicular circulaon
• Enhancing openness and connecvity with adjacent uses while respecng
safety and security of the campus community
8.
Program Defi nition
1. Glen Murcu, Bowali Visitor Informaon Center, drawing by author
31

campus square footage studies
building id building name date sq. ft.
existing + new planned demo add to hybrid
lab demo grov grov
1101 DohertyMarineScienceCenter 1971 50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806 50,806
1102 CIMASBuilding 1980 9,888 9,888 9,888 9,888 9,888 9,888
1103 CentralChiller/IcePlant 1995 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700 6,700
1172 ShadeHouse 2004 3,744 3,744 0 0 0 0
1107 AplysiaRearingFacility(VKBeachRd.) 1979 3,479 3,479 3,479 3,479 3,479 3,479
1110 CollierBuilding 1954 4,678 4,678 0 0 0 0
1115 GrosvenorSouth 1957 25,890 25,890 25,890 0 25,890 0
1116 GrosvenorEast 1960 8,926 8,926 8,926 0 8,926 0
1120 OperationsBuilding 1960 4,413 4,413 4,413 4,413 4,413 4,413
1125 RefrigerationBuilding(storage) 1960 672 672 672 672 672 672
1130 ServiceBuilding(builtastemporary) g( 1968 7,932 7,932 7,932 7,932 7,932 7,932,
1135 TritiumLabBuilding(builtasdormitory) 1961 4,066 4,066 4,066 4,066 4,066 4,066
1148 GlassellBuilding 1966 21,695 21,695 0 0 0 0
1164 GrosvenorNorth(designedfor2morefloors) 1966 49,574 49,574 49,574 0 98,000 98,000
1170 ScienceLabandAdministrationBuilding(SLAB) 1985 82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624 82,624
SeawaterLab 2011 0 90,000000 90,000000 90,000000 90,000000 90,000000
Total 285,087 375,087 344,970 260,580 393,396 358,580
Balance 0 90,000 59,883 24,507 108,309 16,507
32

massing option studies
exisng 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 introducon to the Landscape Urbanism Reader).
“Last April, upon aending a remarkable conference at the Harvard GSD, I predicted
that it would be taken over in a coup. I recognized a classic Lan American-style operaon.
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 solicitaons
And variabilies of the cizen
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 Instute in Steele 12).
34

A resilient ecosystem needs to have stable populaons of the core group
of species and stable funcon in terms of ability to propagate itself. For this to
happen, it must have a stable physical structure. This is the definion of habitat:
a physical structure which allows for the successful propagaon of a community.
In developing the idea of a resilient campus supporng connuing
high-level study of the marine environment, a program can be defined which
enumerates the variety and proporon of various funcons. However, in the
same way that neither a plant nursery nor a pet shop is an ecosystem, a collecon
of specified spaces does not inherently make an academic community.
The queson becomes, what constutes resilient habitat for the RSMAS community?
The following paragraphs examine the dialecc between formalism
and funconalism as generators of architectural and urban paern. 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 interconnecvity
of infrastructure and ecological systems overlaid with site specific
narrave reference. The first reference is an excerpt from Charles Waldheim’s
introducon the Landscape Urbanism Reader, a collecon of essays which
suggest a framework for meaningful urbanism in the post-industrial city. The
emphasis is on reappropriaon of the horizontal plane, replacing the insustrialized
asphalted ground plane with contemporary gardens which provide ecological
funcon in addion to providing space for social interacon. Andres
Duany has explicitly cricized this movement for its inability to address ques-
ons of architectural density, spaal hierarchy, and funconal efficiency which
constute important elements of New Urbanist theory. That he sees it as a
threat to the supremacy of New Urbanism is an indicaon of the resonance of
the Landscape Urbanist approach in contemporary culture, as well as the con-
nuing percepon 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 integraon of ideals from both camps can be
found in the redevelopment of New York’s High Line. A mile long ribbon of
green floang over Manhaan’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 innovave design, high quality materials,
and meculous quality of construcon, the inial secon of the High Line
Park has become a showpiece of contemporary urban public space. However,
1. High Line Park. author photo
underneath the showy visuals lies a thoughul strategy for the transion of an
underulized industrial quarter into a vibrant mixed-use urban neighborhood
with the park at its heart. While the spectacular Manhaan locaon 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 acvity 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 connued
to be aached to adjacent lots. This created a unique urban paern which
has impacted contemporary opons for redevelopment.
By the 1980’s the line was unused and owners of adjacent properes formed
Chelsea Property Owners, Inc. promong demolion in order to facilitate redevelopment
of their land. However, rail preservaon advocates fought the
demolion, 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, polical support for a public adapve re-use and the lack of
open space in that poron of the city led to a commitment from the City and
the State to preserve the line. (Design Trust, 7)
9.
Case Studies
35

2. High Line route. adapted from google
Designed by James Corner Field Operaons and Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the
park combines sleek pavement and furnishings with wispy eclecc planngs
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
supporng structure giving “weight” to historical memory (figures 1,3). The
park spaces are loosely programmed but mul-funconal, providing an aesthecally
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 vegetaon. The non-hierarchical
nature of the design allows for unlimited future expansion, implicitly valuing
flexibility and connecvity over autonomy of the arsc endeavor.
3. High Line Park. author photo
on together, supporng Landscape Urbanist ideals of socially, ecologically,
and historically referenal 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 creang 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.
36
Despite safety concerns about urban open spaces segregated from the street,
the park has been immensely popular from the start. Combining crical and
popular favor, the park has become an instant “monument,” a spaally 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.
A West Chelsea Special Zoning District was created, and specific formal guidelines
were wrien to guide the development of adjacent structures. An esmated
$2 billion has been invested in the neighborhood as a result of development
of the park (HR&A), suggesng 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 residenal
towers, and aim to protect the diversity of use in the neighborhood
while assuring consistency of form (NYC Zoning Code Arcle IX, Ch. 8 98-00 to
98-25). In this way it seems that the park and surrounding urban district func-
4. High Line Park and W Hotel. author photo

kilometro rosso
Both theorecal structures purport to address both center-urban and peripheral
condions. An interesng example of the peripheral condion 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 protecve 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 scaered
canopy trees, while the landscapes into which the wall terminates have been
developed as constructed marshes.
1 exisng urbanizaon
3 freestanding commercial space linked to highway
2 autostrada introduced
4 red wall added blocking wind and noise, creang south facing space
5. project views, Lotus
The wall, a landscape intervenon 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 dramac 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 penetraons. This provides the
transion in scale and spaal definion which allows transformaon of landscape
and infrastructure into garden and building.
5 commercial campus forms in protected space behind wall
7 commercial ‘village’ develops along wall
6 buildings infill along wall
8 exisng urban fabric grows, connecng 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 manifestaon of a connuing
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 queson 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 programmac strata
organized around a series of repeatable courtyards. Extending from medieval
Venean 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 instuon. Like a coral, the overall
structure was generalized and non-hierarchical while the specific elements –
paent rooms, operang theaters etc. -- were carefully detailed to serve their
specific funcons. The low, inward-looking hospital complex would appear to
grow naturally from the exisng 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 parcularly 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 funconal and programmac requirements.
Rather than exisng within, the buildings create their own urban structure.
The biological analagy is also evident in the vercal layering of the plan.
The first level contains primarilly outpaent funcons, while the top level is
designed for flexible placement of inpaent wards (figure 8). Sandwiched between
is a mezzanine devoted to circulaon and service, a kind of vascular
system for the hospital.
9.. upper level and mezzanine plans, Le Corbusier from Allard
38
In a way, this approach has es to the current interest in parametric design.
Yet, there is also a strong sense of hisrical reference, as if a piece of the genec
code of old Venice has be implanted into the work. The scale and rythm
of the courtyards echoes the adjacent fabric, while the organic adaptabliy of
the plan carries with it some of the spontaneous quality of an evolved place.

salk institute
Almost exactly contemporary to the Venice hospital proposal, is
Louis Kahn’s iconic Salk Instute. Completed in 1966, the project
is an altar to the scienst-hero cult of a confident post-war
America. Where the Venice hospital references the common matrix
of the city, the Salk instute alludes to the temple-framed
central spaces of ancient Greek cies like Ephesus, simultaneously
celebrang civic achievement, and humbling it in relaon
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 myscal
ocean. Salk’s desire for a place “Picasso could come to visit” is
sasfied by Kahn’s presentaon of a “complete” work of art.
Like Le Corbusier, Kahn uses seconal 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 instute
provides an interesng parallel to the current debate between
organically inspired Landscape Urbanism, and the formalist
basis of New Urbanism. Mat buildings are flexible, adaptable,
democrac. They could also seem labyrinthine, hermec, and
pedestrian. The Classical formalism of the Salk Instute 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.
applicability to RSMAS
The four case studies referenced above all seek to balance func-
onal structure and narrave reference to create meaningful urban
districts. A resilient campus community will have to address
the changing funconal requirements of a complex instuon.
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 Manhaan grid, or
Saarinen’s hall gives meaning to flight at JFK Airport, funconal
matrices can be inflected by spaces which give meaning to the
whole.
10. Salk Instute courtyard, Steele
11.. Salk Instute typical lab wing secon and plan, Steele
39

Works Cited
Abramovitz-Harris-Kingsland. Master Plan: Rosensel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. New York. 1979.
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.
American Instute of Architects. AIA Code of Ethics. Web. December 15, 2010.
hp://www.aia.org/about/ethicsandbylaws.
Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. Final Submission for Rosensel School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science. Cambridge MA. 2005.
Steele, James. Salk Instute: Louis I Kahn. Architecture in Detail Series. London:
Phaidon Press. Print.
Waldheim, Charles. “Introducon: A Reference Manifesto.” Landscape Urbanism
Reader. Princeton NJ: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. 13-19.
Print.
Yehle, Jean. “The History of the Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science: 1940-2010.” University of Miami, 2010. Web. 2 December 2010.
hp://www.rsmas.miami.edu/about-rsmas/history/
---. Pre-Schemac 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. hp://www.metropolismag.com/pov/20101103/duany-vs-harvardgsd
EDSA Virginia Key Master Plan Fort Lauderdale FL. Sept. 2009.
Evernden, Neil. The Social Creaon of Nature. Balmore: Johns Hopkins University
Press. 1992. Print.
Friends of the High Line. “Official Website of the High Line.” Web. 27 Oct. 2010.
.
Friends of Miami Marine Stadium
Harlem, Peter Wayne. Aerial Photographic Interpretaon of the Historical
Changes in Northern Biscayne Bay, Florida: 1925 to 1976. Sea Grant Technical
Bullen No. #40. Miami: University of Miami, December 1979. Print.
HR&A Advisors Inc. “Transforming the High Line.” Web. 27 Oct. 2010. .
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. Arcle IX, Chapter 8. New York City: 2005. Online.
41

fi nal 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. Conservaon biologists have been interested in the idea of resilience – that is the capacity of a given ecosystem to maintain its essenal
characteriscs despite stressors including changing environmental condions. Stressors can be events of short duraon 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 communies, 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 communies are inseparable from the natural communies 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 recreaonal acvies than are served by the exisng 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 funcon and the site’s interacon with adjacent
natural areas.
f1

campus challenges/
proposed solutions
Gulf of
Mexico
Atlantic
Ocean
ecological
Virginia key was originally a valuable producve mangrove at the head of Biscayne
Bay. The enre key is now filled. The area in proximity to the University’s
marine campus as well as the Seaquarium is currently enrely paved for
parking. All ecological value is lost. In addion, the paved areas contribute
to the heat island effect. The lack of vegetaon 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.
Project Site
Miami Beach
Miami
Virginia Key
Rickenbacker Causeway
Bear Cut
Biscayne Bay
Key Biscayne
Land-Fill
Rickenbacker Marina
Hobie Beach
Marine Stadium
Wastewater Plant
Mast Academy
Virginia Key Beach Park
NOAA
Seaquarium
NMFS
Soluons:
• Virginia Key as a gateway to Biscayne Bay Naonal 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 connecons between
the Bay and Bear Cut
• Restore complete habitats where possible following established habitat types
• Restore habitat funcon as feasible in developed areas by increasing tree cover,
replanng mangroves, vegetang roofs, etc.
• Minimize pavement, shade required paved areas to minimize heat island effect
• Excavate to restore hydrology favorable to mangroves, berms created from excavaon
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 circulaon is currently ineffecve or non-existent (e.g. closed cubicle
work spaces and labs)
• Poor relaonship to exterior
• Poor venlaon
Infrastructure
• Building systems are outdated and inefficient
• Lack of passive cooling opons thus heavy reliance on air condioning 12
months a year
• Refrigieraon of science equipment retrofit into circulaon space creang addional
heat load and inefficient operaon
• Limited daylighng and interior corridors do not funcon during power outage
• Ground floor spaces not designed for storm surge or weather event
• Servicing spaces is difficult and oen presented with a lack of flexibility
Urban design
• Lack of interior/exterior central gathering space
• Parking dominates ground plane
• Front/rear building relaonships are not well defined and orchestrated
f2
RSMAS

institutional
RSMAS is a well respected top level instuon, 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 – humanisc values, connecon and purpose for
local region. Lack of communicaon between researchers diminishes poten-
al for learning synergies. A resilient instuon will have diversity of output
within a clear values framework as well as strong communicaon between
members. Strong academic instuons usually engage with their communi-
es/regions which provide students, staff, and a learning environment –they
need to act as engaged corporate cizens.
Soluon:
• Create more open lab and learning space.
• Reverse par of major buildings so that circulaon is on exterior and facing on
to posive open spaces.
• Add housing to allow for core resident community, vising scholars, and more
informal campus life which can strengthen community sensibility.
• Facilitate the connecon between campus and its neighbors through improved
physical connecons, provision of common space for shared meengs and conferences,
enhance connecons 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 relavely expansive definion
of program. Specific site and building intervenons will be designed with an
eye to the immediate funconal needs of the School, but also with reference
to the idea of resilient community. The proposal will include a combinaon of
structure, site and landscape intervenons which will support the school in its
growth, as well as supporng the Virginia Key community and ecology.
Intervenons will include the four primary funconal elements:
1. Addional laboratory and research office space
• +/- 60,000sf
• Replace and update capacity of buildings to be removed
• Provide addional capacity in specific areas
• Emphasis on flexibility of space, and infrastructure adaptability
• Hierarchy of systems, maximize passive strategies, fully condioned space only
where needed
• Strong physical and visual connecons 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 connecon to outdoor spaces
3. Indoor Housing for graduate students and vising scholars
• 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
4. Coastal landscape and mangrove restoraon cells for habitat creaon and
research
• Ulize at-grade and rooop spaces for potenal habitat develpment
• Design spaces in modular way to maximize potenal for quantave urban
ecological research
• Design to explicitly specified and achievable habitat and ecological funconal
goals
Site planning improvements will address the following:
• Delineaon of posive common open spaces
• Strengthening of visual connecons to the Bay
• Improving circulaon hierarchy and clarity
• Development of pedestrian and habitat areas as primary over parking and
vehicular circulaon
• Enhancing openness and connecvity with adjacent uses while respecng
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
RSMAS
f4

legend
Future Seawater Lab
Grosvenor North
(proposed library and labs)
Proposed
vising scholars housing
Administraon
Grosvenor South
(proposed group office and classrooms)
Proposed mangrove research ponds
Doherty
black indicates area of intervenon
secon cut

typical fl oor plans
and section
lab venlaon and exhaust
study mezzanine
library stacks
reading room
laboratory
office
laboratory
open service core
office
field equipment
office
tanks (modified from exisng)
f6
grosvenor north transformation

library stacks
laboratories
(grosvenor north)
faculty and graduate student work areas
(grosvenor south)
reading room
library (grosevenor north new 4th level)
seminar and lecture space
vising scholar housing
typical fl oor plans

grosvenor north
transformation
shell
labs and core
library stacks and mezzanine
f8

shading structures
skin
f9

circulation
interior circulaon
service core closed
workspace with no natural light
interior circulaon
no cross-venlaon
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
circulation
program
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
f10
existing

grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
exterior circulaon
• shades workspaces
• creates acve visual connecon to landscape
spaces
service core open
• visual connecon between lab spaces
• ease of servicing
consolodated workspaces
• all have natural light
• cross venlaon
• program flexibility
• ease of servicing for data and specialized lab
requirements
residenal - levels 2-6 (vising scholars)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
proposed
f11

climate comfort
exisng condions
• all spaces fully air-condioned
• no natural venlaon
• minimal sensory connecon to landscape and
adjacent Biscayne Bay
• high ulity costs
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
full air-conditioning
ventilation control (adjustable louvers, fans)
simple shading
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
f12
existing

grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
exterior circulaon
• creates shaded buffer zone
• minimizes heat gain for condioned space
fully air-condioned space
• reserved for areas with specific climate conrol
requirements (ie. library stacks, laboratories)
semi-condioned space
• oriented to provide access to prevailing onshore
breeze
• light and venlaon control through louver systems
residenal - levels 2-6 (vising scholars)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
proposed
f13

social interaction
exisng condions
• spaces highly fragmented
• minimal interacon between individual researchers
and between disciplines
grosvenor north - levels 2-3
common spaces
shared workspaces
private office
grosvenor south - levels 2-3
f14
existing

grovenor north - levels 4-5 (library)
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (laboratory)
open office space
• efficient and flexible space allocaon
• exchange between faculty and
students of different disciplines
open reading room
• flexibly programmed common space
• could be used for variety of RSMAS or UM
funcons as well as quiet study
• allows for increased interacon 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
residenal - levels 2-6 (vising scholars)
private office space
• flexible use for phone calls or
meengs
• can be asssigned to faculty or
lab leaders
grosvenor south - levels 2-3 (classroom and open office space)
proposed
f15

campus entry
existing
proposed
laboratory venlaon stacks
metal mesh skin
mezzanine level view/venlaon slots
steel frame aligned with floorplates
and column grid
wooden louvers
• screen circulaon and lab spaces
• provide visual contrast to steel and
concrete
vising scholars residences
• add vital residenal component to
campus
• increase ulizaon of exisng campus
facilies
• anchor locaon acvates courtyard
between Grosvenor and Doherty
• narrow courtyard form enhances venturi
effect allowing for natural venlaon of
individual units
new entry stair
• provides access to raised
first floor
• creates visual linkage
between Grosvenor and
Administraon buildings
open lab spaces
library/campus great room
• “screened porch” for campus
vegetated screen shelters east and west
exposures
larger scale wooden shade system
exposed concrete frame
raised walkways
• connect exisng primary level of Administraon
and Doherty
• add shade for ground level pathways
• provide circulaon network above flood
level
restored nave landscape systems
• shared parking agreement and/or future
structured parking at Seaquarium frees
up ground level land
• habitat creaon
• flood aenuaon
• urban-ecological research opportunity
f16

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 opmum light and venlaon
control on south elevaon
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
vercal 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
connecons
f18

waterfront
quadrangles
vising scholars residenal tower
existing
proposed
restored hydrologic connecon 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 nave plant communies
restored grosvenor north with library/great
room addion
restored grosvenor south
• open to water views and natural venla-
on
• open office space and water-view classroom/meeng
space
• green roof provides habitat and cooling
effect
• vegetaon screens and cools east and
west walls
elevated walkways
• connect primary building levels
• provided shade for grade-level paths
• create raised circulaon system in case of
flooding
f20
mangrove research cells
• excavated zone behind exisng seawall
• controlled water level for research purposes
• receiving zone during mes of flooding