Resilience - University of Miami School of Architecture

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 connecons 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
Page 1: Resilience An investigation of Trop
Page 5: Table of Contents Overall Objecve .
Page 8 and 9: 2 1. Doherty building and campus wa
Page 10 and 11: esilient community As urban designe
Page 12 and 13: Biscayne Bay Land-Fill Rickenbacker
Page 14 and 15: environmental history As is typical
Page 16 and 17: 10 7. Virginia Key 1960’s, Yehle
Page 18 and 19: one campus. A two level south wing
Page 20 and 21: at that me for academic architectur
Page 24 and 25: id building name date sq. . 1101 Do
Page 26 and 27: city of miami virginia key plan Whi
Page 28 and 29: 6. Rendering from Rickenbacker entr
Page 30 and 31: master planning critique make bigge
Page 32 and 33: site diagrams relaon to causeway pr
Page 34 and 35: 28 virginia key ecosystem urban •
Page 36 and 37: proposed redevelopment sequence The
Page 38 and 39: campus square footage studies build
Page 40 and 41: “Landscape Urbanism describes a d
Page 42 and 43: 2. High Line route. adapted from go
Page 44 and 45: 8. Venice Hospital model, from Alla
Page 47: Works Cited Abramovitz-Harris-Kings
Page 50 and 51: campus challenges/ proposed solutio
Page 52 and 53: site master plan Hobie Beach To Mar
Page 54 and 55: typical fl oor plans and section la
Page 56 and 57: grosvenor north transformation shel
Page 58 and 59: circulation interior circulaon serv
Page 60 and 61: climate comfort exisng condions •
Page 62 and 63: social interaction exisng condions
Page 64: campus entry existing proposed labo
Page 68: waterfront quadrangles vising schol

Resilience - University of Miami School of Architecture

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?